Court rules copyright holders have to consider Fair Use before doing Youtube takedowns or else pay d
17 replies, posted
[quote]A music company’s demand that YouTube take down a 29-second home video of two children dancing to a song by Prince backfired Monday when a federal appeals court used the case to make it harder for copyright-holders to act against brief, non-commercial uses of their material.
Recording companies, motion picture studios and other copyright owners issue numerous takedown notices each day, targeting everything from home videos to campaign ads that include segments of songs or newscasts. When a copyright-holder tells a website like YouTube that one of its postings violates the holder’s exclusive rights to license the material, federal law requires that the posting be removed immediately.
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the copyright-holder must first consider whether such a video amounts to “fair use” of the work, making it eligible to be legally posted. Fair use includes journalistic accounts and criticism, educational uses for teaching or research, and brief, private postings that don’t damage the commercial market for the work.
The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages, said Judge Richard Tallman in the 3-0 ruling, the first on the issue by any appeals court.[/quote]
[url=http://www.sfgate.com/music/article/Demand-that-mother-remove-home-video-from-YouTube-6503900.php]SFGate[/url]
Wait what?
Is this real life?
Is it actually happening? Are the big movie and music industries finally being challenged in copyright?
It's insane that they even have to tell companies that they have to follow long established laws, but seriously good on them for doing it
This is great.
I guess this means Nintendo's bullshit on youtube is over.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48691007]This is great.
I guess this means Nintendo's bullshit on youtube is over.[/QUOTE]
Nintendo's lawyers will work this one out, they have so much money.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;48691033]Do San Francisco court of appeals verdicts apply to everywhere?[/QUOTE]No, of course not, but in the United States precedence is everything and if somebody in another state points to this decision and the judge presiding over that case agrees it helps everyone. If there was a [i]state law[/i] that specifically said that companies will be liable for x amount of damages, then this decision is enforced on a [i]federal[/i] level so anyone dealing with California and doesn't take fair use into account can be held liable across the US.
Of course a federal law regarding the same thing is binding nationwide.
(note, I'm not a lawyer, I just know some stuff)
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;48691033]Do San Francisco court of appeals verdicts apply to everywhere?[/QUOTE]
Its been a while since I have read up on the courts, but this is the US Court of Appeals and the only level higher is the Supreme Court, so thats a lot of power.
From wiki
"The United States courts of appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of Americans, the United States courts of appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to review less than 1% of the more than 10,000 cases filed with it annually, the United States courts of appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases. The Ninth Circuit in particular is very influential, covering 20% of the American population."
The ninth circuit being the court in question.
Finally someone realizes "Fair Use" exists.
Fuck clips of kids flopping to pop music. This is a huge boon for people who critique games. Shitty game devs will no longer be able to get away with DMCA takedowns on reviews they don't like!
This is the social progress I've been waiting for.
Does this mean that if I record an LP of sorts and a song comes on (For example, Battlefield 4's opening with "Eclipse of the Heart" playing in the opening) that I'd be safe under Fair Use?
Yep, this is a good day for the YouTubes. Concerning Daemon White's question, I dunno if you'd be safe if there was ad revenue involved, BUT for non-monetized videos I assume you'd be safe.
I'm not an expert on the subject, hell I'm not even a Let's Player or YouTube partner, but I've been following the hoohah over the years and been hearing smarter people than I talking about it in depth.
Also, hopefully this'll break Konami's knees in terms of their little crusade, although I don't think this means much when it comes to Nintendo's recent "revenue theft" scheme that's probably been giving ChuggaaConroy and ProtonJon an unpleasant rodgering in terms of their earnings. But hopefully the enforcement of Fair Use will help it become less painful with later legal gubbins.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;48691607]Does this mean that if I record an LP of sorts and a song comes on (For example, Battlefield 4's opening with "Eclipse of the Heart" playing in the opening) that I'd be safe under Fair Use?[/QUOTE]
Generally, as long as the song is not the focus, it is fair use.
Kind of obvious
[editline]16th September 2015[/editline]
I hope Nintendo's new management realises that they're trampling all over fair use law with their certification program. Yes they can officially sanction people, but they cannot forbid people from using clips of gameplay
Fucking finally.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.