Slashdot Mirror
CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video
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.
It means that Youtube doesn't have to pay him royalties and can share it with daughter/sister companies, eg. Google+.
It does not mean that CBC can sweep in, drop their logo on the video and call it theirs.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.
"I work as an intellectual property attorney"!
an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement happens all the time. The corporation sends an army of their internal legal staff to stand around in a courthouse arguing semantics and dragging their feet until the plaintiff simply runs out of cash and has to go back to his proletariat wageslave job.
what is rare is an individual receiving any settlement, acceptance of wrongdoing, judgement, or even a trial outside of arbitration in these circumstances. You see, unless you're a corporation then the meat of copyright law is largely designed as punitive retribution against your blithe transgressions against a cartel media system. its not actually designed to or even intended to be taken to its logical conclusion by joe sixpack.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
No, I'm not making that up. And no, I'm not giving you identifying info. I like to shoot time lapses and one of them was relevant to an article on their site. Sorry if that's hard to believe.
It was pretty easy to find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Yo Zippy, CBC infringed regardless. More to the point it said 10 days license from CNN and used it for more than 10 days. So even *if* they thought they could use it lawfully they exceeded the terms.
...the display of all religious artifacts on public land...
Wow - maybe we should remove all those Christian artifacts (specifically, crosses) from Arlington National Cemetery to satisfy your lust for de-Christianizing all government property, eh? ;)
Have you been there? The monuments aren't crosses. They're just tombstones. The individual buried can have different logos be they crosses, stars of david, or symbols denoting atheism.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
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.
Not even close. I barely even use Netflix. Im talking about the idea that after 28 years, We The People are supposed to OWN those works. That was the bargain, it is the price for us granting limited monopolies. In the age where creating is easier than ever, we are on track to permanently extend copyright forever which is pure insanity and counter to the aims and purpose of copyright.
Good-bye
The license only grants though permissions when they "access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service"
I don't think there were playing it live from a YouTube page or through an authorized YouTube API application, so they were in violation of the license.