Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-don't-believe-in-imaginary-property-except-when-they-do dept.

vivaoporto sends word that in a rare case of an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement, a New York man has sued news networks CNN and CBC after they took a video of his from YouTube and broadcast it on the air without licensing it. His video shows a winter storm in Buffalo generating huge amounts of lake effect snow. The man, Alfonzo Cutaia, decided to enable monetization on his video, selecting the "Standard YouTube License," "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of [the video]. All other rights are reserved to the copyright owner and standard copyright laws and exceptions apply." Cutaia says the CBC used his video with their logo on it. The CBC confirmed this, and said they received a 10-day license from CNN, who had no legal right to do so. His lawsuit now accuses them both of "intentional and willful" copyright infringement.

8 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. WTF does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute

    This says they can use it, reproduce it, sublicense it, distribute it without paying royalties. Seems like this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why is this on Slashdot?

    1. Re:WTF does that mean? by misosoup7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I'm pretty sure that Google can theoretically sublicense it to other entities not related to Google. But I doubt that's what happened. Google has this clause so they can pick up awesome videos and use it in commercials without getting sued for infringement. As that would actually mean sublicensing the content from Google to a media firm. Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube. They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.

      But yes, the Youtube Standard License give Google the right to sublicense and distribute not anyone viewing the videos. So if you download a video that's not yours on Standard YouTube License from YouTube and then upload it to your website without using the YouTube link you are actually pirating. If you use the YouTube container (ie it's actually streaming from YouTube) then you are getting a sublicense which is not pirating.

    2. Re:WTF does that mean? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the argument goes that CBC thought they'd obtained a 10-day license from CNN .. which CNN wasn't authorized to provide them ... but after this good-faith 10-day license lapsed (which wasn't really valid), the CBC continued to use the material ... meaning that, even if they had obtained an actual license, and acted in good faith, they stopped acting in good faith when they used it after the 10 days anyway.

      So on day 11 you can no longer claim that you were using it under license if you knew you only licensed it for 10 days.

      I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.

      Up to day 10, you can say you got the license from CNN and if that was an invalid license then CNN misrepresented themselves, and you are a victim.

      Use it after 10 days, and you can't even claim that. Now you'd have been willfully violating the original (but invalid) license.

      The man does have a point. And I'm sure if you took a CNN video and used it improperly, they'd go all crazy. For them to suddenly claim "it was on YouTube so it's free" would be complete bullshit.

      So, by doing what would have been a breech of license if CNN was allowed to give you a license then your unlicensed use of the video violated your license because your license had ended.

      LOL .. yo dawg, I hear you like licenses.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. Take down their site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.

  3. Re:Settle by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I WANT it to go to court and I want them hit with copyright violation and have the plaintiff use the same calculation that the RIAA and MPAA uses and demand $4.6 billion in lost revenue as they shared the video with millions of people.

    The RIAA and the MPAA make up bullshit numbers. and it's time that same bullshit get applied to a corporation.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Re:Settle by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not one run-of-the-mill "personal use copyright infringement" suit. Some important things make this case special:

    1. The plaintiff is an intelectual property lawyer
    2. The use of the video was for profit
    3. As the article says many other news outlets sought permission or licensed the clip but these two, despite knowing the clip was copyrighted, choose to use them anyway.

    If Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $1,920,000 for making 22 mp3 available for download (not for profit) how much should these media be liable in this lawsuit? How many other videos they use without proper licensing and/or attribution?

    This could be the first of many similar cases considering the media worldwide assume that if a video is available on Youtube they are free to reproduce them in their TV news and shows.

  5. Good luck with that... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As the article quotes, the Standard Youtube license grants any Youtube user (including CNN) license to use, reproduce, sub-license and transfer any video posted on Youtube, whether for commercial purposes or not. Our plucky individual gave CNN and CBC the rights to use and reuse the video when he uploaded it.

    Now if CNN or CBC tried to issue a DMCA take-down on a video they had downloaded from YouTube, I'd definitely sue their asses.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  6. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem isn't really that I can't get a free copy of War Games. It's that if the movie company thinks that I infringe their copyright just because I uploaded a YouTube video with me showing all valid moves in tic-tac-toe they will take down that video with no questions asked.
    Or as the case was with Bjorn Lynne, he release some of his songs under a free to use license. Sony used it as background music and then decided that Lynnes original work was copyright infringement and took them down.

    Copyright as it stands now is absurd. If I baselessly or rightfully claim that a major record company is infringement my rights then I get slapped in the face. If a major record company baselessly decides that I infringe their right I also get a slap in the face. If They are right on the other hand I get fined into bankruptcy or put in jail.