Man Licenses His Video Footage To Sony, Sony Issues Copyright Claim Against Him (petapixel.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Mitch Martinez creates high-resolution stock video footage, and then licenses it out to people who need footage to go along with their creative projects. He has written an article at PetaPixel explaining his bizarre interaction with Sony Music Entertainment, and the hassle they put him through to fix it. Martinez licensed one of his videos to Epic Records, and they used it as background for a music video on YouTube. Less than two months later, his original video on YouTube was hit with a copyright claim from Sony. After figuring out that Epic Records was a subsidiary to Sony, he disputed the copyright claim — which is usually the end of it. But after reviewing the videos, Sony rejected it, saying their claim was still valid. Martinez then tried to contact the person at Epic Records to whom he issued the license. None of his emails got a response. Then he had to get in touch with Epic's legal department. After a lengthy series of emails, voicemails, and phone calls, he finally got somebody to admit it was his video. It still took a few more calls to work out the details, but the company finally released the copyright claim. Martinez concludes by offering some tips on how to resolve such claims.

Comments

You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The TPP isn't even approved by Congress yet. Crap like this happening will be a cakewalk in comparison to what things will be like if and when Congress approves it. Call and/or write your congressperson now, tell them to vote against it!

Re:You think it's bad now?

[davester666]

Too late, it already supercedes the Constitution.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. TPP is already "too big to fail." Your congress person knows that, and they'll pay you lip service and then ignore you when the vote comes. It will pass, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

What's really happening in this "vote"? Hint: It's a political power-renegotiation between legislative and executive branches that goes a little something like this:

Congress: "Give in to our demands, or we'll torpedo your legacy."
POTUS: "You wouldn't really do that. Half of you would lose your seats next term."
Congress: "Well you've seen the voting trend over the past 20 years. We're out in 2-3 cycles anyway, so we've got nothing to lose, and you know it. What'll you give us not to pull the trigger?"
POTUS: "Shit, okay, what do you want?"

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. TPP is already "too big to fail." Your congress person knows that, and they'll pay you lip service and then ignore you when the vote comes. It will pass, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

It's going to be a "voice vote" and the "yeas will have it" regardless of what it sounds like. Just wait.

That way each individual congress critter can claim to have voted against it and there will be no record proving that they didn't.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're also an AC, but I have to correct you on your terrible usage of the lamest political phrase ever, "too big to fail."

TBTF was a phrase explain that an entity was so large and the economy was so dependent on it, a failure would not be recoverable.

Your usage is that it's just gotten to far to go back now. Please just don't use the phrase at all, it's moronic.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late. Using TBTF incorrectly is TBTF.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[JackieBrown]

You really think that Obama is against this? Exactly which party do you think gets the most money from the entertainment industry?

Re:You think it's bad now?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Gosh, I just can't believe that Sony would ever do something wrong or underhanded or malicious or evil.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're big, you're small, that's it.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, treaties do *not* 'supersede' the Constitution. They *do* supersede all lesser laws, though.
The only way to 'supersede' the Constitution is to add an amendment to the Constitution.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary aren't for this hasn't been paying attention.

One good note, there are people in both parties in Congress who oppose it. Just not enough.

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that Obama is against this? Exactly which party do you think gets the most money from the entertainment industry?

God knows he is in LA every few months for some damn fundraiser...

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The TPP isn't even approved by Congress yet. Crap like this happening will be a cakewalk in comparison to what things will be like if and when Congress approves it. Call and/or write your congressperson now, tell them to vote against it!"

Sorry to tell you...

Democracy Inc

First, our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Why you can't have capitalist democracy

Capitalism vs Democracy

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

When has a treaty ever been deemed unconstitutional?

Re:You think it's bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Sony = Japanese and Mitch Martinez = Mexican.

Japanese > Mexican

add a clause.

[gl4ss]

if the client tries to claim complete ownership of the licensed media, the client ceases to have any license to use and distribute the media in question and has to pay extra fees.

Re: add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA, he did.

Re: add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

So then it's all good. They can no longer use his works and he gets to keep the money.

Re:add a clause.

[dwywit]

I'd have thought that would have already been clear in the licencing contract.

"The material is licenced to the purchaser for the purposes stated in appendix A. Ownership and copyright of the material remains at all times with the seller".

So a copyright claim by Epic/Sony would be breach of contract, and hopefully there would be a clause in the contract that the licence is immediately cancelled should there be such a breach of contract.

At least, that's how I would licence any material of mine.

Sony has obviously sent a copy of the video to their legal/enforcement division (did they have a licence to copy the material for that purpose?), who proceeded to scour youtube/vimeo/liveleak for it, without bothering to check who *actually* held the copyright in the original footage.

Re:add a clause.

[EmperorArthur]

That's a good idea, but there's something else interesting. DMCA is under penalty of perjury, and he has documentation to prove it. This is the point at which you send them a settlement letter. Especially if that contract had the clause you mentioned, if it goes to court, then SONY is not in a happy place.

If SONY loses the license, then every view from then on is an instance of copyright infringement. That's stupid amounts of money. Courts tend to look down on such clearcut cases of perjury too.

Re:add a clause.

[Purity Of Essence]

The DMCA perjury clause simply requires that the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner — whether that copyright ownership conjecture is accurate or not is beside the point. The test for ownership is merely good faith and Sony has a lot of wiggle room there due to the widespread use and acceptance of automated flagging systems and the similarity of the licensed use and the original footage.

Re:add a clause.

[ThatsMyNick]

This is not a DMCA request. This is sony requesting youtube to takedown content. Youtube plays nice with copyright holders, especially the big labels, and takes down on request. No one is swearing under oath for this to be considered perjury (in DMCA you are).

Re:add a clause.

[91degrees]

Perjury is a criminal complaint though.

Sony would have to knowingly and willfully be misrepresenting themselves. Not only that, but the prosecution would need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

The perjury clause only really prevents outright deliberate fraudulent abuse of the provisions.

Re:add a clause.

