8mm Forum: Putting 8mm on youtube and how yuotube deals with copyright

This is topic Putting 8mm on youtube and how yuotube deals with copyright in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007145

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on 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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 31, 2012, 02:09 PM:

Hi Winbert,
How did you word your appeal, if you don't mind my asking?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 31, 2012, 02:32 PM:

Winbert I don't think it's worth the risk of court orders etc
remember one of our own was falling foul of them a few months
back.What puzzles me,and I'm sure other members,is how
complete features are uploaded and no problems,while someone
puts a few 8mm clips on and things go horrible.Strange set up.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 31, 2012, 02:51 PM:

To be honest, I'm not sure why anybody would want to put any of these - digest or feature - on youtube in the first place.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on 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,

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on May 31, 2012, 03:48 PM:

One thing I learned at a computer conference a few days ago:

Every minute of the day, 7 days a week, 32 hours of new video is uploaded to YouTube....Thirty-two hours per minute [Eek!]

There is no way on Earth they can review what comes in. Most likely specific companies have high-profile titles they contact YouTube about to do a "hunt."

Claus.

Posted by Desmond Godwin (Member # 2530) on May 31, 2012, 04:08 PM:

They may have missed this one Claus. The "Full Blown" Version of Cleopatra. I watched this complete film recently on U Tube and the picture and sound quality are awesome..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlL_iwxPnxY&feature=player_detailpage

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on May 31, 2012, 04:19 PM:

quote:
They may have missed this one Claus. The "Full Blown" Version of Cleopatra.

4 (FOUR) HOURS movie !!!....in HD quality...!

what is the max file that member can upload??

quote:
There is no way on Earth they can review what comes in. Most likely specific companies have high-profile titles they contact YouTube about to do a "hunt."

Claus, the first catch is done by software (bot).

This catch can only be done if studios have stored all data related to their films/musics to youtube. Once someone upload a film/music that matches with the studio's data, uploader weill be warned. However uploader has the right to appeal.

For me, it took like a month for them to finalize the review. So I believe the review is done by human (not machine). I think they have panels to do the review. So...it is an expensive job.

Perhaps, if youtube wants the service to be active on the net, they have to spend that cost. Otherwise it would be like megaupload or sort of that is now closed down by the authority.

cheers,

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 31, 2012, 05:36 PM:

You're absolutely right Winbert,authority must always be questioned,it's just as Michael has just said,why would anyone
risk running foul of the law for the sake of putting something
that they know is copyright,on this medium,what is the reward?

Posted by Tim Robinson-Ayer (Member # 2521) on May 31, 2012, 06:18 PM:

I frequent a fan edit forum where the people posting also work on film restoration of films that have been poorly handled in dvd releases. They've used some tricks that seem to work in foiling the YT bots, one is flipping the image so that what was on the right is now on the left. A lot of the time they are showing works-in-progress for opinions from the community. Anyhow, if anyone is interested, the forum is over at:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/category.cfm/Fan-Edits-Preservation-Efforts-and-Other-Fan-Projects/category/4/

some of these folks have waaaaayyyyy too much time on their hands. If the whole idea of a fan edit of a movie appeals to you there is also :

http://fanedit.org/

I haven't found many myself but I will say that once you see Adywan's edit of Star Wars (A New Hope) you will never watch any of the GL iterations again.

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on May 31, 2012, 06:39 PM:

Winburt-

Thats fantastic. You took the time, did the research and got answers! I really appreciate that. Who knows when there may be a time when one of us forum members wants to watch or download a super 8 digest, and its good to know just where we stand on the matter.

Thanks- and good work Sherlock!

James.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on June 02, 2012, 04:05 AM:

Perhaps the way to approach putting anything like a Super 8 cut down on YouTube is to ask yourself 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.

Having been in the position of having spent the best part of a year putting a documentary film together and then finding someone had decided to pirate it certainly gives you a fresh perspective on how damaging this sort of thing can be. Before anyone asks, yes, I did track the culprit down and he did face serious consequences but I would rather never have had to have dealt with that issue and the resultant loss of income.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on 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.

Posted by Joe McAllister (Member # 825) on June 02, 2012, 01:29 PM:

Copyright is rarely a clear cut issue. Many films are considered Public Domain in America but are still protected by copyright elsewhere. "Satanic Rites of Dracula" a Hammer horror is one title that comes to mind "Charade" is another both are protected by copyright in the UK. This seems to be because the USA require films to be properly registered and then have registration renewed for a second period rather than having automatic protection as is the case here. Digests as sold on 8/16mm would be considered seperate entities to the original release and require their own registration in the US which may not have happened or may not have been renewed. There is a register of copyright which can be consulted via the Library of Congress. The castle universal horror cut downs have been sold on DVD as PD. So it may be that the "French Connection" digest is not in fact copyright in the USA at least.

