UPDATE 09-12-2007 12:29 am EST: YouTube has restored the clip
“Chutzpah” is a Yiddish word meaning “unbelievable gall or audacity”. An example of it would be the story of the kid who murders both of his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.
That’s chutzpah. So is this: multimedia giant Viacom is claiming that I have violated their copyright by posting on YouTube a segment from it’s VH1 show Web Junk 2.0… which VH1 produced – without permission – from a video that I had originally created.
Viacom used my video without permission on their commercial television show, and now says that I am infringing on THEIR copyright for showing the clip of the work that Viacom made in violation of my own copyright!
The clip in question was pulled by YouTube earlier this morning, at Viacom’s insistence.
Last fall, as part of my campaign for Rockingham County Board of Education, I produced three commercials that ran on local television. The first of them – which I simply dubbed “Christopher Knight for School Board TV Commercial #1” – was hosted on YouTube the same evening that the ad started running on WGSR in Reidsville. You can watch it at http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLi5B0Iefsk.
Well, the concept of a candidate for Board of Education pitching himself by using the Death Star to blow up a little red schoolhouse is admittedly unusual. The YouTube clip got around quite a bit: as of this writing it’s received over sixty-six thousand views. I put it and the other two ads on YouTube so that I could post them on this blog (because I was trying to chronicle everything that happened during the course of my campaign). And I’d always intended to keep them up after the election too, in case anyone else might find and enjoy watching them. Heck, I’ve always liked to think that maybe someday, others might see how I was a candidate and feel led to run for office themselves!
A month and a half ago some friends let me know that the cable network VH1 was spotlighting the commercial on their show Web Junk 2.0, in an edition titled “Animals & Other Crap”.
VH1 took the video that I had created and hosted on YouTube, and made it into a segment of Web Junk 2.0. Without my originally-created content to work with, VH1 would not have had this segment at all. They based this segment of Web Junk 2.0 entirely on the fruit of my own labor.
I got to catch the episode and was laughing pretty hard not just at host Aries Spears’s witty commentary about my commercial, but that VH1 had found the commercial worthy of sharing with such a vast audience.
Please bear in mind that at no time prior to the broadcast of this show was I contacted by VH1 or its parent company Viacom. At this time, I’ve received no communication from Viacom whatsoever about this.
I was quite aware that they were using my own not-for-profit work for commercial purposes and that they should have contacted me. But I didn’t really care that they were doing that, either. It was just nice to see something that I had worked on getting seen and appreciated by a lot more people than what I had intended for a local audience. And I was glad that Melody Hallman Daniel, the voice-over actress in the spot, received some widespread notice of her considerable talent.
I was so proud that my commercial had been highlighted on Web Junk 2.0 that I posted the segment featuring it on YouTube so that I could put it on this blog, just like I’d posted the original commercial.
Did I think about the issue of copyright when I did that? Of course I did! But if this wasn’t a matter of Fair Use, then I don’t know how anything else would qualify it as such either. I made the original video, VH1 used it without my permission and I didn’t particularly have a problem with that. I thought that they would have readily understood that were it not for my creativity and effort, that this edition of Web Junk 2.0 would have had to find some material elsewhere.
And then this morning the following e-mail arrives from YouTube:
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 features my school board commercial!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddyVQwpByugPlease Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube’s copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
So Viacom took a video that I had made for non-profit purposes and without trying to acquire my permission, used it in a for-profit broadcast. And then when I made a YouTube clip of what they did with my material, they charged me with copyright infringement and had YouTube pull the clip.
Folks, this is, as we say down here in the south, “bass-ackwards”.
I have written to YouTube’s division of copyright enforcement, telling them that the VH1 clip is derived from my own work and that I should be entitled to use it as such. So far I haven’t heard anything back from them. After reading that last part of the initial e-mail that they sent me, I’m wondering how apt they might be to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to wipe out the accounts of anyone who even raises such a fuss about something like this, no matter how well-grounded it is.
What does this mean for independent producers of content, if material they create can be co-opted by a giant corporation without permission or apology or compensation? When in fact, said corporations can take punitive action against you for using material that you created on your own?
That’s what’s happening to me right now, folks. Viacom is penalizing me for using my own original material, which they used without permission to begin with.
I would really like to fight this as hard as I can. Unfortunately at the moment I lack the time and resources to do this on my own. I am also, admittedly, not an attorney. There’s a good bit of knowledge of copyright law floating around in my gray matter, but it’s not nearly enough to mount the challenge that I would like to levy against Viacom for doing this.
I want to publicly declare this: that I am not out for any money. Not a single penny. All I want is for the clip to be restored to its original address on YouTube. And I want it to be established that other creators of content have a right under Fair Use to show how their works are being appreciated in the wider world. I just want the rest of us who aren’t affiliated with corporate media to have as much right to use our own work as “the big boys” enjoy for theirs.