[rioki]

The real issue here is not that some automated system flagged the video, but that after the counter claim some human still insisted that Sony still owned the entire copyright. Granted, the person who handles these counter claims probably sees hundreds a day and basically is trained to say "nah, we still own the copyright and no it's not fair use". Which probably is correct most of the time. The shame lies with Sony that fails to do is due diligence when reviewing counter claims made by the automated systems.

Re:add a clause.

[Kjella]

That's a good idea, but there's something else interesting. DMCA is under penalty of perjury, and he has documentation to prove it.

No, he doesn't. Sony's movie has a copyright and he's Sony's legal representative. The clip also has a copyright, but they're not falsely representing to own that. They're mistakingly claiming the clip infringes on the movie's copyright, when in fact the movie is a licensed derivative of the clip. But that part isn't under penalty of perjury.

Re:add a clause.

[mysidia]

Youtube plays nice with copyright holders, especially the big labels, and takes down on request.

Need some Youtubers to file lawsuit against Google/X for antitrust violations over this shady practice however --- still taking actions against creators after they filed a counterclaim, which have not been found by court to be infringing.

Re:add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't all that seem to apply here? They're willfully asserting they hold the copyright, and there isn't any mistake about what work is in question. And they're leaving a paper trail of proof. This is one of those few situations where the perjury stuff seems to really apply and could be proved. This case needs a federal prosecutor.

Re: add a clause.

[Wootery]

Where?

That I can see it's only ever hinted at, in I explained very clearly that if they did not comply with the conditions I stated that their only other course of action would be to replace or remove my footage from their video.

Re:add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA perjury clause simply requires that the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner — whether that copyright ownership conjecture is accurate or not is beside the point. The test for ownership is merely good faith and Sony has a lot of wiggle room there due to the widespread use and acceptance of automated flagging systems and the similarity of the licensed use and the original footage.

Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.

Re:add a clause.

[wvmarle]

It can easily go a step further.

The license is not necessarily exclusive to Epic Records, which means he can license it to other people as well.

So now it may happen that Bob has licensed the same video, and is using it legally, and then Epic Records via Sony tries to sue him over copyright infringement. That's bad not only for Bob, but also for Mitch, as he may get a bad name and can't sell his material any more. Bob will also have no idea what's happening to him, as he knows he properly licensed the video from Mitch, who is not related to Sony, yet it's Sony that comes with the infringement claims.

A big, big mess.

Re:add a clause.

[mark-t]

Is it still perjury if being wrong about one's claim is a matter of incompetence, and not intentional dishonesty? Seems like that's the case here... Sony *should* have known that their claim against the person they licensed it from was not infringing, but for whatever reason they didn't.

Re:add a clause.

[Purity Of Essence]

Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.

Whether or not they actually own the footage is beside the point. It's not perjury unless you can show that the person who filed the DMCA doesn't work for Sony. It's that simple and toothless.

Re:add a clause.

[Purity Of Essence]

It's shameful but Sony has nothing to lose by saying they own everything 100% of the time. This phase of the YouTube copyright claim process doesn't even involve the horrible DMCA. This prelude is all copyright enforcement theater. The bitch of it is going to be clearing YouTube's copyright strike against the owner of the footage. If this happens a couple more times, his channel could be shutdown permanently, even if the strikes are bogus.

Re:add a clause.

[Theaetetus]

If SONY loses the license, then every view from then on is an instance of copyright infringement. That's stupid amounts of money.

Aside: copyright infringement damages are per work infringed, not per view.

Re:add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

It works like this:
1) I swear under penalty of perjury that I am, or am authorized to act on behalf of, {ostensible copyright owner}.
2) These are the links that I am claiming violate some copyright owned by {ostensible copyright owner}.

Those are two distinct statements. There is no risk of perjury involved in the second statement.

Re:add a clause.

[praxis]

In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner. Sony did not own the copyright.

Re:add a clause.

[budgenator]

still taking actions against creators after they filed a counterclaim, which have not been found by court to be infringing.

Not been found as in the court heard arguments and rendered an opinion, heard arguments and decline to offer an opinion or never heard arguments?

Re:add a clause.

[suutar]

Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.

Re:add a clause.

[Theaetetus]

Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.

Nope, it's per work infringed, both according to the statute and according to the RIAA.

Re:add a clause.

[Purity Of Essence]

In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner.

No, they are a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint. That's all that matters. It's about misrepresentation. Read the clause and use your head. It doesn't matter that they are wrong about copyright ownership, they can't perjury themselves that way. Do you think everyone on the losing end of a copyright dispute is charged with perjury in a court of law?

Re:add a clause.

[kirthn]

It will become more difficult...if another artist will license the same footage, Youtube's automatic process will flag this new work as well as "copyright-infringement" so any licensee will get the same TDN.....

in fact the bizarre situation could be that any other licensee could do the same to Sony!

Re: add a clause.

[TuringTest]

The article also explains the following:

My e-mail provided the specific license agreement that was issued to Epic Records and specifically noted the section of my license agreement that pertained to copyright:

4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above.

Unless the license for using the stock footage contained language allowing them to impersonate the author as the copyright owners, and deny him recognition in the video, this means that they were violating copyright law by doing just that.

Re:add a clause.

[suutar]

Hmmm. I was under the impression that they were targeting users based on how many other users received parts from them. Thanks for the correction!

Re:add a clause.

[Rakarra]

If you run a totally automated flagging system with no personal followup, then it's not credible to state that Sony acts in good faith to prevent false positives.

Re:add a clause.

[Rakarra]

I suppose the unanswered question is, why is Sony searching for and flagging content that they don't own? Is it because it's "mixed" content with Sony-owned and non-Sony-owned content alike, and the only easily-searchable/scannable part is the one they don't own?

Re:add a clause.

[Rakarra]

As the other commentator mentioned, it's per work infringed, which is why they can bring claims of huge damages against a file sharer even if they don't have any evidence that the file was shared with anyone other than the MPAA/RIAA/whomever is checking.

Re:add a clause.

[Citizen of Earth]

Sony is liable for Slander Of Title, falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright.

