Slashdot Mirror
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.
RTFA, he did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+0 Meh
No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.
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/...
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
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.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The article also explains the following:
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.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.