Video copyright issues?

[Byuusan]

Well it not really an issue but i wanna know how other people who has Imas2 videos up on thier channel do with small 3rd party warnings. I just got a bunchful of warning no a few of the videos, granted, most of it was gameplay video but 1 of them.

Your video, iDOLM@STER 2 PS3 - Relations (Miki, Takane, Makoto) , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:

    Entity: BandaiChannel Content Type: Visual content

naturally, it still viewable but course i dont want it jump to copyright strikes, because there enough to close the account in 1 go.

[Setsuna]

Well, the sweep was big enough to catch all 350 something videos I have up there.

I'm fairly sure if there was a three strike rule, I'd bat enough for about a hundred people, give or take a bit.

Basically, today, they updated their identifying proceedures. I suspect it's in part due to an upgrade. Apparently youtube's been updating its proceedures for flagging.

Nothing that CAN be done about it, since the material is legally theirs. A more amusing note is that Megaupload is in a fight with Universal over a piece it paid good money to advertise (and has rights to reproduce) where youtube took it down (then put it back up) then took it down again, on the request of Universal.

It's a sorrid affair (since it leaves the question if Universal are permitted to engage in what could be seen as a bad faith action) and I imagine it was all automatic - it went up then immediately went down, which would suggest that youtube's filters are getting wider, and that it will automatically go down depending on the request of the copyright holder.

Or in this case, the right to run advertising to bolster revenue.

[TheTanStar]

My Let's Play of SP also got hit by the wave. However, I didn't get any strikes for it, so it should be fine.

[Setsuna]

Well, it seems I'm going to have to talk with their lawyers again. Or maybe I should get in touch with NBGI's department and get the letter I've been intending to get for ages instead.

It doesn't concern me too much though, although I imagine that with 350 or so strikes, it's not exactly likely I'll be continuing much direct uploads anytime soon.

Edit - It seems the 'strikes' according to the sort aren't actually strikes. Go figure, youtube can't classify them properly, even if you tell it to sort the notices.

Apparently according to my end, I've got 0, but virtually everything got content matched. It's not a bad thing, the sweep WAS curious though.

[~Lyssa~]

Hopefully I'm not jinxing myself here (I'm an lper, I have over 400 videos up...) but I have Im@s videos up and I've had no issues with copyright... I really can't get another strike or I'm gone from youtube x.x

[Crisu]

I think it's always helpful to include a disclaimer of some sort.  Acknowledge that the music, characters, and content are owned by NBGI and that your video is not intended for profit or to interfere with NBGI's right to profit from their intellectual property.

I'll have to look for a more formal wording -- perhaps a template that this community as a whole can use.

It's not a full solution I think, but my impression is that it's better than nothing.  That the people who crawl videos for copyright violations would sooner delete ones with no disclaimers than ones that do.  If we can cite actual documentation about fair use, that should be even more help.

[~Lyssa~]

I have part of a disclaimer I use - I can't give you the second half unless you let's play/use commentary. XD It wouldn't make sense.

"ATTENTION: All copyrighted material is owned by it's respective copyright holders."

[Clear Blue]

Just got 42 letters of that sort of warning and they're all S4U, in-game vids and the Jupiter CD content...Even the fanmade vids are being copyrighted by Bandai. WTH?!

[Setsuna]

Just got 42 letters of that sort of warning and they're all S4U, in-game vids and the Jupiter CD content...Even the fanmade vids are being copyrighted by Bandai. WTH?!

Basically, anyone who understands anything about DCMA will know that it's effectively nearly impossible (at least on a medium to large scale) to keep safe harbour provisions and review every single possible infraction in the time allocated (It's 5 days from memory).  It's easier to take down first, then ask questions later.

If you fail to challenge it, they are required (by US law) to take it down by the end of the period. You can counterfile, and if the other side doesn't reply in (I think) another five days (Namely with their case), they're required to let the contested video stay as they've conceded the point. They're in their right minds permitted to just go 'Fine, we'll take you to court' so it can be risky unless you really know where you stand.

Now, in a sane world, you'd think that any mistakes by youtube would just apply to any videos where it's been let through.

No, if you lose safe harbour by failing to comply with a single case, you lose it. Period. In short? Line up the lawyers, they've declared it Youtube suing season, and youtube can't do much about it if they lose the provision.

So it's actually in their best interests to automate the process as much as possible, because one miss is enough to get them blown out of the water.

So consequently their heavy preempting. I guess they've just conducted a periodic sweep with their new detection engine.