Re:add a clause.

[praxis]

Well, you wrote "the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner" not "the claimant is a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint." Sorry about the confusion if you meant the second, not the first.

Re:add a clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal prosecutors hate prosecuting perjury, probably because it reminds them too much of what they've done that's questionable in court.

Re:add a clause.

[rioki]

What he did was the right thing. Since Sony (Epic Records) where in violation of their license terms. He politely informed them that they had 48h to rectify the issue. When the time was up he issued a claim against the now infringing music video. In contrast so Sony, he has a valid claim that will also stand in court. That got Sony to act and they lifted the strike. But at this point the music video was still without a valid license. So as condition Martinez demanded he be credited in the music video's description and he would consider the issue resolved and the license valid.

tips on how to resolve such claims

[GrahamCox]

Don't do business with Sony or any of its subsidiary companies?

Re: tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the top of my list. Even going as far as avoiding paying for any media from Sony. Fuck 'em.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[shione]

Or alternatively, include in the license fee an amount to allow for going to court with the company for their stupidity.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[KGIII]

It's kind of unfortunate but I have a long memory. Sony makes some interesting products but I won't own one. No, I was never bitten by the rootkit crap but I know a lot of people who were and was here for the outrage. I said then, and I repeat, I will not knowingly pay for another Sony product or one of their derivatives and that includes media. I don't usually boycott much of anything but fuck Sony. I'll go without.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Threni]

I know how you feel but all these companies are exactly the same; the same lawyers, managers etc float between them and so it's sheer luck that this or that company causes a problem in whatever territory at whatever point in time. I did remember the incidents you refer to at the point I ordered my Sony phone, but it was that or the Nexus (I've had build quality issues with them) or a HTC (usb socket failed 13 months in and they charged me to get it fixed), samsung (terrible android support for previous phones) etc etc. Boycotting a large company like that punishes yourself; they'd never notice in a million years.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool bro, I'll join you, but you're gonna have to provide me with a list of every non Sony branded subsidiary they control and a list of all the products from which they receive income via licenses. It's ok I already live in my mom's basement so I can cope, and getting her to switch her TV to a toshiba or panasonic should be a lot easier than trying to convince her to use Linux. Thanks man. You really opened up my eyes there.

Re: tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

...Even going as far as avoiding paying for any media from Sony. Fuck 'em.

That last one is not a way to resolve copyright claims it's actually a good way to get fucked by Sony.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Unnecessary. Just stay away from Sony, that is the brand that they value. The won't care if the subsidiaries tank.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[thegarbz]

That's right up there with pick a different job. I you're in the business of licensing media to others then you will end up in this stupid situation. The only safe move is no to play, but then that move also means you don't get to eat.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[PRMan]

We each can only vote with our dollars. If everyone did it, they would certainly notice. You can be part of the solution or part of the problem...

Re: tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... Stsy away from Sony. They said the same after the rootkit affair. You know what? Nobody cared. A bunch of sad delusional nerds who overestimated their importance found themselves isolated and utterly powerless against a corporate deity that brushed any attempt at boycott aside. You cannot hurt such a giant. Boycotting them will make you feel better for a while, but in the end you'll only be the shrill-voiced weirdo throwing a tantrum about things that only matter to you. Grow up and get over it. It's not a lost battle, it's not even a battle. There are only consumer choices.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[pr0t0]

This. So much this.

More than a few years ago, Sony put rootkits on some of their music CD's. It was abhorrently wrong, they knew it, they did it anyway. That was the last straw for me. It came after SOE released Everquest II incomplete and broken. It came after proprietary audio formats (strong push against MP3) and proprietary media. It was during a time of suing grandmothers for music downloading. It was during a time of Sony's clear (ongoing?) campaign against its customers and fans.

Since that time, I have not purchased Sony music, will not buy Sony consumer electronics, and won't even see a Sony pictures movie. I boycott ALL Sony related products and services, and have for the last ten years. People need to wake up and exercise the only power they have by voting with their wallets. We have to keep these companies terrified that such missteps will lead to their ruin, or else sleep in the bed we made without complaint.

FYI - Here's a pretty comprehensive list of Sony's subsidiaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said to steal. A boycott will suffice. Unless you're suggesting we're required to purchase Sony's abortions whether we want them or not?

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that Sony is one brand shared by a group of companies. I still boycott Sony Online Entertainment for the OtherOS debacle and Sony Music for the rootkits, but Sony/Ericsson are a different concern entirely and their handsets are pretty fair and open for Android devices. If they fuck them up one day though I'll stop buying them too. Their other electronics divisions are a bit tainted due to DRM and such but they forced by content providers there just like everyone else.

Not that I'm trying to convince you to do your homework - you do you - but punishing good behavior is a pretty counter-productive form of boycott.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[TheAppalasian]

+1 Since the Sony/BMG scandal, I've made the same explicit decision. To me it was proof that Sony was and has never been interested in consumer rights, and so I choose not to have that relationship with Sony. I agree with @pr0t0, vote with your wallets if you don't believe a company is conducting itself ethically. I'll forgive Sony, when their business practices change.... it's going to be awhile.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[budgenator]

I will not knowingly pay for another Sony product or one of their derivatives and that includes media. I don't usually boycott much of anything but fuck Sony. I'll go without.

With Sony that means that you can not watch or listen to any entertainment of any kind, and just about any kind of medical imaging as well, especially if it is printed, Sony has it's roots that deep.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Revoke license.

File takedown notice on Sony.

Send nasty lawyer letters asking for settlement for damages caused by their takedown, and threatening to sue if they publish your work in any way.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

We each can only vote with our dollars. If everyone did it, they would certainly notice.

