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.
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!
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He got in touch with someone who sorted out the issue.
OMG!!!
Don't do business with Sony or any of its subsidiary companies?
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Don't ever deal with Sony. They may have made a tiny comeback with the PS4 but for decades Sony has been douchebags and we have not forgotten.
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.
1. All contracts and licenses have termination clauses
2. Sony didn't back down immediately because they thought they owned the content
3. RTFA!
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.
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.
" 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.
.
It's about owning you.
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.
If you RTFA instead of just commenting, you'll see that Sony had an exclusive license. It's like writing a paper for a peer-reviewed journal; the process involves signing the copyright over to the journal so the author no longer owns the rights to that work. That means the journal can actually sue the original author for plagiarism for using that work again. It's the same case here, where Sony had an exclusive license, and the content creator no longer had the right to use the work for any reason. Facts are facts, and TFA plainly states this.
-<O--
-(-\-
--X--
8===D
Adopt a penis bird today
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.
Better to add a penalty clause of $1,000,000 per view after the 24 hour notification......
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?
If you break the terms of service you will be my bitch and have to walk down main street naked.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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
You're not good at math Gorbachev.
$0 times 100 is still $0. He was licensing those visuals for free.
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 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.
Sig for hire.
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
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Fuck Sony and fuck Epic Records. Just fuck 'em.
Let them license and copyright each other until the end of the world.
The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement form Sony, that Sony lobbied to have put into law.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This honestly.
If you're going to sue me about it, then you don't get to use it.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
Exactly. I would have gone for the $150,000.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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.
He should sue these asshats for his time and emotional damages.
Yes, hoist them by their own petard.
Correction: $150,000 per YouTube view after the bogus copyright claim from Sony.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So dont' do business with Sony Epc or any of the other companies Sony owns.
There, problem solved.
As I recall, under the DMCA, the copyright owner is entitled to damages for this type of abuse.
--fatboy
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.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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?
....
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.......
Famous last words:"but...."
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.
Boycott Youtube.
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.
That's why I've learned to hum in Gregorian Chant. It is the only music I can be sure is free of copyright.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.