Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Apologizes For Tweeting Somebody Else's Video (inc.com)
YouTube's controversial year-end "Rewind" video has become "the most-loathed video in the entire history of YouTube," reports Inc., adding that with 14 million down votes, it now "might just be the most-hated video anybody ever posted anywhere."
"But then came Christmas Day, and YouTube apparently managed to top its own blunder." How? By uploading a promo video wishing viewers a Merry Christmas on Twitter. The problem: YouTube allegedly didn't own the video. Instead, it copied a YouTube user's video and reposted it as its own, without so much as offering credit....The only real difference between the version of video that YouTuber Lily Hevesh created and uploaded to YouTube, and the one that YouTube reportedly passed off as its own work in a post on Twitter is that YouTube's version on Twitter skipped the opening 20 seconds. That would be the part in which Hevesh, who describes herself as a "domino artist," shared her logo and a short clip of herself setting up the dominoes.
Hevesh caught what YouTube had apparently done about 14 hours after the post, and tweeted a response: "Very glad to see that my Christmas domino e-card is getting good use. However, I'm a bit disappointed that YouTube would take my video and re-upload it with absolutely no credit. People rip off my work everyday and it's honestly saddening to see this happen by YouTube itself...." Even if money weren't involved, YouTube's own terms of service and copyright page seem to ban exactly what it looks like was done here. It's a mess.
In the end, YouTube owned up to its mistake -- well, partway anyway. It tweeted a follow-up on the day after Christmas, acknowledging that they "forgot to credit @Hevesh5 for this video!" and linking to Hevesh's YouTube page.
The Verge points out that YouTube "does own a limited license to people's videos, so legally, the company can take Hevesh's content and upload it to its Twitter account. The problem is ethical....
"Reuploading video while stripping credit is a practice that YouTube explicitly condemns. YouTube's community guidelines and policy page specifically states that creators should only 'upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use.'"
"But then came Christmas Day, and YouTube apparently managed to top its own blunder." How? By uploading a promo video wishing viewers a Merry Christmas on Twitter. The problem: YouTube allegedly didn't own the video. Instead, it copied a YouTube user's video and reposted it as its own, without so much as offering credit....The only real difference between the version of video that YouTuber Lily Hevesh created and uploaded to YouTube, and the one that YouTube reportedly passed off as its own work in a post on Twitter is that YouTube's version on Twitter skipped the opening 20 seconds. That would be the part in which Hevesh, who describes herself as a "domino artist," shared her logo and a short clip of herself setting up the dominoes.
Hevesh caught what YouTube had apparently done about 14 hours after the post, and tweeted a response: "Very glad to see that my Christmas domino e-card is getting good use. However, I'm a bit disappointed that YouTube would take my video and re-upload it with absolutely no credit. People rip off my work everyday and it's honestly saddening to see this happen by YouTube itself...." Even if money weren't involved, YouTube's own terms of service and copyright page seem to ban exactly what it looks like was done here. It's a mess.
In the end, YouTube owned up to its mistake -- well, partway anyway. It tweeted a follow-up on the day after Christmas, acknowledging that they "forgot to credit @Hevesh5 for this video!" and linking to Hevesh's YouTube page.
The Verge points out that YouTube "does own a limited license to people's videos, so legally, the company can take Hevesh's content and upload it to its Twitter account. The problem is ethical....
"Reuploading video while stripping credit is a practice that YouTube explicitly condemns. YouTube's community guidelines and policy page specifically states that creators should only 'upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use.'"
YouTube abuses their own ethical rules on an hourly basis. Who will hold them accountable for the damage they do behind the scenes?
I expect a piece of paper with a literally written apology. Release the hounds
Since if you include even a second of any commercial music in a YouTube video your work WILL be claimed and someone else will get all your ad revenue for your entire original work, I'm sure that the original owner of the domino video must be getting all of the ad revenue from the video YouTube ripped off wholesale...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is a practice they definitely endorse.
Corporatism != Free Market
Having a license doesn't mean that if you upload it and lie about where you got it, that you didn't harm the creator. Especially if you didn't give them any "consideration" (eg money) that would be consistent with selling that right. If it is a shrink-wrap license, and they present the service in a way that they know that video creators are trying to make money from the videos they upload, then they don't get very many rights from a shrink-wrap license.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if she has a lawyer she can get paid here.
