|
Author
|
Topic: Putting 8mm on youtube and how yuotube deals with copyright
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted May 31, 2012 01:57 PM
We have a discussion some months ago about putting 8mm film (or any copyrighted film) in youtube and the consequences we will get if studios found it.
To know exactly what is the consequence and not only relying on "may" or "will" or "I think" words that seems absurbd to me, I uploaded copyrigthted film, i.e French Connection.
Youtube has very sophisticated software that no matter you shot the film half screen with the body of projector shown or even play the film in silent mode (no sound at all), the software still can catch me.
I still puzzled what type of software they use, because I also tried to speed up the film or put the camera far from the screen but I was still get caught with the message as follows:
quote:
Dear winberth0305,
Your video "FrenchConnection", has content that is owned or licensed by Fox....
But then there is a form that I can appeal and exercising my rights of "fair use" that is fully protected by US law.
Today I received this below response:
it reads:
quote:
Dear winberth0305,
FOX has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, "FrenchConnection". For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page
Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team
My conclusion that uploading 8mm digest is no harm although you may get caught at the first time. Youtube is working together with studios and if you can explain that the digest is not the entire film, they are not too stupid to think the whole film has been uploaded.
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted May 31, 2012 03:21 PM
Here is the screen shot of message I received:
Hugh, I understand what you are saying. But I just challenge this situation similar to the case when we were accused of speeding by the traffic Police while I didn't think so. I appealed my case.
I tried this just to see what will be the result. Without any this trial-and-error, we will always say "I think" or "may" or "will" based on no-fact at all.
Now I know.
Michael,
I learned from many places and found so many template to appeal.
Here is one of it:
http://tagg.org/YouTubeFox0710.html#Infringement
quote:
Dear YouTube,
Please find attached (Appendix 1) details of one/two clip[s] clips removed by you pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 512. I have a good faith belief that this material was removed or disabled in error as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material. I declare that this is true and accurate under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.
For the purposes of this matter, I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district of San Francisco County, California, and will accept service or process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. However, by this letter, I do not waive any other rights, including the ability to pursue an action for the removal or disabling of access to this material, if wrongful.
Having complied with the requirements of Section 512(g)(3), I remind you that you must now replace the blocked or removed material and cease disabling access to it within fourteen business days of your receipt of this notice. Please notify me when this has been done.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this notice, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
[Your signature]
You can search on youtube with "fair use" and many video tutorial about it.
In USA the "Fair use" is protected by law, I don't know in other country.
cheers,
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted June 02, 2012 05:46 AM
quote:
how you would feel if you'd spent part of your life producing something only for someone with no connection to the project to decide he/she was going to make the material available to the world free of charge with no attempt to ask for permission from you to do so.
John, you are missing my point in this trial and error effort.
Obviously, the person/studio who made the film (as you meant) has given the right for me to use his/her/its video after reviewing it that no harm was made to his/her/its products and they would not loose any money from that.
Please read again the email I received:
quote:
FOX has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video
James, why I did this... Because I have a feeling that a State should not bully its own citizen with the existing law and it should make (or provide) another law to give the citizen excercising their rights.
In this regard, I found that US law is adequate enough by having "fair use" law, I don't know in other countries. You may try.
I also learn why in any traffic lights installed with camera, authorithy must let the citizen know about the existing of the camera few metres before the corner because authority is not allowed to spy its own citizen or create somekind a bobby trap.
I also learn why in the US, Kodak was not allowed to sell K40 with "price include with process" as in many other countries because company could not bully consumer to only use its own products.
Etc, etc......
There are stilll many things which I think should be challanged before the law that also include something I questioned two weeks ago about Ebay holding seller's money for several weeks.
We need to be aware with the law.... It is not always black and white and citizens have the right to challange it.
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted June 04, 2012 12:41 PM
Hello Michael,well I can understand your point with viewing the
full feature on DVD as opposed to seeing an edited version on 8mm.The benefit of the digest is if well edited, should give the
viewer the impression he/she has seen the full feature.Some very
good examples are the PM Films "Assault on Precinct 13" 1x600 , "Ben Hur" 3x400, Iver Films "Helter Skelter" 2x400, "Dirty Mary,Crazy Larry" 1x400,"Golden Rendezvous" 1x600 PM Films,
"Major Dundee" 1x400 Columbia and the list goes on.In some
cases the digest was spoiled by the narrator telling us what
was self evident on screen or sometimes before it happened!
In lots of cases, it could be an improvement on the full film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