People do vote with their dollars, and the companies do notice: most people don't care about business practices, even those with direct impact on them. And it is not just a matter of not knowing about it or not understanding, as plenty of people who understand exactly what they did still don't care enough. People have different priorities, and that is much harder to change than to just explain what these companies do, but unfortunately too many people (computer types, and other groups too) just assume the latter is they only thing in the way.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[KGIII]

I don't get much control over medical imaging but I do only watch documentaries (as a general rule - some exceptions). So, there's that. I don't actually *pay* for music any more - I just stream it if I want some of listen to the radio and that's usually NPR.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[budgenator]

Sony was the big kahuna in tape recording for music or broadcast. they had the patents, so if you watched or listened to it, it was recorded with at least a few pieces of Sony equipment or at least some Sony licenced technologies. All of those photos of pregnant women's sonograms was likely printed on a Sony video printer.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[KGIII]

True and why I said "knowingly" and "willingly." I do my best to avoid them, they're the only manufacture that I do. I only boycott a single store and that's Walmart and for a wholly different reason (and a long story, as well as probably not what people expect for reasoning). I'm sure I'm not 100% successful at it. I don't imagine I can be. I'm not sure why anyone would think I'd expect to be completely successful, to be honest. It is just a passing notice - if I see something that has Sony's name on it (or a name of their subsidiaries that I recognize) then I simply move along and go without, if need be. I'm okay with that.

Re:tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

So what companies do you buy products from? Don't get me wrong, it's great to have principles and I do not approve of what Sony all those years ago, but if you apply the same standards to all organizations then you must live in a cave and kill your own food.

Re: tips on how to resolve such claims

[Anonymous Coward]

No, make it so you have to agree that you are NOT part of Sony under purgatory license. All artists get on board that hate sony so they cant use there copyright. Then sue.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[someone1234]

Yeah, next time the automated system will imprison him. Why is he complaining now?

License agreements need an automatic termination..

[whoever57]

I did not see it in the snippets of his license agreement, but I think that people should put something in such as: "if licensee claims ownership of the work in any form (including DMCA take-down notices) and fails to remove such claim within 24 hours of being notified at , this license shall terminate immediately and licensee shall lose all rights granted by this agreement."

Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[gorbachev]

I would include a clause stating the original license fee increases 100x and is due 5 days from issuance of any fraudulent copyright claim instead.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Krishnoid]

Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.

They would have benefitted from also taking Martinez's advice (FTFA):

2.) Have your licensing documentation organized and easily searchable.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All contracts and licenses have termination clauses
2. Sony didn't back down immediately because they thought they owned the content
3. RTFA!

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[thinkwaitfast]

Slashdot is like a marginally tech related Bart's people

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.

They would have benefitted from also taking Martinez's advice (FTFA):

2.) Have your licensing documentation organized and easily searchable.

Yeah, sounds like Martinez has never worked with a large company before, or he just made some really naive assumptions about what he needed in a legally binding content license agreement. If he didn't ask a copyright or patent attorney to at least review his agreement he did something very foolish. Also, if he's going to license content he should create a database or at least a spreadsheet with all the license info in it, including links to the specific license document and a digital copy of the signature and date page from the hardcopy version.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Mitreya]

He got in touch with someone who sorted out the issue.

That's not the point. He filed a copyright dispute response with Youtube, including a quote from his contract explaining why he is in the right on this issue. And after that he just got a note:

A day or so after filing my dispute, I checked the status of the claim on YouTube and found a status update explaining that "The claimaint (Sony Music) has reviewed their claim and confirmed it was valid"

So Sony was apparently not required to substantiate any of their claims (at least not to him) even after he filed a counter-claim with evidence.
So the process is not biased at all...

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because he was completely ignorant and thus assumed his company was in the right.

Also, he explains in TFA that he did have such a clause in his terms of use with them and they did in fact lose those rights due to failing to remove the claim within the more generous 48hrs he gave them.

The only reason they're still allowed to use the video is because they accepted a secondary deal that explicitly credits him and his website on their video, even if it took them days to get that done.

Be clear, be honest, fuck ... ?

[amplesand]

" Martinez concludes by offering some tips on how to resolve such claims."

In short: be clear, be honest, fuck Apple, then Sony.

Or? Don't ever be like Steve Jobs ever was.

.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He got in touch with someone who sorted out the issue.

That's not the point. He filed a copyright dispute response with Youtube, including a quote from his contract explaining why he is in the right on this issue. And after that he just got a note:

A day or so after filing my dispute, I checked the status of the claim on YouTube and found a status update explaining that "The claimaint (Sony Music) has reviewed their claim and confirmed it was valid"

So Sony was apparently not required to substantiate any of their claims (at least not to him) even after he filed a counter-claim with evidence.
So the process is not biased at all...

So you think the process should be biased against copyright owners? So actually you think Sony should have succeeded, and done so much sooner?

What sort of fucking moron are you?

The system is pro-copyright owners. Which is why the actual copyright owner won.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the first time this happens. A Norwegian artist, Bjorn Lynne, had a similar problem where Sony used music that he had released for free usage as background music on one of their audiobooks. They then shut his Youtube channel down.
It was sorted out eventually.
The real problem is for those who aren't the original artist. If someone else were to use the music of Lynne as background music they too would be shut down by Sony.
Without being the original artist they will have a much harder time disputing it.

Intellectual Property.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about owning you.

Re:Tips for dealing with Sony: Step one

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make a tiny comeback with the PS4. The thing with the PS4 is that Microsoft announced they were going to be cartoonishly evil with the Xbox One, so Sony countered by announcing that they'd only be evil with the PS4.

But they're still Sony, and they're still being evil. They've already had at least one game where, after selling it to people, it's since been pulled from the PS Store and you may no longer download it if you haven't downloaded it already. That's on top of promised PS4 features that simply didn't happen and of course the inevitable removal of features that will occur over the console's life.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Clauses like that could be seen as malicious. I would avoid excessive numbers.

I feel that it would be better to state that the license will be revoked and needs to be renegotiated in cases like that.
That way you can make a case to case decision depending on if the client appears to be a dick or not.
If you want to slap on the 100x license fee you can do so then, but if you do the client will probably just stop distributing it so it is not all that different from just revoking the license.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

Actually, it is pro big business. Note that the actual copyright owner is the one who got his work taken down and then couldn't get it back up because Sony "confirmed" that their (wrongful) claim was valid.