Just because they can use it, doesn't mean they can use it in any way, or lie about it in a way that harms the creator.
Wow man! Sue the fucker although I think in truth he is on welfare and his job is imaginary because he never seems to be busy working for real.
What a danger for society! Did you file a police report?
Her twitter reply to YouTube: Reply 719 Retweet 1.7K Like 9.0K New conversation Lily Hevesh Verified account @Hevesh5 Replying to @YouTube Dec 25 thanks for sharing my domino video! (no credits though?) I hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas!
Or the bees. Or the hounds with bees in their mouths.
...isn't run by Caesar's wife.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
trying to compete with facebook.
What else is new though, thats the modus operandi for Youtube/Google/Facebook/Patreon you name the scumbag tech company.
How can anyone possibly be surprised that google would do this? It's in their corporate DNA. It's it's like leaving a box of cash in a prison courtyard, coming back in a week, and being surprised all the money isn't there.
THIS IS GOOGLE. Don't like, it, don't use them. That simple.
Aww crap. How am I gonna top a household name? Thatâ(TM)s what they are thinking
They're a huge corp and as always it's, "Do as we say not as we do."
Copyrights are void when content is stolen or acquired illegally or without permission.
How could that IT clerk from San Jose who works in Palo Alto claim copyrights on my kid?
He filmed my kid without my permission and put the video on his stupid Internet channel.
And upload a video of him/her being spanked really really well!
People are by default allowed to film anything they can see. Only specific agreement turn into freely creates any kind of restrictions. because you the individual observing a situation has the right to their own observations. And to share them if they so choose. the actions they are observing maybe of themselves a crime, if they are trespassing in order to observe it, are you can see it you can record it. if you can see it and record it you can share it as your own memory.
How is anyone surprised by this arrangement? If they host it - they can use it. Since forever.
From Slashdot's own TOS:
By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide [...] right to [TOTALLY USE, REUSE AND PROFIT FROM] such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed
I'm pretty sure their license allows them to distribute people's videos (necessary for YouTube to function). It does not allow them to edit then redistribute the edited video. That's a copyright violation. Hevesh should be able to sue them for up to $150,000, more if she filed a copy of the video with the U.S. Copyright Office.
The silly thing is that YouTube's sharing link has a tool to allow you to add a start time to a video link (start the video x seconds in). They only had to tweet her original video with the start time set at 20 seconds to skip her intro. The ease with which you can do that and the fact that they didn't would seem to put this violation in the class of willfull and malicious infringement. Someone at YouTube knew exactly what they were doing by manually editing out the first 20 seconds of her video. Which is why the full $150,000 fine could be in play.
Naw, Chris, your threw all your toys out of the playpen when you refused to act like an adult. You left on your own two fat feet.
No, copyright does not work like that. You're thinking of trademarks.
Content creators who upload their content to Youtube grant Youtube a very broad license to use that content. If they want to avoid that, they should not upload content to Youtube.
Build your own site if you don't like it.
youtube breaks its own rules for gain
no way
and Youtube is making a profit off of me? I've hired Mayor McCheese to sue YouTube for all of the imaginary bucks lost due to my stupidity. Mayor McCheese +1 YouTube 0
What part of "you are the product" do these people not understand?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
These companies need to be brought to heel about their attitudes towards copyright (the MPAA and RIAA too, which slashdot has had a few stories about them pirating other people's copyrighted works, particularly software.)
Either copyright is treated the same for everyone or copyright should not be enforced for anyone. In either case, the independent creator should be favored over corporate work for hire, given the abuse corporations have taken to making of the copyright system.
Look at their TOS : "royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's" emphasis mine. You upload it, they can pretty much do everything and anything with it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
For arbitrary values of evil.
Keep seeing variations of "that IT clerk" in comments ...
Would be helpful for rest of us if you include a link to the story or at least your kids video so we know wtf you're going on about
is this just another way of saying 'I live in my mom's basement'?
how YouTube is a corporation hence no ethical values should be expected of it?
I dare you. Of what significant consequence could this story possibly be?
"...who search the reason of things
Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
Liking Pewds' rewind is the closest thing to a referendum on their behavior that may ever exist. Educate yourself, then like and subscribe. I did my part.
This.
It's the same person posting the same shit. It's a slashdot meme.