Note however, that it usually requires a takedown (for fair use cases), unless you're asserting that the material is substantially yours and/or you have acquired reproduction rights. (It's incredibly unlikely anyone here would fall under the catergory) since a non takedown will just redirect any ad money (if there is) to the content holder.

What does this mean? If you know where you stand, then find the paperwork then file an appeal (Assuming you know what the bounds of fair use are) which then gets forwarded on from Youtube to the content holder in question.

Of course, if you're wrong, their lawyers WILL eat you alive, if they decide to contest your counterclaim, because it will be played out in court.

[Crisu]

I don't think many of us really want to get into such a deep struggle...

We're just fans with very little money or influence.  Even if the companies may be unfairly using scare tactics to get us to remove our videos, we don't really have the capacity to fight it back.  It's too risky, because of the worst-case consequences you quoted.

I like what ~Lyssa~ is putting on her videos.  It's better than nothing, and it's easy enough for us fans to do without taking too much time out of our day.  Maybe I'm too passive, but I'd rather give up iM@S videos than have to deal with harrassing letters and threats of fines or jailtime.  Unfortunately I'm not paid a full-time salary to be a jerk to people and engage in legality fights day in and out.

Byuusan is looking for a simple solution we can all use.  I think it should be some sort of paragraph similar to what ~Lyssa~ has put together that we can copy-paste into the descriptions of all our iM@S videos.  It would explain that we don't own rights and have no intention to infringe upon them.  Maybe we'll also provide links to retail locations where you can buy the game.

[~Lyssa~]

I like what ~Lyssa~ is putting on her videos.  It's better than nothing, and it's easy enough for us fans to do without taking too much time out of our day.  Maybe I'm too passive, but I'd rather give up iM@S videos than have to deal with harrassing letters and threats of fines or jailtime.  Unfortunately I'm not paid a full-time salary to be a jerk to people and engage in legality fights day in and out.

Byuusan is looking for a simple solution we can all use.  I think it should be some sort of paragraph similar to what ~Lyssa~ has put together that we can copy-paste into the descriptions of all our iM@S videos.  It would explain that we don't own rights and have no intention to infringe upon them.  Maybe we'll also provide links to retail locations where you can buy the game.

Thanks! And I like the idea of adding locations where to buy! What I really don't understand is why companies feel the need to copyright our videos. We're in no way claiming we own the game - and it's clearly free advertising for them from all the fans who bought the game! When I lp or stream games I know quite a few of my viewers say "I went out and bought [insert game here] because I saw you playing it and it looked like fun!" they also state they wouldn't have heard of the game if I didn't play it. This includes Im@s - as I've streamed it before and got quite a few people interested... :/ I wish companies would realize this instead of being so greedy and money-hungry. x_x

[Crisu]

When I lp or stream games I know quite a few of my viewers say "I went out and bought [insert game here] because I saw you playing it and it looked like fun!" they also state they wouldn't have heard of the game if I didn't play it.

This is exactly how I feel about it.  The problem begins with how companies are fixated on the idea that we're "stealing" revenue from them.  Since all their actions stem from this one flaw, it makes fighting it all the more difficult.

I understand Setsuna's point that the most correct thing to do would be to fight it and educate these companies that we're not hurting their profitability.  But it's a struggle that we just don't have the energy or resources to take on.  So we have to look at the next best thing.

[TheTanStar]

Unfortunately, putting a disclaimer is not going to help a legal case one bit (although it's a good place to make fun of the practice): Especially because companies are focused on protecting their IPs. They like to believe that posting any gameplay videos will hurt their sales (and never boost them), and therefore they go after the people who make these videos. However, one can definitely argue fair use for any gameplay video (but not cutscenes; for example, Take Two doesn't allow the uploading of cutscenes) despite what the developers/publishers may argue.

Forgot to mention: I believe that the videos were flagged manually. This is because my newer/unlisted videos were not hit by the Content ID wave.

[Crisu]

I believe that the videos were flagged manually.

This is where I start to challenge the people hired by YouTube to manually flag videos.  I'm willing to bet they are no more educated than we are about copyright law, so if they see a video that cites a complicated Fair Use rationale, they might leave it alone and instead target the videos that offer nothing in their descriptions.

Wikipedia has had crusades about fair use for uploaded images on their site.  Now you have long explanations like the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NES_Super_Mario_Bros.png
from which we could probably borrow some of the wording.

[TheTanStar]

Maybe I should clarify what I meant: The flag wave is just Namco Bandai sending a list of "offending videos" so that they can be flagged by YouTube. A disclaimer is not going to change anything about that.