Re:Sony's claim was actually valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the builder built the house doesn't mean he owns it.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

-<O--
-(-\-
--X--
8===D

Adopt a penis bird today

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the DMCA process is biased pro complainant. You can do the same thing: File a complaint, await rejection, stand by your claim. Be prepared to have your pants sued off you though, and that's where the bias pro big business is: In the damages that you are awarded vs. the damages that Sony would be awarded. The complaint process is just a sequence of assertions by the complainant and the defendant which the hoster just has to believe or else they take their own stand for which they are then liable.

Re:Sony's claim was actually valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in the article or on Martinez's web site does it say that Sony had an exclusive license. The standard agreement even specifically forbids licensees to make copyright claims against Martinez's footage. He does offer commercial licenses, but the exact terms of the license are not listed publicly. I find it highly unlikely that someone who runs a stock footage web site with self-produced professional quality material, and protects his rights from the start, would give an exclusive license and completely forget about it after just two months even when challenged.

Re:Sony's claim was actually valid

[Purity Of Essence]

If you RTFA instead of just commenting, you'll see that Sony had an exclusive license.

It doesn't say that at all. The article very clearly indicates it was a non-exclusive license.

I had issued a license for the claiming party to use my footage but they have no claim to any copyright for my content.

4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sounds like Martinez has never worked with a large company before, or he just made some really naive assumptions about what he needed in a legally binding content license agreement.

How do you figure that? It is pretty clear that he did all he had to do to be legally in the clear and that Sony screwed up.
Unfortunately the DMCA law is horribly broken so it doesn't matter if you do everything right.
There is no incentive for Sony to keep their licenses in order and a leash on their lawyers but that is hardly Martinez fault.

Here is how it works: If you write and perform a song, all by yourself, and record it by yourself in your home and put it on YouTube, Sony can still come along and shut down your channel, even if you had nothing to with them previously.
You will get your channel back eventually, but not until you have spent some time contesting their claim. Time that you won't bet compensated for.

Where you have worked and your previous experiences doesn't matter. The only way it doesn't cost you anything extra is if you have you own in-house legal department that you pay for regardless if they do something useful or not.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

well...the copyright owner of the whole production is Sony, so far they are correct....it's what they call a gradual copyright..it's based on work that depends on other copyrights...

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to add a penalty clause of $1,000,000 per view after the 24 hour notification......

For Christ sake

[ruir]

Why do you still do business and buy things from a company known to be hostile to their customer base both in legal and technical terms?

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony are making illegal frivolous DMCA claims, knowing that they will not be punished. Blanket claiming copyright for all kinds of media is a really profitable enterprise for Sony, since most people will not challenge them.

His clause should have said

[Anonymous Coward]

If you break the terms of service you will be my bitch and have to walk down main street naked.

And he might kill his business

[aepervius]

The problem with small guy, is that if he does that, he will black listed by the sony alike. If he does not do his business with sony alike corp, then go for it. But if he does, it would be the quickest way to dry up. That is the power of corp. And mostly why I watch with dismay American thinking private business are better and more efficient. At least a government you can vote out. A corp ? They will crush you most of the time, baring very few rare exception.

Re:And he might kill his business

[TheRaven64]

Might not be a problem. Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement. Say that you're willing to be generous and only ask for the same for their commercial infringement. You should get a few million...

Re:And he might kill his business

[mysidia]

The problem with small guy, is that if he does that, he will black listed by the sony alike. If he does not do his business with sony alike corp, then go for it. But if he does, it would be the quickest way to dry up.

So include a monetary penalty in the contract that will account for that; instead of merely "cancelling the license", spell out a financial amount to be paid for that kind of breach, And "No further usage is licensed, except after the penalty is paid".

The idea being, the mandatory monetary penalty would be large enough to compensate/offset for the expected loss of future business.

Re: And he might kill his business

[Anonymous Coward]

His business of giving away free 4k video footage? Cause that's what his business is.

Re:And he might kill his business

[Trailer Trash]

Might not be a problem. Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement. Say that you're willing to be generous and only ask for the same for their commercial infringement. You should get a few million...

You're modded "funny" but this is *exactly* what I'd do in the situation. The RIAA has extorted some 7 figure settlements for non-commercial infringement and by doing so they removed every single defense that a company like Sony has in a case such as this one. While you wouldn't get statutory damages (you would literally own Sony after the court case if full damages were awarded) you would likely be able to extract retirement money from them pretty easily.

Re:And he might kill his business

[flink]

So include a monetary penalty in the contract that will account for that; instead of merely "cancelling the license", spell out a financial amount to be paid for that kind of breach, And "No further usage is licensed, except after the penalty is paid".

The idea being, the mandatory monetary penalty would be large enough to compensate/offset for the expected loss of future business.

Then be prepared to get no business. This guy isn't James Cameron: he's licensing stock footage. No company lawyer would allow their organization to be put on the hook for that kind of liability for such a trifling benefit. They'd just find someone else to get similar footage from with less onerous terms or make it themselves.

Re: And he might kill his business

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quoting this

  "Might not be a problem. Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement. Say that you're willing to be generous and only ask for the same for their commercial infringement. You should get a few million..."

To say that he won't need any new business. He will have enough money to retire or start another business.

Re:And he might kill his business

[Anonymous Coward]

Being black listed by a company that accuses you of stealing your own material?

Unless they signed a nice lucrative contract with him; which they didn't because he's disclosing what happened, he's already blacklisted.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[shione]

The point is large corporations have it so easy to lay copyright claims and when you go to dispute it you have to jump through hoops. Not only was the onus on his to prove to YT that it was his own work even though somebody else is making the claim but he had to contact multiple people at Sony, multiple times just to wake them up. And here is a guy who licensed his work to a large multinational corporation for FREE and he gets screwed over by them. If he didn't waste his time fighting it then he would have been the one losing the rights to his own work. So how is that fair?