Any inquiries or suggestions or anything else pertaining to the matter can be directed to me at theknightshift@gmail.com.
EDIT 8:22 p.m. EST: Want to see the forbidden video clip of Web Junk 2.0 using my TV commercial? Mash down here, grasshoppah! Special thanks to Richard Moore for hosting it!
Bravo, IStudios. Finally, a lucid, well-thought out, and CORRECT post about this issue. I am an IP lawyer, and while of course I am not giving legal advice to anyone here, I applaud IStudios for his thorough analysis of the facts, application of the law and spot-on conclusions. BTW, I’m not some corporate shill…I’m a musician and songwriter, so I truly value original creativity and believe it’s important for ALL creators to protect their property.
Nobody said Viacom had more rights than Chris. The Issue is not really about the size of the corporation. Sure they dwarf Chris in size and talent. But think about what would happened here, try and reverse the situation. Lets say hypothetically CBS(viacom)put one of those watch a crappy sitcom ad on youtube(willingly). Now, It’s a 30 second spot which is intended to get exposure and not money. Now lets say Chris HOSTS IT ON HIS OWN WEBSITE it on his blog with some additional commentary. CBS no longer has the right to take that same ad and put it on youtube because CBS does not own the right to do that. All Chris would have to do is get in contact with youtube and the clip would be taken down. Which is basically what happened. It would be foolish for Viacom to try and continue to get his permission to put his clip on youtube, where anybody can steal it. Oh and by the way, I love the guy above me. Apparently a real American is ready to get litigious without without regard to common sense and the law. Have fun fake-slipping in supermarkets.
Who’s Jeff? I am certainly NOT Jeff, whoever he is.
“Real American”? And what is that exactly?
Viacom and Google are American too. And I support them. Does that make me a “real American”? And do those of you in here who DON’T support them NOT “real Americans”?
Is a “real American” someone who blindly supports another American who breaks the law? My word for that is Dumb.
So should we take legal advice from someone who says we should be “real Americans”?
Equal under the law, I agree. That’s how the courts see it too.
But what makes you think that ‘equal under the law’ means that Christopher has a case and will win? Apparently, you’ve already judged the outcome based on your idea of ‘equal under the law’.
I’m not judging Christopher. I’m just playing devil’s advocate and trying to point out the legalities he has overlooked.
If he takes this up, the judge or jury in court will decide the case based on the law and the facts.
There’s too much emphasis in here on ‘them’ and ‘us’, the big boys and the little guy. And going on that basis, most of the responses are urging Christopher to fight them.
It’s not as simple as that. He alone has to answer for his actions, no-one else, and he may very well lose.
And where is he going to get all the money needed to fight them? Not from any of you “sue them” idiots, for sure!
It still takes money for a “real American” to be ‘equal under the law’, doesn’t it?
And thank you, IP lawyer! Yes, we IP creators as a whole aren’t anywhere near as protective of our creations as we should be.
Chris did get screwed by a corporation, but it wasn’t Viacom. It was Youtube. But that shouldn’t surprise anybody. They put sketchy legal disclaimers in order to grab your content have their way with it. Same thing with all the illegal uploads. They blame their users for the illegal uploads when they should take part of the responsibility for hosting the content. I have a solution: boycott Youtube. Next time you want to see what Homer said to Bart in Season 4 Episode 6 go and rent the DVD. Missed last night’s The Office? Go and download it from Itunes. The demand is there for the content. If it wasn’t for Youtube and P2P maybe companies could custom sell their products direct from their sites. Imagine living in a word where you can get the Star Wars Holiday Special In a DVD direct from Lucas. Or I don’t know maybe the Transformers Soundtrack could be easily obtained by placing an order form. Maybe IFC or somebody could hire budding film makers to make quirky spots intended for a small audience. But none of this can happen with Youtube giving it away for free!
IANAL, but…
IMHO you have an entirely different case here, although you may well have diluted it by your comments on this site.
If I had posted a video, and some huge corporation had used it on TV in a segment called “Web Junk”, I would be kicking back on a brand new yacht about now.
By doing such a thing, they not only used your IP without permission but mocked it by calling it “Web Junk”, seriously damaging your reputation as a producer and tortuous interference with yo momma, etc.
Stop being a nice guy and call a GOOD lawyer.
And if you win, please send me some money!
David – it’s pretty clear you’re not a lawyer, because if you were you would know that what you said is ridiculous.
Using part of CK’s clip on Web Junk was not infringement b/c by posting to YouTube, the poster pretty much gives up all his rights and V may well have had a license from YT. Not that they need permission to do what they did – the usage of CK’s clip in Web Junk for the purpose of commentary and criticism is pretty much the most clear cut example of fair use I can think of.
