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.'"

Comments

Google steals everything

[WCMI92]

That is a practice they definitely endorse.

Naw

[Aighearach]

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.

Re: Naw

[edris90]

Last time I checked numbers and accounting does not endanger or damage a person's psychological or physical health. There's no danger she is not harmed. through this is just pushing numbers around has nothing to do with harm. It's been long established Larry Gilman can live a fulfilling life without having everything they want as long as they have food Water Shelter and a handful of people to you connect with trust. There's been no harm done. this is like when your kid comes home from high school and says I wish I was one of the cool kids and you tell them that reputation is bullshit don't worry about it

Re: Naw

[edris90]

Correction, "larry Gilman" should read "a person" Fucking autocorrect I turned it off. It turns itself back on.

Re:Naw

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if she has a lawyer she can get paid here.

Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, 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 (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.

People that use these services like YouTube or Facebook seem to forget that any content of theirs, whether their own produced vids or posted family photos, are no longer exclusively their own property anymore. Under YouTube's terms, it had a perfect right to modify that woman's video and display it without crediting her. Not very ethical, but legal.

Re:Naw

[sjames]

This. A license allows you to use it, but it doesn't allow you to remove the creator's name from it.

Re:Naw

[Anonymous Coward]

The license given to Youtube allows them to "prepare derivative works".

Re:Naw

[sjames]

They still need to credit the original source.

Re:Naw

[sjames]

It's a requirement not removed by the license.

Re: Naw

[datavirtue]

I likes.

Re:Naw

[GuB-42]

IANAL but wouldn't it put that "someone else" in a difficult position?
Either you allowed him to put that video in your behalf, and in that case, it is the same as if you uploaded it yourself.
And if you didn't, then the other guy is infringing your copyright and your original video will probably be taken down for that reason. In addition, YouTube can probably sue him because it violates the ToS.
Also, if it goes to court, the judge will most likely dismiss the case. I mean, asking someone to upload videos for you and at the same time not giving him the right license to do so is ridiculous. The legal system and the people representing it aren't stupid.

Re:Naw

[iive]

By Copyright law.

The only thing that Youtube/Google cannot do is claim that this is their own video. By removing the authors logo and all identifying information, they have done just that.

Re:Naw

[N_Piper]

They are called "Moral Rights" Attribution or non-attribution are Moral Rights protected under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works to which the United States is a Signatory.
Youtube may have been within their rights to edit and repost the video but in no way were they ever allowed, because importantly they never asked to be allowed, to disassociate it from it's creator.

Re:Naw

[ls671]

Brilliant!

Re: Naw

[edris90]

That's like blaming the rain it's your job as a parent to train and prepare your child for when they inevitably happens.itt doesn't bother them. That's what parents are for to warn you about the shity things that are coming so when they happen you're at least somewhat prepared. Because that's the difference between trauma and oh yeah I've been expecting this

Will she get paid by YT?

[Iwastheone]

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!

Re: Will she get paid by YT?

[Iwastheone]

>:"YouTube believes that they can just apologize because they are a big corporation. I doubt they would say to themselves what is the right thing to do here? Well, they would say that but they would mean something completely different I would bet"

Well put. With all the money google has to throw around they could throw her a measly $5/10 grand, at least.

Re: Will she get paid by YT?

[Iwastheone]

Here is the first reply from YouTube... https://twitter.com/YouTube/st...

Our mistake–we forgot to credit @Hevesh5 for this video! Check out more of @Hevesh5's epic domino art here: https://www.youtube.com/Hevesh...

Re: Will she get paid by YT?

[Iwastheone]

I agree that YT has no obligation under the TOS, still it's a great positive PR opportunity for them to give her the $150,000 others here are saying she should be compensated with. Seems to me that that would be a cheap way for Google/YouTube to get some good public relations for themselves.

Re: Will she get paid by YT?

[qzzpjs]

They can't claim it was a mistake if they purposely edited out her credit domino sequence from the front of the video.

Re: Will she get paid by YT?