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

BULLSHIT yourself. Please re-read TFA. Because Sony re-affirmed their claim, the actual owner of the video was unable to monitize it, but Sony was allowed to.

Now, when you eat that "BULLSHIT" you posted, would you like some salt or sugar?

He could have also taken the legal route

[Krishnoid]

Couldn't he have sent a 'demand letter' (?) via certified mail, requesting that they either cease and desist, provide documentation of their ownership of the copyright, or accept the validity of their contract and his ownership of the copyright and give him due credit? It seems that phone calls and email, while civil, made him waste his time, while a physical letter (or a phone call from an attorney/paralegal on his side) would be something like a ticket to have their legal department give it priority.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

The DMCA says they should restore the work upon reciept of a counter claim and that the claimant's next step if to file suit and get a court order if they want it to stay down. The Youtube process instead favors the claimant but gives big business an express lane to file claims.

Can copyright work in the digital age?

[Majudhu]

Doctorow and Lessig is right about copyright vs the digital age. I can't understand copyright working in the digital age. If the man and computer power used to enforce copyright was put to better use. So much time, money and energy to make life better, insted used to frustrate us trying to enjoy a video clip, audio clip or even a still image. I'm sure YouTube is more busy trying to find violations than trying to create the recommended video lists

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[stephanruby]

You're not good at math Gorbachev.

$0 times 100 is still $0. He was licensing those visuals for free.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You misread the summary and/or the article. Please re-read the summary and/or article.

If you have a modicum of decency, you will apologize for your erroneous and uncivil comment to the other poster.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[stephanruby]

Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.

That is no excuse.

If he didn't have the information, he should have waited until he did.

And the original copyright holder is just too nice. He should have charged Sony the amount Sony would have charged him for copyright infringement.

Sony sues itself too

[RubberDogBone]

Sony is a massively complex company, such that they have sued themselves over DMCA issues before. Literally one division has no idea what another is doing.

Samsung's rise in the 80s and 90s was fueled in part by a mission to destroy Sony. That was their driving goal, and they have in fact succeeded with that mission and then some. Part because Samsung is that good, but also because Sony literally invents ways to shoot themselves in the head.

Re:Sony sues itself too

[SharpFang]

Sounds interesting, can you provide some links on Sony suing themselves?

Re:Sony sues itself too

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+sues+itself

Re:Sony sues itself too

[Holi]

That's not accurate at all if that is the only time Sony supposedly "sued" itself. That article is erroneous by claiming Sony partially controls RIAA or claiming that RIAA is part of Sony. RIAA is in industry group, sure they represent Sony but they also represent all of Sony's competitors.
Your article was about RIAA suing Launch,com, so no it is not a case of Sony suing it self.

Re:Sony sues itself too

[Anonymous Coward]

Size or complexity of your business does not absolve you from following the law....

Re:Sony sues itself too

[cdrudge]

The one instance that comes up most often is the RIAA (of which Sony has a signifiant controlling interest) suing Launch.com, which was operated by Sony Technology and Business unit.

The RIAA also went after manufacturers that "encouraged" music piracy activites with their products, such as portable music players, CD burners, etc. Sony of course also makes CD burners.

TPP is just yet another nail in the peons' coffin

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter it's AFTA or TPP or WPO or IP or whatever fuck it is, they are all designed with corporations in mind

The more of those agreements approved the less our rights remain

Before we know they can stop us from walking down the street because we would be violating their copyrights by appearing in a public place

David vs Goliath

[Taco Cowboy]

In the David vs Goliath fable David, the little guy, won

In the real world we live in the little guys got crushed, every. single. --freaking-- time

Re:David vs Goliath

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a little guy, be swift and use long distance weaponry with accuracy. The big guy is slow, bulky, can't see that well, and all his strength is useless at a distance.

Re: David vs Goliath

[Jason Levine]

Except, to extend the metaphor, Goliath has a ton of endurance (legal funds) and David can't keep fighting indefinitely (has limited funds). So all Goliath needs to do is keep the fight (lawsuit) going until David collapses out of exhaustion (declares bankruptcy). Then Goliath wins, siezes everything David owned, and uses him as an example to scare future Davids into giving up (settling the lawsuit) quickly.

Re:David vs Goliath

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this time.

Re:David vs Goliath

[Rakarra]

In the real world we live in the little guys got crushed, every. single. --freaking-- time

Not so. If there is a good claim, the little guy can win a decent amount of the time...
But it often isn't worth it.

There is an easy and very effective solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Sony and fuck Epic Records. Just fuck 'em.
Let them license and copyright each other until the end of the world.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[TheRaven64]

The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement form Sony, that Sony lobbied to have put into law.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

This honestly.
If you're going to sue me about it, then you don't get to use it.

I have an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a written contract? It sounds like this guy "licensed" his video verbally or something, since he had to "get someone to admit" it was his video.

If he did his "licensing" in writing like he was supposed to, matters like this likely would not happen in the first place, but if they did, it would be a single phone call to his lawyer to get this resolved.

Re:I have an idea...

[Holi]

So you didn't even bother to scan the article.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Feral Nerd]

Yeah, next time the automated system will imprison him. Why is he complaining now?

Automated imprisonment?!? Don't be so 1984, we have long since moved on to drone strikes.

Add a clause to the license

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the event that the licensee should erroneously claim copyright on the licensor's work, then license for said work will be revoked and the licensor will lose all rights thereto and must destroy all copies and works derivative thereof or which incorporate it in whole or in part. Pursuant to such a event, the licensee will pay the licensor a fee of $5,000 plus any costs associated with nullifying the licensee's false claims."

