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!
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this by now, but the DMCA creates a procedure for exactly this kind of situation. Viacom has exercised its statutory rights in sending a takedown notification. Now you should simply exercise your statutory rights and send a counter-notification.
Go here, where YouTube explains the procedure for doing this. Various users have been successful at getting their content reuploaded in the past, though this does seem to be a rather unique case.
I have been banned from Youtube by order of the evil corporation Viacom. I posted short clips of a many years old show that will now be forgotten because Viacom is too greedy and bureaucratic for its own good! //ophiax
I’m sure we are all impressed with your nobility in not requesting any money, but I think strategically that is the wrong move. You need to realize that the only way to affect a massive conglomerate is the only place where shareholders and board members will notice, and that’s their bottom line. Once they have lost a couple million dollars to lawsuits they will enact policy to prevent future unwarranted loss of capital, and that trickle down will ultimately mean that the little guy is better off. Sue the crap out of them.
The thing you are missing is that neither party could have infringed on each other’s property without Youtube. Youtube is basically a web-based version of a sketchy black market. Sure they might mean to just promote independent works, such as your Star Wars piece(which is exempt from copyright law based on th fact that is a parody). But the fact of the matter is that the input from illegal uploads, which some might argue Youtube relies on, is far greater than the resources that are necessary for the company to properly police its own content. Viacom in the other hand has the means to legally challenge any entity when it feels the necessity to do so. The amount of content that has been taken from them is well over the amount of content that could ever be taken from you. Remember Youtube gives you the ability to showcase any content you upload but it does not provide you any legal protection. If you wanted to use the clip from Webjunk you should have contacted VH1, just as they should have contacted you. The problem is that since you voluntarily uploaded your clip into a notoriously illegal playground, they probably consider your clip to be in public domain.
You are embarrassing yourself by cliaming that Viacom infrigned on anything. You may want to read YouTube’s TOS before posting something. Youtube transferred the rights to Viacom. That is within their rights. You then took the VH-1 show, which is copyright infringement. You are still free to post your clip. But not the VH-1 show’s clip.
If you feel the need to blame someone, blame yourself and Google.
And to all the commenters…PLEASE stop giving this guy terrible advice liek that he should sue, or send a coutner notice challenging hte take down notice. He has NO basis for a lawsuit, nor to keep the clip of the VH-1 show on his site. Believe it or not, Viacom, and Google have lawyers who know FAR more about the law that you do. As for the idiots saying “No one watches TV anymore anyway.” well, that is just stupid. Far more people watch TV than do what you think is fun to do.
“But would the title/comments on the YouTube page indicating the piece from VH1 on my commercial qualify as a report?”
No. I’m sorry that you’re taking this so personally, but you’re mixing contexts.
An article about the piece being on VH1 is a creative work of text.
A video report of the piece being on VH1 with clips from the broadcast is a creative work of video.
But what you’re defending is both: somehow your surrounding text work exempts the copyright of the video?
If that’s so, then any copyrighted work could be infringed upon by simply writing a “report” shell around it and sticking it online. I think you’d agree that’s not a good idea.
Seriously, just do what Oliver said, and recraft it as a video report.
This is really sad and very annoying, the big companies are really being unfair when the behave like this.
I know how you feel. I hope You Tube looks into this and allows fairness to decide.
Stumbled and digged.
I hope you get coverage for this important issue. If you can think of anything the community can do to support you, let us know. I’ll keep checking back.
It was kind of a dick thing to do on Viacom’s part, but since you clearly infringed on George Lucas’ copyright I doubt you have much of a case.
Send the good people at http://www.consumerist.com an email. They might be able to help you out.
Anon beat me to this comment, but let’s do take it back one more step with this question:
Is Mr. Knight’s use of the imperial cruiser and death star a violation of George Lucas’ Star Wars copyrights?
Layer upon layer, it would seem.
I am not thoroughly familiar with US copyright laws. However, it seems that (as many before me have told, in more words perhaps) legally, you’re wrong. Their use of your product qualifies as Fair Use. But the product they aired is a copyrighted material on its own, the copyright of which has nothing binding it with the copyright of yours. So, unless you post a video on youtube where you comment on their product, you are infringing on the DMCA, for you have copied their material not for personal use, but for public showing.
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, eh?
It is unpleasant, but Viacom is 100% in the right from a legal standpoint. You need to read and understand your Terms and Conditions for posting on YouTube, which basically grants YouTube limited distribution rights on your videos, which they can exercise for promotional purposes. By allowing VH1 to air your video–which exists at the same time as content on YouTube’s copyrighted website–YouTube essentially has promoted its website. (Viacom probably pays YouTube a nominal fee for this, which is one reason why a site like YouTube is profitable.)