Posted by Joe McAllister (Member # 825) on June 02, 2012, 01:30 PM:

Copyright is rarely a clear cut issue. Many films are considered Public Domain in America but are still protected by copyright elsewhere. "Satanic Rites of Dracula" a Hammer horror is one title that comes to mind "Charade" is another both are protected by copyright in the UK. This seems to be because the USA require films to be properly registered and then have registration renewed for a second period rather than having automatic protection as is the case here. Digests as sold on 8/16mm would be considered seperate entities to the original release and require their own registration in the US which may not have happened or may not have been renewed. There is a register of copyright which can be consulted via the Library of Congress. The castle universal horror cut downs have been sold on DVD as PD. So it may be that the "French Connection" digest is not in fact copyright in the USA at least.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 02, 2012, 01:37 PM:

quote:
Who knows when there may be a time when one of us forum members wants to watch or download a super 8 digest, ...

But...isn't the whole attraction of collecting film, that we prefer not to watch these in digital form, but on actual film?
Oh, I'm all confused now.... [Smile]

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on June 02, 2012, 02:45 PM:

Quite right Michael, quite right! I certainly prefer to watch film- on film. But, there is also an art in the editing of the digest. If there's a digest that I was never able to aquire, its still neat to see its contents on a digital form. (Better than nothing, as they say [Smile]

)

Seeing one that I dont already have usually only makes me want it more!

Winbert- I agree, and I think its great that you take the time to check these things out.

James.

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on June 02, 2012, 03:11 PM:

The cut downs that Castle Films released are not in the Public Domain as far as I know. Universal renewed the copyrights on them according to the book written on Castle Films. I am surprised that eBay hasn't pulled the auctions of those DVDs.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 02, 2012, 03:37 PM:

Michael is absolutely right,why watch S/8 on a computer screen,it
defeats the purpose of actually projecting film!
As for John being ripped off,I certainly hope you gave the guy
involved a "chastising" for his cheek,and reminded him of his
"rights" after each smack!Well done.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 02, 2012, 06:12 PM:

Have yo ever been told (= bullied) with the words saying:

- Breaking the locked phone (assigned only to certain phone provider) is against law. Fact: it is not. Unlocking the phone is a fully legal act

- Breaking the PlayStation console (or sort of) so it can play those dowloaded games is not allowed. Fact: it is not. It is the responsibility of the company to protect their own consoles not to be able to be hacked.

- Using jailbreaker for your Iphone is against the law. Fact: it is not.

- Making a fake ID can be brought to the court. Fact: it is not breaking any law as long as you are not using it. You can have those fake IDs for your own purposses.

If we are only bullied by those myths, we are no longer free citizen. You can only now it by researching or reading the law book or ask the authorithy.

This is the reason why I did my own trial and error by putting French Connection and it is proven that it is not against any law.

Michael, as many people put the very same news clip on youtube, there are many reason why people putting their diggest on youtube, eg:

1. So other can see what sort of edit between two different companies.

2. Give the opportunity for other to watch the whole content before deciding to buy. At least we can judge whether it will be repeatable or not.

3. Give the chance for others to benefit from the soundtrack so they can re-dub or replace the old track he/she previous had.

4. Showing to non collectors why we collect this kind of digest in the office without need to bring the heavy and loudy projector.

5. Memorabikia reason before we sell it for certain reasons, so at least we still have the record of our collection and can play it whenever we want to re-watch (or maybe buying them again if money permitted).

6. Etc, etc.

Hope you can understand that people may have the reasons that you never think of before.

Cheers,

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 02, 2012, 06:33 PM:

Winbert I wholeheartedly applaude your tenacity with YouTube
and you have done a serious bit of public service with your
endeavours for clarifying freedom of speech.I also take the point
of John Clancy that just because we can,doesn't necessariily
mean we have to.In some ways like you have mentioned,the
facility can be beneficial as in viewing some long lost TV show,
but there is the other side of the coin where someone has worked
hard on a project and is undermined through a selfish act and
literally robbed at the finishing line,and that is unacceptable.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 03, 2012, 03:16 AM:

Winbert,

I agree you have some points there. I suppose for digest collectors there may be some benefit to be had from watching these on youtube.

I have never understood or had any interest in the whole "digest" thing anyway, or at least, not these days when virtually any feature is available for a few quid on DVD.
Nostalgia, I suppose?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 03, 2012, 07:54 AM:

quote:
I have never understood or had any interest in the whole "digest" thing anyway, or at least, not these days

Michael,

We have previously discussed about people collect digests. For me it is because the art work cover, limited time to watch full feature as well as space concern in storing films.

