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!
Don't do business with Sony or any of its subsidiary companies?
Yeah, next time the automated system will imprison him. Why is he complaining now?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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
RTFA, he did.
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.
Slashdot is like a marginally tech related Bart's people
So then it's all good. They can no longer use his works and he gets to keep the money.
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...
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.
.
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.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
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.
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.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
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.
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.
+0 Meh
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
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?
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
No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
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.
"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.
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.
If you RTFA you'll see the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you please stop misinforming people?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
And when he made a claim against Sony's video, nothing happened. Again with no evidence.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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.
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.
So you didn't even bother to scan the article.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
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.
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.
+0 Meh
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.
+0 Meh
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.
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!
In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner. Sony did not own the copyright.
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?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.
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?
If they want to CYA, they shouldn't allow the claimant to monetize the work (explicitly stated that they did in TFA).
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.
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....
Famous last words:"but...."
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?
+0 Meh
....
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...."
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!
Famous last words:"but...."
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.
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.
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...
Famous last words:"but...."
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
"Youtube has no obligation"
Under the DMCA, YouTube does have an obligation to restore content on receipt of a counterclaim.
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.
Exactly.
Now you're trying to twist your own damned analogy. Just quit digging while you can still see daylight.
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!
But, was this a DMCA claim or is YouTube doing their own claim system that operates prior to a DMCA takedown?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
I didn't see that part, I did see
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sony is liable for Slander Of Title, falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright.
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.
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.
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.
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.