The bottom line is that Viacom owns the WebJunk 2.0 clip in its entirety because they acquired the right to use your video. They will win in court–and if they don’t, they will appeal until they do win. Broadcast corporations are very protective of their content, and they lobby lawmakers to see things their way.
Also, Fair Use does not apply because–except within the field of education–you can only reproduce a small portion of copyrighted material for the purpose of commentary. (Think of sports highlights–which are actually only as extensive as they are because news organizations subscribe to show the content.)
Ok, simple solution.
They used about 1 minute of footage that you paid for. And they made money for it.
Send them a notice that states that you want 1/22 of the profits made from that episode. As they used 1 minute of your footage, and the show is approximately 22 minutes long.
so what does george lucas thnk of your using his “original ideas” in your commercial? did you get permission to use the “death star” “tie ighter” and other “start wars” artifacts? whose the real hippocrate here?
What’s a hippocrate?
A hippocrate, besides a way to ship large water dwelling mammals, is someone who believes he actually owns a copyright on a parody. Youtube basically gives away your clip in any way and form. The only thing this guy actually owns is the idea of making fun of star wars with this very specific idea, not the actual clip. And the only way he could sue is if they REMADE the clip for financial gain without giving him credit.
Counter sue. It’d be great PR for you and a lovely way to invite Viacom to make itself look even more ridiculous. My content gets ripped by TV a lot, but I’m happy about that. However if I decided to post an excerpt (which I’ve done) and got one of those letters I’d go NUTS.wi
This comment has been removed by the author.
sue their butts!
Here’s the thing…
1) they had no right to use your content without your permission, but
2) you have no right to use their content without permission, UNLESS you can claim fair use (e.g. incorporating a short clip into a larger piece for purposes of commentary, parody etc.)
Both apply! If you only incorporated your material in the YouTube clip, without the VH1 commentary, that should be ok, since it’s just a copy of something to which you own copyright. Aries Spears’ comments, however, are Viacom’s, and you can’t post it without permission. Yes, this is stupid, but it’s also law as it stands today. The fact that they improperly used your work does not give you a right to do use their work.
I agree with Anonymous.
Heze the man!
Viacomm made a huge mistake putting your video on Webjunk. Not because of copyright issues, but because they thought your video was meant to be serious. And that’s the only way that crap could have been funny. You sir don’t have a tenth of the talent Aries Spears has. I’m not a fan of him by any means but at least he made his fame like any other comedian, by working hard at comedy shows and auditions. You are getting your fifteen minutes because you are either too lazy or too dumb to read the disclaimers where you post your “comedy”. This ranting about Viacomm infringing on your work only adds to the proof that you are heavily detached from reality. It must be great to live in a world where you think your nerdy hack self is funny enough to film, but funny enough that a cable show would steal it. You are no better than “The Star Wars Kid”. He was funny, unintentionally. At least the “Numa Numa Kid” was tongue in cheek. So my opinion: go ahead and make a big deal out of this. I look forward to seeing you ridicule yourself with these silly claims. You can be the “copyright infringement kid”.
Ignore the anonymous twit right above me. He’s a loser who wouldn’t know which end of a camera to point at what he’s shooting. Personally I think you’ve got a load of talent and a great warped sense of humor. Keep up the great work!
Actually, I know exactly where to point a camera; away from that monchichi looking nerd. Personally Joel, I think you must not get out much if you find that nerd funny or original.
There are problems with the DMCA and your case illustrates it brilliantly. Good luck with this.
Stopped reading comments when no one pointed out that you are guilty of copyright infringement to Lucas Arts and/or Industrial Light and Magic. I’m sure you asked them if you could use that ‘footage’. Sure, go public with it. Lose your shirt. Good Luck.
If you don’t want money, then you’re doing the right thing. As mentioned, if George gets wind of this.. hold onto your hat. They sue almost as much as that metallurgic band that suck. I say you need money. If you’re trying to sue for copyright, when your GUILTY of it before it ever happened…wow. You need a LOT of money. For that edumacation thinga magig. You know.. book learnin!
copyright isn’t necessarily the crime viacom have commitied (If they have gained persmission from YouTube), the fact is Viacom has informed a third party that you have committed a crime, which you have not as you own the copyright on your own original work…
That is defamation and in most countries is an civil offence to which the subject of such defemation can sue.
