Infringing Viacom claims copyright infringement

Discuss

14 Responses to “Infringing Viacom claims copyright infringement”

  1. Nick Douglas says:

    Here’s the TV clip: http://politicalsoup.tv/rockinghamradio/chrisknightvsviacom.wmv

    Here’s an explanation of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    It does seem like VH1 used the clip with enough critical review to fall under fair use, which does not require permission. (Note that they didn’t use Knight’s entire work.)

    Under the same law, Knight could post the VH1 clip with his own commentary, doing the same thing to them that they did to him (with no ill will). But he can’t just load it onto YouTube. There’s some vague irony in the turnabout, but Viacom’s done nothing truly hypocritical.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The key issue as I see it is where did each party he obtain the materials for their respective broadcasts. It appears to me the VH1 obtained their material from a publicly hosted source (YouTube). The Author (Mr Knight) never reveals how he obtained the materials for his subsequent post which glaringly suggests it was obtained illegally and in direct violation of VH1′s copyright. Case closed

  3. dhammond says:

    What Nick said. Might I add that I, for one, am SHOCKED that Boing Boing would post misleading information instead of doing some minor investigation that would take all of two minutes.

  4. Hamish Grant says:

    all things being equal, shouldn’t Knight just have posted his original commercial(s) to YouTube instead of Viacom’s copy?

  5. Mark Levitt says:

    It does point out the power imbalance of the DMCA, though. Viacom might have had a fair use defence for using his clip without permission, but then so might he.

    The difference is that Viacom can simply fire off an e-mail to YouTube and the clip is removed without question. On the other hand, the original copyright holder can’t simply send an e-mail to, say, the FCC and have Viacom’s broadcast stopped without question.

  6. Anonymous says:

    without seeking Knight’s permission

    Well, the YouTube terms and conditions do say:

    by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

    So they didn’t need to seek his permission; he’d already given it by submitting it to YouTube. (I’m assuming here that Viacom is a YouTube “successor or affiliate”). Read the small print before using the service, folks.

    That said, claiming he was infringing their copyright is pretty dickish.

  7. flatluigi says:

    hamish: I think he uploaded the clips to show Viacom’s infringement on Web Junk 2.0.

  8. Bonnie says:

    I’m starting to miss the no comments Boing Boing….

  9. Evan says:

    What about Viacom’s rights in its segment as a “derivative work”? Is anyone disputing that Viacom is not legally entitled to claim ownership in the segment, or are we supposed to see this as a policy issue?

  10. Hamish Grant says:

    thinking of the way youtubers generally do things, it would have been more appropriate for Knight to post a video rant on the topic rather than repost Viacom’s derivative clip of his work.

  11. ryan says:

    Evan:

    I think you are confusing “derivative work” with “fair use.” The copyright owner (Knight) has the rights to make derivative works generally, and they did not try to get permission from him to make their own. They should only be able to get away with it if their use falls under fair use. I can’t really say if it does or not, not being able to see the TV segment, but I’m thinking that the fact they are trying to make money off of it would cut against them. So no, legally, I don’t think they had the right to do what they did here.

    And from a policy perspective, while I think what they did (probably) isn’t all that bad and shouldn’t be a violation of copyright, that’s only true if it goes both ways and he is able to post-and-or-comment on their segment.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’m starting to feel like by this logic, all the illegal postings of content on Youtube would be all clear legally if and when we just started offering commentary on them at strategic points. There – apparently now it’s ‘fair use’ since we’re posting them for the purpose of commentary, eh?

    -chris

  13. Anonymous says:

    I love this meme. someone without complete understanding of a subject post as if it’s ironic. It’s interesting, yeah, but they take for granted the basis of the argument. Here, we have “viacom is infringing”, and “Christopher Knight” is not. then the article argues neither point! The bigger issue is censorship and the ability of mass copyright owners to pull content from youtube. I would say it sounds like viacom was in its rights to use clips of his videos (they’re newsworthy) but couldnt’ comment on knight’s use of viacom’s material since I can’t see it, since it’s pulled.

  14. NickD says:

    It sounds like it is time for YouTube to allow users to display licensing like Flickr does: copyright, or one of the many CC licenses.

Leave a Reply