Re: TPP is just yet another nail in the peons' cof

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Money won the war a long time ago. This is mainly a mop-up operation. I wonder why do they bother with treaties, I guess there still are some old people at the top worrying about appearances and wanting to be seen "on the side of the law". Wait until the younger managers have taken their place, it will be a slaughterhouse.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[Theovon]

Why is it that authorities assume that the copyright claim is always valid? In fact, it’s often not, with these companies conducting drag net campaigns.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[organgtool]

Because music industry thugs can make life hell for Google if they don't cooperate. Right now, Google makes a ton of money from content hosted by the music industry. If they didn't take the music industry's side by default every time, then the music industry could take off all of their content which would cause a huge loss of revenue for Google. In addition to that, the music industry may be able to hold Google liable for every video that infringed on their content to the tune of $150,000 per view of each infringing video. That would add up extremely quickly so Google doesn't have much of a choice but to give in to the industry's demands.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[jandrese]

Seems like Google makes a ton of money for the music industry too. Pulling all of the content just brings us back to the late 90s when everybody just sent bootleg MP3s everywhere because there was no legitimate alternative.

Re:Sony's claim was actually valid

[SharpFang]

If you RTFA you'll see the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you please stop misinforming people?

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[PRMan]

And when he made a claim against Sony's video, nothing happened. Again with no evidence.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[PRMan]

Exactly. I would have gone for the $150,000.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[wbo]

Actually Youtube is far worse than that. Google uses a system called Content ID which automatically flags potential copyright violations without consulting the copyright holder. This makes the claim process entirely automated and is very prone to false positives. (I have first hand experience with some videos I uploaded being flagged for using some stock music that I had specifically licensed for use in those videos.)

Copyright holders can submit DMCA claims but I suspect the vast majority of claims on Youtube come from the automated Content ID system which isn't really the same thing as a DMCA claim (although it has pretty much the same effect in regards to the video being taken down.)

If your video is flagged by the Content ID system, the only thing you can do is submit a note (text only) explaining why you believe the automated claim is invalid and that note is sent to the copyright holder who can decide whether or not to release the claim manually. Fortunately in my case they accepted my proof of license and released the claim.

Sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

He should sue these asshats for his time and emotional damages.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times does this have to be explained. The DMCA has *nothing* to do with Youtube's automated takedown system. It was created in consultation with the labels and studios and is very much designed to keep Google in sweet with Big Content. The independent creator loses every time.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, hoist them by their own petard.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[organgtool]

Correction: $150,000 per YouTube view after the bogus copyright claim from Sony.

Didn't something like this also happen....

[mark-t]

... with "Pixels"?

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[organgtool]

if licensee claims ownership of the work in any form

Your clause wouldn't work since it was Epic's parent company that made the ownership claim. You would need to put something nice and broad in there about parent companies, partners, or affiliates. I'm sure a lawyer would know exactly how to close that loophole.

This just happened to me

[tekrat]

Youtube just took down two of my videos claiming they violate someone else's copyright. But they are animated films that I made in film school.

I can only imagine that maybe the music used is copyright, but the film is my work. And I don't have the freaking first clue how to fight this since the films were uploaded to youtube many years ago under a different account I don't have the password for.

As a result, I can't even login to READ the notice of why the films were removed. All I've got is the email notification that they were.

Re:This just happened to me

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hmmm... You got an e-mail telling you they were taken down. You don't know he password. I believe that you can ask for a password reset on Youtube and you'll receive an e-mail to reset your password - at the same e-mail address you received the takedown notice from.

So dont't do business with Sony or Epic

[WOOFYGOOFY]

So dont' do business with Sony Epc or any of the other companies Sony owns.

There, problem solved.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.

Fucking hell you are thick.

That is the point. Anyone can incorrectly claim copyright. But guess who won?

If you are trying to make a point please tell us it.

Are you proposing a different system? Like what? Where nobody can claim copyright? Or maybe a system where, if multiple people claim copyright, somebody, not sure of the word, "judges?", who is correct?.

He should get damages

[fatboy]

As I recall, under the DMCA, the copyright owner is entitled to damages for this type of abuse.

Re:He should get damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why there should be all sorts of really really expensive lawyers ready to step up when this happens.

You honor my client licensed his video to Sony for $0, but required that attribution be made and that he retained copyright. Sony filed a DMCA notice against my client illegally as they did not own the copyright.
We ask for $100 in damages and $500k in lawyers fees and $200k in expenses. I am sorry the fees are so high but Sony did not back down quickly and this took numerous hours of my time.

Re:He should get damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it was willful abuse. Mistakes are free and intent is what distinguishes. As well as being impossible to determine.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

Fucking hell you are thick.

Raised by wolves? I should slap you and then I should slap your parents.

Now reread the thread and behold your own foolishness.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube isn't favoring either the claimant or the respondant. Youtube is just practicing good CYA: Youtube has no obligation to serve your content and they face virtually no risk from performing the takedown. Compare that with the risk of being dragged into lawsuits that, win or lose, cost money... and will often be between third parties who have an interest in dragging out procedures.. The little lost ad revenue to avoid the legal risk is a no brainer

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't waste his time fighting it then he would have been the one losing the rights to his own work. So how is that fair?

It's fair since any other peon could have been equally screwed by any other megalomanic corporation, so it's not like he was singled out or anything.

This is as fair as it gets in the U.S.

Re:TPP is just yet another nail in the peons' coff

[kheldan]

Before we know they can stop us from walking down the street because we would be violating their copyrights by appearing in a public place

See, on the surface that sounds like hyperbole, but it's closer to the truth than one might think: Remember, not too long ago at all, they tried to enforce copyright on Happy Birthday? We live in a world where if these dickheads had their wish, would have Copyright Police all over the place, maybe even audio surveillance, and would send you a royalties bill if they caught you idly humming or singing a popular song in a public place. There would be no such thing as 'fair use', everyone would own something, and even if you created something entirely unique, you'd have to defend your ownership of it tooth and nail, because some corporation would otherwise claim ownership of it (just like Sony did in TFA) and effectively take it away from you then charge you for daring to use it. There would be no such thing anymore as 'public domain' or 'open source'. Essentially there would be no such thing as 'freedom of speech/expression', either, and effectively no such thing as 'freedom of thought'. Now, someone is going to accuse me of spreading FUD, but go take a look at what's going on in the world: we're not that far from an outright, 100% corporate-owned-and-operated world already. The only thing right now that stands in the way of that is the same thing that has already been standing in the way of it for decade upon decade: people are still relatively free (more or less so, depending where you are in the world) to do as they please. You can still make a 'mix tape' for someone on a thumb drive and pass it around to people you know. Media still isn't so completely locked down that someone can't find a way to rip copies of it for 'fair use' purposes. And so on. Given their druthers, corporations all over the world would have us living in a full-on police state, complete with random warrantless public search-and seizures, just to make sure that 'pirates' aren't 'illegally copying' anything, and every last character transmit or receive on the Internet would be sifted and analyzed to make sure you're not even thinking of violating someone's copy'right'. We aren't 100% at that dystopia yet, but things like the TPP will bring us closer to it.