You may even own the copyright in the deriviative works, at least the parts of your making – Viacom may (or may not) have a licence to use it from YouTube.
If you revoke the licence the terms and conditions have granted to YouTube, then the licence YouTube has granted to Viacom, if they have, should no longer be valid.
Also terms and conditions can be unawful, they are just put in because most people don’t know otherwise. Ultimatly does clicked an I agree button constitute a creastion of a contract based on the terms and conditions? If not the terms and conditions are meaning less. Do terms and conditions break existing legistation? if so they are unlawful and meaning less.
get youtube to tell you if they have given rights to Viacom for your clip. If they don’t threaten to take them to court to reveal whether thay have or not as you own your own work and the right to grant the licence;
Also the stuff in the above post is intresting, even though you have agreed to terms and conditions, the terms themselves may not be lawful (i.e. they can’t really do what they say). I know in the UK this can be the case, for example I know the clause in my Contract for work states that I can not work for a similar company for a year after leaving; I also know this clause is unlawful and it can not be enforced, the company only put it in there because most people don’t know any better.
“Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners.”
1. Sue YouTube for being such cowards
2. Stick the thing up using other platforms
3. Do add a list of all the bits and bobs you’ve borrowed in your video making career
4. Think of say another 29 “infringements” you can attempt and make a book/film/musical of the whole shebang when you have enough
5. Seems to me that Viacom may be showing a fantastic sense of humour here, YouTube are the idiots – Viacom would never have expected YT to comply … but they did
Looks as if George Lucas didn’t mind since his website for teachers linked to Chris’ commercial and gave it high praise.
Easy. Youtube is publicly shared “creative” media (that’s why we use it, right?), VIACOM’s media is private, copyright”ed” material. But ANY judge will dismiss their case against you.
Chris Knight’s videos ARE copyrighted. If you create something original it’s automatically copyrighted. He didn’t surrender copyright because he put them on Youtube.
This is like the copyright legal version of that scene in Reservoir Dogs where everyone is shooting at everyone else.
I read about halfway down the comments section before posting, so forgive any redundancy in this post, but there are a few key things here…
I have actually looked into copyright law- for my own purposes (even speaking to an intellectual property rights lawyer) And the key thing is, as soon as you put your idea to paper/video/voice recording- whatever- you hold copyright to that work. While registering your copyright strengthens it, honestly, in your case, copyright is pretty clear- you made the original video, it features you, you stated in the video that you PAID for it…You own the copyright on that video. As far as how to handle what Viacom did-regardless of whether you are “after money” or not, consult an Intellectual Property Rights lawyer, figure out how much you can get out of Viacom for their illegal profiting from your original content, and SUE THEM! How are you gonna pay for this lawyer you ask? Don’t. Make Viacom pay for it. I would talk to your counsel about this when you do your consult, but I’m pretty sure that, beyond the actual rights suit, you can also sue for the the fees related to the case (legal counsel, court cost, time lost from work in prsuit of the case). If you do that, maybe that’ll learn the greedy corporate bosses from bullying people into not being able to use their own stuff.
Crying shame what the entertainment giants are doing to our nation’s culture and people. We should form a government and pass laws to regulate what they can do. Oh, wait. Yeah. Huh. I guess we should just relax and enjoy it, then? Good luck with that.
The only reason they steal people’s stuff is because they have no good ideas.
Put your own commentary over the VH1 clip making it your derivative work and post that on youtube/your blog.
Viacom has a right to their work… albeit a derivative of your work, which they likely obtained through sublicense with youtube/google and have a right to use, but none the less…
so take it back, make it your work again… a parody of a parody of a parody.
/wipes hands
Sorry for calling you a nerd. Go ahead and steal all you like.
I hope you take them for all they’re worth, or at least a big chunk of change. These jokers need to learn they can’t keep taking advantage of “the little guy” and get away with it.
I myself am an animator, and digital cartoonist. The fact that they used your copyrighted works without noticing you, the author is bad enough, but to show your face on international TV and RIDICULE your work is an INSULT. This is no longer just about copyright infringement.
I’d hurt them if I were you. I’d hurt them bad. There’s nothing like taking the story straight to the competition. They’d probably love you to bits for it too
Er.. NOT for profit…?
There ARE other ways to profit besides the obvious financial means. The original purpose of the ad was to get yourself elected for a stint on the county board of educaction.
