Paramount issues DMCA claim on video bystanders shot of "Transformers 3" shoot outside their office

Boing Boing reader Dennis Yang says, "Ben Brown and Micki Krimmel excitedly took videos of the Transformers 3 filming that was happening outside their window. They posted it to YouTube, and Ben's video was slapped with a DMCA. Way to go, Paramount, you're doing it wrong."


  1. Soon, the Weather Channel will start sending a takedown notice every time someone films a tornado.

  2. Yeah, because the first two Transformers movies fared dismally due to lack of grass-roots buzz. And why are do you care how many more hundreds of millions Mr. Baysplosion makes anyway?

    Look, the kind of idiots who watch those movies will see them because they are told to by traditional ads. And the reason I use the word “idiots” for those people is that I heard, over and over: “Yeah, it sucked. I knew it would suck. I can barely remember it. But the explosions were cool.”

    As the Bard said: “Ow, my balls!”

    1. I’m with you on the misuse of the DMCA, however want to point out that it’s Paramount that did this, not Michael Bay or any of the producers. Ultimately, it is all on Paramount’s shoulders and they deserve the all the scorn!

  3. Public place, no expectation of privacy, the movie studio clearly violated the “pupose” of the dmca. But once again, the video will be down because the studio has more economic power…

  4. Isn’t this the reason for youtubes new dispute process?

    Clearly they are in the green here, so dispute the claim, and the video will instantly be watchable again.

    1. I did submit a counter claim, and 2 days later, Google told me it would take 10-14 days to restore my video. Nit is by no means “instant.”

  5. General disclaimer: I am not an attorney. But here are two links to the U.S. Copyright Office’s website explaining when something is copyrighted and what can be copyrighted., which indicates that the work that “is created and fixed in a tangible form”, i.e. the recording itself, is what is copyrighted, and, which makes it pretty clear that a “sighting” of something is not eligible for copyright protection — only the recording itself. Paramount is insanely overzealous and completely out of line.

  6. Isn’t there a part of the DMCA that punishes people who issue blatantly warrantless take-down notices? Here would be a good time to use it.

  7. Um, no. As much they think otherwise, film companies don’t own the streets. My town was invaded by two or three feature films last year. They come into town, make a huge hubbub, displace us from our parks, interfere with traffic for days or weeks on end, and then also expect that the people putting up with their nonsense (I’m sorry, their “stimulation of the economy”) will not take pictures of what is happening around us? Keep it in Hollywood then.

  8. Paramount copyrighted the work not the making of it. outside of trade secrets, they can’t pull that blanket DMCA crap.. every time I think it could be OK, i find some other idiot misusing it..

  9. Strangely, Brown & Kimmels video may not be covered by ANY federal copyright. 17 USC 101 says
    A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. (emphasis added)

  10. On another story – Paramount Marketing is continuing it’s all out push to get their promotions to “Go Viral” with limited success.

Comments are closed.