Re: So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol i spit out my coffee. "I should slap your parents". LOLOL

You've been roasting this asshole multiple times and he still don't get it.

Sony v. Tenenbaum

[tepples]

Cite in court the fines that Sony has asked for non-commercial copyright infringement.

Is Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum close enough?

Re:Sony v. Tenenbaum

[TheRaven64]

I'd be inclined to approach the EFF and ask if they'd cover legal fees. I bet that you could cite that as precedent and claim $150,000 for each YouTube view in between the 48 hours expiring (when the license was terminated) and Sony complying with the license (during which period they were knowingly distributing copyrighted work without a license) as damages. Point out in the court that the defendant has prosecuted cases of the same nature and therefore knows that it is a crime and agrees with the size of the damages being awarded.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

If they want to CYA, they shouldn't allow the claimant to monetize the work (explicitly stated that they did in TFA).

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[kirthn]

Sony DOES own the copyright over the total project, but doesn't have the total copyright as it's a gradual distribution of copy-rights.....

If i would be photographing fashion-models....the clothing is copyrighted, and the work of the fashion-stylist is copyrighted and the work of the make-up-artist is copyrighted.....I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[kirthn]

....

The only reason they're still allowed to use the video is because they accepted a secondary deal that explicitly credits him and his website on their video, even if it took them days to get that done.

Actually they mentioned him as a creator not as a copyright-holder....those are 2 separate things. Correctly they should have mentioned : "Licensed from © Mitch Martinez"

In the case they would acquire full copyright, they should still legally mention the creator.... so would be in this case creator Mitch Martinez/© Sony Music Entertainment.......

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only are you wrong on your point, you can't even tell if you're logged in, and, worst of all, you're a smilie-face making retard.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....

Which is exactly what Sony did. In your analogy, imagine the same make up artist posted her own picture of the model's face in her portfolio and you claimed to own the copyright on the make-up design.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[kirthn]

Depends if the make-up-artist created the design, a novel design that is ;)...there is however somewhere an exception that any image created on my set falls under my creative surrounding...but haven't studied that further...

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[budgenator]

My understanding is that the Stock Video owner Mitch Martinez makes high quality background videos. Martinez enter into a licensing agreement with Epic Records a Sony subsidiary and supplied Epic Records with a background video for a videotaped music performance. The Sony bot crawling Youtube.com saw Martinez's stock footage posted there and correctly identified it as the same as in the Epic Records video, Sony then without performing adequate due diligence issued a take down notice with youtube and thereby breaching the terms of the licence and thereby committing copyright infringement by distributing a derivative work of Martinez's video without licence and defaming Martinez by claiming he was distributing copyrighted works without licence.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[radarskiy]

Under the DMCA, filing the counterclaim should have gotten the video restored and gotten YouTube out of the middle of the dispute. Any further claim by Sony would required them to take action against Mitch Martinez directly.

So among all of the other problems with this case, YouTube is in violation of the DMCA.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[radarskiy]

"Youtube has no obligation"

Under the DMCA, YouTube does have an obligation to restore content on receipt of a counterclaim.

Re:License agreements need an automatic terminatio

[T.E.D.]

The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement

You could read the fine article. The "or else" he gave them was that they'd have to take down the music video they'd used it in, losing its huge hit count. In marketing value that would probably have cost them far more than $150,000, and he had the right to demand it. He was being a nice guy by giving them the option to advertise his site on their video instead.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

Exactly.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[sjames]

Now you're trying to twist your own damned analogy. Just quit digging while you can still see daylight.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[aitikin]

But, was this a DMCA claim or is YouTube doing their own claim system that operates prior to a DMCA takedown?

Re:Sony's claim was actually valid

[budgenator]

I didn't see that part, I did see

4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Rakarra]

If i would be photographing fashion-models....the clothing is copyrighted, and the work of the fashion-stylist is copyrighted and the work of the make-up-artist is copyrighted.....I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....

It also gets a bit more complicated depending on whether you have a model release or not. IE, you could take the photograph, but whether you could publish it without a release varies by jurisdiction/country.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they only have an obligation to restore things to whatever contractual terms they had before. In this case, Youtube has no contractual obligation to keep hosting such stuff to people who aren't paying them to do so, and their original terms allow them to remove videos whenever they want. If you were paying a host to host something for you, and the host pulls the plug, they would be obligated to restore that in the DMCA process (unless the hosting contract gives them a way out and they prefer to use that).

Boycott Sony? FUCK NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Boycott Youtube.

should have issued his own notice.

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have issued his own DCMA takedown notices against Epic claiming they invalidated their contract when he was accused of viloating his own copyright.

Re:TPP is just yet another nail in the peons' coff

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's why I've learned to hum in Gregorian Chant. It is the only music I can be sure is free of copyright.

Re:So what the fuck is the story here?

[shione]

No, it is not fair. What proof did sony provide that it was theirs?

This is the guys video that sony made claim on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is the video that sony said it was stolen from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

They aren't even the same video!

If you're the content owner you shouldn't have some asshole claiming that it is theirs especially after you have allowed them to use it for free. Even the general public who copyright infringe on music/movies/games etc don't claim that they made that thing, they do it to watch/enjoy it. The copyright infringement that sony was doing is the WORST kind of infringement by claiming ownership over something which wasn't theirs. And its really unfair that that guy had to waste his time fighting it because even sony wouldnt get that from the general public.