On the other hand… I’m surprised that the lawyers from Lucasfilm and/or 20th Century Fox and/or Kenner haven’t been beating their way to your door with legal papers – given the props used in your commercial are obviously from Star Wars and the scene you created is awfully close to scenes in Episode 4…
Mayhap it’s a question of the pot calling the kettle black…?
I have read enough US and International Copyright cases. Using work from another for informational purposes, be it in whole or in part is legal based on the fact that the user of the content can prove it was necessary to use the amount they did. Not seeing the peice, I con’t not state if the peice, copyrighted material was infringed. If they used all of the piece, they would have a hard time proving this in a court. You posting the Viacom is a infrigement, sorry to say, you have to include it in your own material, by creating a new peice of your own product to use Viacoms video/content. Your right to complain about Vicaom. They should pay on a per frame bases, by the fact they can’t prove all your video was needed for their show. If I understand they did use all the video piece as I understand? I hope.
First of all, why the HELL did you post your original video on YouTube? How stupid is that?
Posted on your OWN website, THEN you might have a leg to stand on.
The way you told your story makes this affair seem bizarre and funny.
But the way you handled the whole thing, sorry, you essentially gave away your rights and now you basically have none. Go ahead, consult a lawyer and see what he says.
Listen to those sue-happy clowns up there and you’ll end up in deeper trouble, my friend. Like someone said, these big corporations have whole armies of lawyers who know far, far more than any of us in here.
Let’s put aside your ‘noble’ gesture of making a non-profit video, and also put aside your further ‘noble’ intent of not wanting any money for this. This is suspicious in and of itself. Makes me wonder if you’re feeling guilty about something.
And look at the facts.
1. Your video was and is original and you still own the copyright to it, yes. That is, your ORIGINAL video. Not the second one you recorded off of VH1 cable.
2. YouTube is a free public Internet domain / website belonging to Google. Owners of free public sites expectedly will have strict rules and guidelines for users, and sweeping disclaimers and indemnities, in order to protect their own positions.
3. VH1 belongs to Viacom, which is a private commercial entity. In order to use its media, you need to pay for it. In other words, they are NOT free public media.
You are mixing up the two and lumping them together, brother. They are VERY different, work in different ways and have different laws covering them.
4. You put your original video up onto a free public site, fully knowing (even if you foolishly did not read the TOS) that, on a free public site, anyone in the world can view it, share it, download it and basically use it in any way they choose.
You want your 15 minutes, that’s the trade-off, kiddo!
5. The TOS of the free public site you used, and to which you agreed, specifically states that you grant the site owner licensing rights to allow others to use or distribute any uploaded material.
What do you THINK that means? HA!
6. You recorded a segment belonging to a private commercial media corporation (in its entirety I’m assuming, because you wanted to ‘show’ it to others), and posted it up onto a free public site.
This was not YOUR original material. It was VH1’s original material. It may have contained footage featuring you, your creative material and a Star Wars’ theme, but the entire Web Junk video belongs to VH1 / Viacom and they own the full copyright to it.
This is where ‘journalistic license’ comes in. They are a media corporation, that’s their job.
You should have left it well alone, or put a link to it in your blog, site, wherever, or just write about it. Those are better, more honest and more accepted ways for you to show the world material belonging to others.
7. Notice that VH1 / Viacom did NOT do the stupid thing of sticking up their copyright material onto a free public site.
They did not sign over their rights to all and sundry. Like you did. So they are fully within their rights in protecting their copyright material.
8. YT / Google was only doing its job according to its guidelines and rules in their TOS.
To their credit. Being a free public site, with the millions of profiles on their rolls and the amount of garbage, trash and pure unadulterated plagiarised material that comes in, they still took the trouble to act on a delinquent member.
Yes, that’s what you are. No matter what you might think of what you posted. You didn’t follow their rules, short and simple.
Do you think YT / Google is going to get all protective of the copyright of one original video posted on their free public site? When it is not even the video in question.
And disregard the copyright of a video belonging to a private commercial media corporation?
Its very scary that a lot of people leaving comments have no grasp of what “equal under the law” means. Some of you are saying that Chris should be deprived of rights because he’s not a giant company or because of what his commercial looks like or other things. In my opinion people like some of you are not real Americans. We either have equal consideration for all or we have equality for none.
Ignore the last comment they seem to think that posting something on youtube means you relinquish all ownership of something.
I’m not going to suggest suing somone etc but I do suggest you kick up a fuss over the issue. No matter how large or small an organisation they shouldn’t be allowed to take somones work without following the proper procedures.
Chris, it doesn’t really matter, but istudios is almost certainly Jeff “mouthing off”. It’s his style.