[belthize]

See, what happened was a staffer slipped and fell on some coffee while uploading the video and accidentally hit a series of keystrokes that removed the initial portions of the video.

After a thorough investigation Youtube has fired the part time minimum wage janitor for not mopping up the spilled coffee so everybody should be happy.

Re:So she got ad revenue, right?

[alvinrod]

Doubtful, but I'm willing to bet that she winds up with a lot more publicity this way. Whether or not that's worth anything is another matter though.

Re: Content creators

[edris90]

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.

Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[Solandri]

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.

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.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[SlaveToTheGrind]

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.

Why guess when it takes only a minute or two to actually read the terms of the license? Here's the relevant provision (my emphasis):

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, 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 (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels .

It may well have been a bad business move, but it seems to me that "displaying/performing" a "derivative work" of the video in question "though any media channel" fits squarely within their rights under the license.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just read the license:

"you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, 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 (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels"

Youtuber's retain all their rights, but they practically give Youtube a license to do with the videos whatever the fuck Youtube wants.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[raftpeople]

"...prepare derivative works of..."

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[Known Nutter]

I don't think its a bad business move, really. Their Twitter feed is full of clips. The only difference in this case is they simply neglected to credit the creator as they do in all their other tweets.

Much ado another nothing as far as I can see.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[MobyDisk]

This is not neglect. It is not just that they didn't credit them. They went out of their way to remove the credit. If they had linked to the video would have credited them implicitly. Linking to the point 20-seconds into the video would have been rude, but would have credited them indirectly since it still leads to their channel. No, someone intentionally chopped the first 20 seconds off the video and uploaded that modified video. That's not neglect, that's a willful act.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[xlsior]

This is not neglect. It is not just that they didn't credit them. They went out of their way to remove the credit. I

That change made it a 'derivative work', which their license explicitly allows youtube to do as well.

While ethically questionable, they didn't violate their own license.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[MobyDisk]

Agreed. No one in this thread is asserting that they did violated any license. Merely that it was dirty, and more than simple neglect.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[lgw]

Google nevertheless harms its reputation here, perhaps by far more than the trivial $150k of ad revenue.

One more straw on the camel's back.

Re:Pretty sure that's a copyright violation

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Interestingly, the non-bolded part you omitted in between two bolded sections seems to limit the rights of the bolded part. I think a case could be made that this exceeds those limits.

I'm not sure if that case you be made against YouTube's lawyers, but that's just a "good luck holding corporations accountable" thing

What part

[fyngyrz]

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.

What part of "you are the product" do these people not understand?

Actually they have a right to change

[aepervius]

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.

Re: So she got ad revenue, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube didn't rip anything off. They own your video when you upload the content - well, own isn't the word, but they can use it however they want, more or less.

Read the fucking terms and conditions people, it's 2019 almost.

Re: So she got ad revenue, right?

[astrofurter]

As other respondents have pointed out with needless vulgarity, YouTube's one-sided "terms of service" almost certainly give them the legal right to use her content without compensation. The problem here is that _all_ "terms of service" documents essentially say the user has no rights - fuck you, prole, that's why.

This practice is called "lawful fraud". It occurs wherever one party is unilaterally allowed to define the terms of commerce. What's needed is legislation akin to the Uniform Commercial Code (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code) to set standard, fair business practices for online services.

Re: So she got ad revenue, right?

[lgw]

We need a digital bill of rights. Something that protects both ways: against censorship, and against use without attribution.

Do no evil

[belthize]

For arbitrary values of evil.

domino artist

[maxbuzz]

is this just another way of saying 'I live in my mom's basement'?

Re: So she got ad revenue, right?

[magzteel]

As other respondents have pointed out with needless vulgarity, YouTube's one-sided "terms of service" almost certainly give them the legal right to use her content without compensation. The problem here is that _all_ "terms of service" documents essentially say the user has no rights - fuck you, prole, that's why.

I guess this was necessary vulgarity?

Make me care

[BishopBerkeley]

I dare you. Of what significant consequence could this story possibly be?