Samsung Forced YouTube To Pull GTA 5 Mod Video Because It Showed Galaxy Note 7 As Bomb (redmondpie.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Redmond Pie: The Galaxy Note 7 wasn't just recalled, it was cancelled. For good. And that makes Samsung very cranky indeed. So when YouTube user HitmanNiko created a video showing a Grand Theft Auto 5 mod in which Galaxy Note 7 handsets can be used as grenades, it's perhaps somewhat understandable that someone inside Samsung took offense to the idea. What's incomprehensible though is the fact that Samsung has apparently set about trying to erase that video, and presumably others like it, from the Internet. The first step? Forcing YouTube to remove HitmanNiko's video. Trying to view the video now does nothing but display a message which says that the video is "no longer available due to a copyright claim by Samsung Electronics America" which leaves quite the bad taste in our mouths. The biggest issue here is that this is arguably the worst misuse of the DMCA we have ever come across, simply because nothing was copied, unless Samsung is trying to claim that by making the in-game grenades look like Galaxy Note 7 smartphones then the video creator was in fact in breach of copyright.

Comments

This will backfire!

[Anonymous Coward]

(uh... oops...)

DCMA Fair Use / Parody

[sbrown7792]

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.

Source.

If that video isn't parody I don't know what is.

Re:DCMA Fair Use / Parody

[bluefoxlucid]

Not even.

The phone isn't copyrighted. Its existence and a representation of it as a material fact can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright the existence and form of your product in such a way that, for example, a novel writer can't mention that a person was using a Samsung Note 3 and describe the functionality he was using. Those are material facts.

The phone is a trademark--or at least its visual form and its name are potential trademarks. You may be able to patent the production of a phone in that form (design patent), and trademark a particular shape of a phone (like the Gibson and Fender headstocks--yes, their brand-identifiable shapes are trademarked); that applies only to actually making a phone.

Samsung is legally-required to protect its trademarks, else they lose them. That means a number of things. It means you can't make a DogRun Galaxy 7 phone (especially in substantially-similar design to the Samsung offering) because Galaxy and Galaxy 7 are Samsung trademarks. It means you can't use the Samsung name to brand your phone. If you do these things, Samsung must take action, or else the next guy to do the same thing can point out that Samsung hasn't protected their trademark.

A reference to a trademark isn't a trademark infringement.

A reference to a trademark in a book, in a TV show, in a video game, in literature about your own product, wherever it is, does not infringe trademark. Trademark distinguishes products. If you make a phone and, in the literature, identify that it is distinct from the Samsung Galaxy 7 by pointing out that it has similar or superior battery life to the Samsung Galaxy 7, you haven't infringed trademark because you haven't identified your phone as a Samsung Galaxy 7.

That video isn't parody, by law; it's non-infringing. It's a non-infringing reference to a trademark and to the existence of a product. Artistically, it's satire: it explores an existing material fact with humor and exaggeration. Even if it had no artistic defense, there's no standing for any intellectual property claim--copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise. Samsung's phones blowing up is a material fact; it might be over-emphasized, but it's a thing that happened in the world, and the phones are a thing that exist in the world, and the thing in the game is a representation of that thing and not a counterfeit product.

Obligatory All your Base reference

[mandark1967]

Someone set us up the Note 7

they got no signal, however.

That's, for better or worse, for a court to decide

[H3lldr0p]

And that's the problem here and in other cases like it.

It has to be checked-off by a court to say exactly that. Only after that step can the guy turn around and sue for damages and lost wages. It's as backward as you can get. It's putting the onus on the defense to prove that they're _not_ infringing. Assume guilt much?

Copyright law needs a top to bottom reform. Period.

I mean...

[OpenSourced]

Has nobody heard of the Streissand effect?