Secondly…defamation for calling it “web junk”?!?!? Can movie producers sue every time they get a bad review? Please, stop talking about stuff you really don’t know…and your misuse of words like “diluted” and “tortuous interference” (it’s “tortious” btw) doesn’t help – it only further exposes your ignorance of the law.
IAAL but I ain’t yours so none of this should be construed as legal advice. Peace.
Now I’m sure istudios is Jeff.
I understand your anger at their, admittedly, ridiculous claim of infringement. Unfortunately, I think the law is actually on their side. Not only did you post the clip to Youtube, it’s also a political ad, which can definitely be used for almost any purpose after it’s been published.
Additionally, what they did was definitely fair use in a journalistic sense. They did not simply play your ad but commented on it and, essentially, changed and incorporated the work in another. I’m oversimplifying here, of course.
What you did was simply post the clip as is. Now, if you had cut it up and used it to make your own commentary of their commentary, that would be fair use again. This could go on forever without anyone having any basis for a legal claim. Simple copy and past/post is not protected as such.
6. Your User Submissions and Conduct
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions 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 User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.
So basically, YouTube can do what it wants with stuff you upload… However, you cannot post videos if you did not produce, own, or create, specifically if they are “watermarked” with a tv network logo… Unless you have permission.
So basically. Tough luck. Learn you lesson and move on. Don’t put stuff on the internet unless you are prepared to have it ripped off. Large companies like Viacom don’t pick fights they can’t win.
Some of you people have no understanding at all of real copyright. You read the terms of service and think that’s everything you need to know. I work in a copyright attorney’s office and at no point do I know of has Knight given away rights to his ad in the way that Viacom is ascribing.
I work at NASA doing data entry. That does not make me an astronaut.
YouTube has restored the video.
business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions
Posted By Blackpool Hotels
Date: 19th September 2007
Quote:
Anonymous said … (2:23 AM, August 30, 2007) :
You sir, are an ass.
Website designer…
HA !
[/endqote]
Better then most peoples myspace pages.
What? You thought that was all I was going to say? It’s not.
That sucks dude. Glad they put the video back up. Did you use a GNU or Creative Commons license when you published it?
Great post about the importance of exercise! Check it up!
Chris,
I just heard the interview you gave to the CBC in 2007 about this issue. They’ve repeated it a couple times during their Christmas schedule, so your story is still fresh within the wider press.
ms
Hii, do you know that I have been banned from Youtube by order of Viacom because I posted a few old clips that I think forgotten by all people.
free runescape account here
http://free-runescape-account.blogspot.com/
http://free-runescape-account.blogspot.com/
So, first they steal your work. Then repeatedly dis you and your work. And it add injury to insult, cry like the giant babies they are because you reshowed your own work, with basically a tiny bit their work capping it, and one major insult during. They’re lucky you didn’t sue for libel/defamation of character, etc.
Imagine the publicity over Viacom stealing people’s content, and insulting them throughout. Quite frankly, the real issue is you rippping off Star Wars, and George Lucas loves fanvids so much, I doubt he’d mind.
Your vid is exactly what Fair Use is about. They use yours, you use theirs (within a reasonable amount of their content). You are the victim here, not them. They committed the real crime: stealing and unsulting you and your work.
You should say Viacom endorses you, since the vid clearly shows a Viacom employee saying he’d want you on the board.
Good work. We must destroy such companies like VIACOM with their own guns. COPYRIGHTS 😀
Suing Viacom! Way to go, I hope you win (not that you can).
The internet has changed hasn’t it; we use to hope for this kind of attention back on WWWF! I wish we had YouTube! Would have made quite a difference!
May the force be with you!
-Steve
(hehehe Chris vs. Viacom?)
unfortunately youtube has a lot of fine print protecting themselves against something like this, in fact they profit greatly off of other peoples labor, the whole thing is a mess, the problem is we as viewers are in it for fun, while the vultures are out for blood, the only thing you can do is share you story, and let public opinion work for you, I will help share this story if you don’t mind, of all the nerve!
nice post
u r blog Is very nice
Small business website design
good post 🙂
Nuff said..
Awesome fiasco!
My recent machinima might help to explain..
The Raven King on Copyright,
I contacted the EFF regarding this, and they told me to give you this link.
http://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals
I agree in part with Chris Knight but the youtube video is not the same
Sadly, you need to register a work before you can sue for infringement. To add insult to injury, the courts really cut down on your damages if an infringement occurred prior to registration.
The lobbyists set it up this way so that they – the patricians – can get away with anything but the plebeians get silenced.
Good work. We must destroy such companies like VIACOM with their own guns.
unfortunately youtube has a lot of fine print protecting themselves against something like this, in fact they profit greatly off of other peoples labor,
The Banjo Players Must Die