Copyrights and once In a while the little guy wins.

I recently uploaded to YouTube a video of a political speech which prior to the person speaking contained in the background some music, well out of the blue Sony Music Entertainment nailed me for a Copyright infringement causing YouTube to block the monetization of the video making it useless to me.

I filed a counterclaim stating that the use of the copyrighted content was incidental to the editorial content of the video and therefore was not an infringement of Sony’s Copyright as Sony claimed in their filing.

Today I received an e-mail from YouTube informing me of the following:

Audio content administered by: Sony Pictures Movies & Shows Claim released.

Total time from filing the counterclaim to release four days, moral of the story, if someone should they be an individual or a mega-company claim that you have infringed upon their Copyright and you feel you have not, don’t rollover on your back and urinate upon yourself like a scared puppy, fight back.

Wayne

So you were posting the video for commercial use?

Editorial use and commercial use are two very different things. Not sure you had a fair use claim.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15457726
So you were posting the video for commercial use? Editorial use and commercial use are two very different things. Not sure you had a fair use claim.

The content of the video being a political speech is editorial content, just because some-ones music was playing in the background does not change that fact, nor does it constitute an infringement.

Now just because one wraps editorial content with paid advertising, that wrap does not change the editorial content into commercial content, for if it did every newspaper and TV station in the US would be in a huge bucket of legal HOT water.

SME was being nit picky and pushing the law and realized that, hence the back off.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #15457786
The content of the video being a political speech is editorial content, just because some-ones music was playing in the background does not change that fact, nor does it constitute an infringement.

Now just because one wraps editorial content with paid advertising, that wrap does not change the editorial content into commercial content, for if it did every newspaper and TV station in the US would be in a huge bucket of legal HOT water.

SME was being nit picky and pushing the law and realized that, hence the back off.

Wayne

But were YOU using it as editorial content or were you posting it for ad revenue?

That is the big difference.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15457833
But were YOU using it as editorial content or were you posting it for ad revenue?

That is the big difference.

It is editorial content and that content is used to attract eyeballs and the number of eyeballs it attracts is the baseline used to price the advertising supporting the owner of the content, that being me.

Ever watched the evening news?

If you have you might notice these annoying things called commercials, now those spots are not aired out of the kindness of the broadcasters heart, they are paid for and how much one pays per second is based on the number of eyeballs watching the evening news, but the sale of those slots during the news-hour does not change the content of the programming from editorial to commercial. Those are two different worlds.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #15457961
It is editorial content and that content is used to attract eyeballs and the number of eyeballs it attracts is the baseline used to price the advertising supporting the owner of the content, that being me.

Ever watched the evening news?

If you have you might notice these annoying things called commercials, now those spots are not aired out of the kindness of the broadcasters heart, they are paid for and how much one pays per second is based on the number of eyeballs watching the evening news, but the sale of those slots during the news-hour does not change the content of the programming from editorial to commercial. Those are two different worlds.

Wayne

If I shoot a pic and SI uses it, it is editorial. But that same pic used by Nike is commercial.

It all depends on the usage. Just because it is the same content as editorial doesn't mean it wasn't commercial content.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15458027
If I shoot a pic and SI uses it, it is editorial. But that same pic used by Nike is commercial.

And in this case I am SI. And there is no need to try and confuse it beyond that point, I produced the editorial content, therefore the content is mine to wrap with as I wish.

Wayne

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15457726
Editorial use and commercial use are two very different things. Not sure you had a fair use claim.

Well it looks like YouTube thought differently and they are the ones who count here.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #15458102
Well it looks like YouTube thought differently and they are the ones who count here.

And that's all I care about, the RMI is what the channel runs on.

Wayne

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #15458102
Well it looks like YouTube thought differently and they are the ones who count here.

I don't know if you had a hard time understanding or just didn't pay attention, but your comment doesn't make sense in line with what actually happened.

Youtube made no decisions about whether the same content could be used for commercial and editorial reasons. It is absolute fact that those two things are different, but the same piece of content can be used both ways. I've sold many images both ways. I don't think any intelligent person would dispute that.

It wasn't clear until Wayne's last post which way he had used it.

What happened is Sony filed a DMCA takedown and Youtube took it down accordingly. Wayne disputed that takedown and Youtube reinstated as they should according to law. Now it is back to Sony. They can refile or even file a lawsuit if they choose.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15458390
Wayne disputed that takedown and Youtube reinstated as they should according to law. Now it is back to Sony. They can refile or even file a lawsuit if they choose.

That is incorrect and if you had fully read my first post you might have understood such, unfortunately you apparently failed to do so, therefore I will repost what I already posted and I quote “Audio content administered by: Sony Pictures Movies & Shows Claim released.”

Sony has conceded and released the claim pure and simple…

Why you insist to “claim” otherwise baffles me.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #15458537
That is incorrect and if you had fully read my first post you might have understood such, unfortunately you apparently failed to do so, therefore I will repost what I already posted and I quote “Audio content administered by: Sony Pictures Movies & Shows Claim released.”

Sony has conceded and released the claim pure and simple…

Why you insist to “claim” otherwise baffles me.

Wayne

Have you gone through the DMCA before? You responded to their takedown claim. I must have missed that they decided not to pursue it any further. But what I said is exactly what happened. Since Youtube defined the laws in their lawsuit of Viacom V Youtube, they are very good about following the letter of the law. It was just a step further than I thought it was.

Congrats on beating Sony.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15458027
If I shoot a pic and SI uses it, it is editorial. But that same pic used by Nike is commercial.

It all depends on the usage. Just because it is the same content as editorial doesn't mean it wasn't commercial content.

Let's put this another way: Let's say I run a news/editorial comment blog that accepts paid advertising to pay my bills--which is no different from the way ABC news runs paid advertising during its news casts.

On that blog I run the same politician's speech with the same Sony music playing incidentally in the background.

Perfectly legal, no infringement.

RDKirk wrote in post #15458668
Let's put this another way: Let's say I run a news/editorial comment blog that accepts paid advertising to pay my bills--which is no different from the way ABC news runs paid advertising during its news casts.

On that blog I run the same politician's speech with the same Sony music playing incidentally in the background.

Perfectly legal, no infringement.

Yeah, no one is disputing that.

But you do understand that the same content CAN be used both editorially and commercially?

It wasn't clear from the OP which way it had been used.

the way I read it with his explanations was that the actual video is editorial. he is making money from other stuff not directly attached to the video. (page views get advertisers, which generate ad revenue)