Re:The trump camp needs to do this!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just need to STFU. For fucks sake, does literally every god damn thing have to mention the election? No, no it doesn't. I get it, you're a small minded individual, and this is all you can think of to say. But shut the fuck up. We're what, a bit less then three weeks from the election? Everywhere you go all people are talking about is how much Trump sucks or how much Clinton sucks and on and on and on. I think I speak for most people when I say we're fucking sick and tired of hearing about it. This story doesn't involve Trump. This story doesn't involve Clinton, Fuck you for trying to bring them in to it.

GET YER VIDEOS HERE!

[GameboyRMH]

Enjoy video of this clever and humorous mod!

https://youtu.be/6EK-Qy_UZX4?t...

Re:So why hasn't the video creator counterclaimed?

[sreever]

I've had a Youtube video taken down years ago for a claim, and got it reinstated. It didn't cost me anything, in fact I think when I got notice of the take-down I was given a form to fill out by Youtube to challenge it. I simply copy-pasted a few statements from Wikipedia about fair-use and a few days later it was brought back to my account. So unless Youtube has changed since then, it shouldn't take money, just a bit of time.

Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec

[Jason Levine]

I don't think copyright is totally bad. For example, I recently published my first novel. Without copyright law, someone else could grab my novel and start printing/selling their own copies of it. I'd wind up competing with my own novel. Then there are issues of film studios being able to take anyone's work and make movies based off of it without compensating the author at all. I'd have to spend a lot of time and money filing lawsuits to make them stop and, without copyright law, I might not be successful.

The big problem with copyright law isn't its existence. It's the length. Copyright was originally 14 years plus a one-time 14 year extension. This isn't so bad. The novel I just published would have until 2044 (assuming I renewed the copyright) to make me money. Then, the book transfers to the public domain for others to build on it. Very few works still make money after 28 years - and I'd wager most of the ones that still do (like Star Wars) partly keep making money because of new material being added.

However, over the years, copyright terms lengthened until now it's 70 years after the author's death. If I die at age 90, my novel will be protected by copyright until 2135. At that point, my youngest son (now 9) would be 128 - and likely deceased. If my youngest son had a child at 30, his child would be 98 when my copyright ran out. I don't need copyrights on my works lasting until my great-great-great grandchildren are born. That's not giving me incentive to create new works. 14 years + 14 years would be plenty.

If copyright law was reset back to 14 years plus an optional one-time 14 year extension, a lot of the problems with copyright would go away.

Re:Before copyright, no credit and no money

[Immerman]

And yet, they were still written. Which is the entire purpose of copyright - to promote the creation of art. Not to enrich the artists or have their name preserved in history - that's just the carrot that's dangled to further promote their production.

Take away copyright entirely, and art will still be created. There would no doubt be a decrease in expensive, commercial-oriented art like blockbuster movies, but also an increase in "derivative" art, that would be free to incorporate previous works without fear of infrigement lawsuits.

When you get right down to it, most artists create for the joy of the craft, getting paid for it is a bonus that lets them create more rather than working a "real" job. And that only if they can fetch a decent price for their art within their lifetime.

Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec

[Jason Levine]

Lets say we do away with copyright tomorrow and all of my novels have that creator endorsed marking on them. The big question is whether the book buying public would even care. My novel sells for $7.99 (paperback). Suppose HarperCollins decides to publish an edition of my book without my approval. Thanks to copyright going away, there is no legal recourse for me to tell them to stop or to compensate me. Being a bigger publishing house, they might be able to undercut me on price. Now, my $7.99 paperback has to contend with their $4.99 paperback edition. Plus, they are able to get their version of my book into all the bookstores while mine is still limited in scope. (My book is only available from Amazon at the moment.)

The big question is: Would the buying public care that my book has the "Creator Endorsed" logo on it or would they flock to the cheaper copy to save some cash?

As much as I'd like to say people would go with Creator Endorsed, I think they'd go with the saved cash and I'd wind up losing sales. (This is the only time when I'd call "lost sales" an actual thing since the person actually bought a copy of the book but did so from someone who was selling their own version without getting approval/providing compensation.)