Now, you try it and you will know it...vous voulez vous trouvez, vous trouvez vous gagnez... [Wink]

quote:
can be beneficial as in viewing some long lost TV show,

Hugh thanks. That is exactly one of the points why we need that fair use law.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on 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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 04, 2012, 01:50 PM:

Hugh,

I'll not get into the digest thing here other than to ask why on earth I would want to have the "impression" that I've watched the full feature when I could actually watch the full feature??
[Smile]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 04, 2012, 02:19 PM:

Well Michael,remember when a lot of those digests were made,
there wasn't video,laser disc,DVD or any of the myriad TV channels
available and the film companies were loathe to release full
features,but saw the potential in a well edited 16-20 minute bite.
Even now,a film show to friends can be very enjoyable with a few
well chosen digests and trls etc as oppossed to a full feature.
Remember digests aren't available, except to the film user.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 04, 2012, 02:22 PM:

quote:
Well Michael,remember when a lot of those digests were made,
there wasn't video,laser disc,DVD or any of the myriad TV channels
available...

Yep, I acknowledged this in my earlier post.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on June 05, 2012, 03:58 AM:

There is also the possibility with this that posting Super 8 cut downs on YouTube will adversely affect dealer sales. On the other hand it could go the other way. But I can't understand why anyone would want to bother risking this as was happening recently with loads of poorly transferred Super 8's being put up for the world to see. One or two great examples would probably help the hobby but please don't push it too far.

I did take your earlier point Winbert and my response was not intended to be in any way antagonistic. Just please be careful and perhaps leave things as they now stand. Perhaps we should remove this whole thread to prevent others thinking they can now slap anything up on YouTube without any legal recourse. That won't do the film collecting hobby any favours at all.

Yes, the pirater of my work did get dealt with seriously. He managed to avoid a criminal record which was down to me as I wanted to protect others who were involved but entirely innocent. He had been ripping off bigger fish than me but they had never noticed.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 05, 2012, 06:13 AM:

quote:
others thinking they can now slap anything up on YouTube without any legal recourse.

It is the opposite John, read again and again my first post. I approached everything through legal way and by understanding the law itself

quote:
Perhaps we should remove this whole thread

Why?.... Are you living in a fear, John?

I live in the other side of continent where people have the rights to question the authority and the law itself. From what I learn, here there is a balance between right and obligation. And what I did with this trial and error has proven this.

Good luck for your work John!

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 05, 2012, 09:18 AM:

I believe John is merely concerned that people might get the idea that anything can be uploaded and they can escape prosecution by claiming "Fair Use". Working in the broadcast industry, I see shows use this concept often to get around copyright issues and escape having to pay for content they use. This doesn't stop the owners from taking legal action.

Doug

Posted by Richard Bock (Member # 1926) on June 05, 2012, 10:17 AM:

I scour Youtube regularly for pirating for films I've made and when I see an illegal posting I report it to Youtube and have to submit my Copyright number each time. As a film maker, it ticks me off when people think they can copy a film and post it on youtube as if there is no consequence. People assume it's free. Film making is very hard work, and is costly, so when people cavalierly throw an entire feature documentary on youtube that we're still distributing they don't realize that they are literally stealing from us. So as Howard da Silva said in 'They Live By Night'- "I wanna take steps a block long, anyone gets in my way, I STOMP them!"

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on June 05, 2012, 03:42 PM:

Have to agree with John Clancy on this one -- copyright is something to take very seriously, whether it's film collecting, broadcasting, etc. The desire to post something on YouTube -- or one's enthusiasm for film collecting -- doesn't supercede copyright considerations. Even the unique subculture of film collecting has to be aware of and abide by copyright, pure and simple.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 05, 2012, 05:31 PM:

Absolutely correct. Copyright is copyright. There's no point in trying to find ways around it or to find loopholes.
In particular, with the posting of Super 8 digests, what's to be gained for any risk involved?

Posted by Chris Fries (Member # 2719) on June 05, 2012, 06:20 PM:

You know, I think I've read these same comments from the same people before.

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006532;p=7

We all know what happened.

It's not worth it.

That's all I have to say about that.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 06, 2012, 12:41 AM:

quote:
Copyright is copyright.

No further comment, yeah ...just ask 20th Century Fox and Youtube who sent this below email to me:

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

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on June 06, 2012, 12:50 AM:

I think I was making the point that it's not a good idea to post something on the web that may encourage others to post copyrighted material in the expectation that it will be legal. You've pushed the law Winbert and been cleared but that may not happen if you try again. I'm with Chris on this one (and he should know!), it's just not worth the risk. However, what I will say is I doubt any individual is going to be bothered with an old Super 8 print being posted for the whole world to [potentially] view but if it was a Super 8 release I had invested in clearing the rights to use and issue for sale I'd possibly pursue the culprit irrespective of how many years previously the film had been issued. Something to bear in mind methinks as it only takes one person in a company and you could be in deep doodoo.

If anyone really wants to promote film collecting I suggest what is required is a proper short documentary on YouTube which could then show projectors, the enthusiasts using them and home cinemas with the odd 'fair use' clip showing on the screen. If I had the time I'd do it but alas I'm fully occupied with my TriumphDVD business.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2