Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate

by dmuino • 14 years ago

177 71 14 years ago

smsm42• 14 years ago

Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.

gtCameron• 14 years ago

What it looks like to me is that YouTube refuses to play the role of the judge.

The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.

chii3• 14 years ago

except youtube is biased against the claimee and the system favours the claimer.

The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy.

So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.

zeidrich• 14 years ago

I think fear has little to do with it. They put in an automatic system because of the fact that they need to deal with so many claims.

It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility to mediate or investigate the claim. The number of takedown notices submitted also make that impossible.

On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith. Lionsgate doesn't have a claim of copyright ownership, the author has copyright. The author uses materials that were authored in a production that Lionsgate now has rights to, but the new production is a new work that uses elements that it has legal right to use.

I think that the fact that they once claimed audiovisual copyright and then dropped that when the term expired and claimed a second time for visual copyright is evidence that they are abusing the automated controls of youtube and acting in bad faith. If they weren't, they would have been justified in delivering a legal copyright notification to have the video taken down when the first appeal was filed.

Instead they dropped the claim and issued another, slightly different claim to abuse the mandated automated system.

georgemcbay2• 14 years ago

Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.

Karunamon• 14 years ago

>On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith.

Realistically these laws are hard if not impossible to enforce. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from filing a fake DMCA under a fake name and getting absolutely no retribution for their actions. Ask any up and coming YouTube content creator and they'll probably tell you they've been hit with fake DMCAs in the past, which immediately results in the user's video getting pulled.

After that point, the damage is done. Even if it comes back later, especially if the content is time sensitive, the troll won.

Considering that you have to prove actual bad faith (rather than just negligence) and have to have someone's actual identity to initiate a DMCA countersuit, the protection offered in the internet age is laughable.

anigbrowl4• 14 years ago

That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The authors dispute is with Lionsgate, not YouTube.

chc2• 14 years ago

> although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view

It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?

timbre• 14 years ago

Youtube is respecting the claims of copyright holders a lot more than it has to by law.

1. The entire pre-DMCA-takedown process (the first round of complaint and appeal) is not required by law. I think it's a good idea in general (it's nice to have a low-stakes option before you launch into the DMCA process) but the immediate presumption that the complainant is in the right is offensive. Something like "we will start displaying ads if you do not dispute within 24 hours" would sit a lot better.

2. Once the DMCA process has started, the poster was required to go through Youtube's "copyright school", and was limited to posting only short videos. I wish they would wait until one or the other party lost the dispute before doling out punishment and education.

Youtube is within its rights to behave this way, but it's Youtube's choice, not something required by law.

damncabbage• 14 years ago

I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view) ...

Please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033525 above.

sigzero• 14 years ago

Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!

jb17• 14 years ago

You do realize that the video critiques gender roles in pop culture?

greenyoda• 14 years ago

The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use:

http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo

jessaustin3• 14 years ago

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this video before. It's really well done, and indeed is an original and convincing critique of the insufferable Twilight series. This sort of speech can only take place in a context of fair use. They had to show Ed's pasty mug so they could stake him.

hollerith• 14 years ago

Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!

ADDED. Version without the pop-ups: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...

javajosh• 14 years ago

>Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!

Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when I want to take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.

ecspike2• 14 years ago

I was a fan of Pop-Up Video so I enjoy the aesthetic.

ajanuary4• 14 years ago

So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned by another big media company?

ghshephard3• 14 years ago

Which "they" are you referring to, Lionsgate?

ajanuary4• 14 years ago

Correct.

danielweber• 14 years ago

Making money doesn't mean "not fair use." Just like not making money doesn't mean "fair use."

ajanuary4• 14 years ago

By 'they' I mean Lionsgate.

For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too.

Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.

jeltz• 14 years ago

So the owners of Buffy have every right to sue Liongate if they do not pay up.

zokier• 14 years ago

I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.

ghshephard3• 14 years ago

He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public view.

dromidas• 14 years ago

Yeah he definitely did the due diligence before bringing it public...

On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/

Natsu• 14 years ago

He's gone through multiple rounds of appeals and much legal wrangling. Exactly how patient would you recommend being?

beedogs2• 14 years ago

> torches and pitchforks

go back to reddit, please.

ghubbard• 14 years ago

This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about.

  "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."

Tichy• 14 years ago

But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no legal consequences at all?

So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?

jessaustin3• 14 years ago

I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.

cjensen3• 14 years ago

Doesn't look like fair-use to me.

The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.

Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.

ryusage2• 14 years ago

> This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work.

It's definitely fair use.

cjensen3• 14 years ago

Was the screening with the on-screen captions?

appleflaxen• 14 years ago

It's surprising how much weight the community gave your opinion, because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is.

My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge.

So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.

ghshephard3• 14 years ago

Where are you getting your definition of "Fair Use?"

From: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...

"What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner....

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody....

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original. "

beedogs2• 14 years ago

> Doesn't look like fair-use to me.

If you don't know what "fair use" is, you probably shouldn't be opining on this.

cjensen3• 14 years ago

You'll note that provided a reason why it is not fair use, and you did not dispute the reason.

discountgenius• 14 years ago

> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like.

Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?

AnthonyMouse4• 14 years ago

>How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?

That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people.

It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.

scotty79• 14 years ago

It can be easily fixed by removing phrase "copyright infringement" from the language. Then content providers could easily protect themselves from anyone copying content produced by them, by not producing that content.

People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).

natmaster• 14 years ago

Google needs a policy against doing evil.

pervycreeper• 14 years ago

While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this whine:

>But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.

bjustin• 14 years ago

Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather than DMCA.

This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...

Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

Related Stories