KatsBits Community

General Category => Blog => Topic started by: kat on December 14, 2013, 01:57:38 AM

Title: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: kat on December 14, 2013, 01:57:38 AM
YouTube is/has changed the way videos are monetised and what that means for video producers (http://www.develop-online.net/news/youtube-crackdown-pays-game-companies-for-fan-made-videos/0187280); it basically now means that revenue that YouTubers earn can be redirected in part or whole to the publisher (note that's usually the publisher rather than developer). A legal-beagles look at the new policy (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php).

The rub of the issue relates to publishers now being able to claiming that gamers posting walk/play through videos are infringing their Intellectual Property without necessarily making a claim using DMCA. Instead YouTube provides a "Content ID Claim" mechanism for sure matters. In other words, the ability to commercially exploit someone else's material, even indirectly though Ad Revenues as is the case here, needs to be licensed. When that's not done properly, it leaves the author open to CIDC's being lodged against them.

So in similar vein to the original topic post, you don't own that game you bought, you similarly now don't have the 'rights' to be posting videos of you walking/playing through someone else's game (because it doing so contains their copyright material in the form of artwork and other intellectual expressions).

But why just game play videos? If the basic problem revolves around the incorrect licensing, or a misappropriation of IP, what's to stop that being claimed for other materials; tutorials, product breakdowns, amateur product reviews or indeed against any of the myriad ways people create non-exclusive;y transformative/derivative works (which might otherwise protect them under Fair Use, being transformative or derivative works) - especially where ad revenue is involved.
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: kat on December 19, 2013, 03:54:02 AM
A bit more news on YouTube Content ID system;
The first one doesn't talk about the following per-se but it is a real problem when using a system that's actually outside the realms of proper channels for dealing with Copyright - YouTube, or Google, are not a Copyright channel. This means what they're doing could potentially jeopardise future, and possible legitimate, claims of Copyright infringement because it doesn't take into account Fare Use, Derivative and/or Transformative Works allowances. In affect, Google is not a Copyright Authority so has no ability to verify a claim. This means it MUST honour any claim that comes through to it via the Content ID system else it be held liable and loose it Safe Harbour status with DMCA (which is the appropriate channel for some basic control).

The second article has broad consequences to creators and authors because once they sign their Rights over to a third party, usually a publisher, they then have absolutely no control as to how the Publisher then polices those acquired right (Privileges). In other words, they don't really care about reputation and will make claims on the creators behalf so any bad press is directed at the author and not the publisher or third party policing apparent claims of copyright.
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: kat on December 25, 2013, 06:10:46 PM
This is what happens when corporations leverage their size to implement systems that bypass established Law, Copyright & DMCA in this instance (http://boingboing.net/2013/12/25/music-publishers-claim-to-own.html#more-276379). Publishers, like BMG, in wanting a quicker way to effectively take down content without doing through legal channels (aka DMCA), push for and abuse systems like Content ID. Claimants (copyright 'owners') are then not technically breaking the Law, because these types of systems are 'internal' and based on the voluntary policing of content based on Terms of Service, rather than Copyright, violations. In YouTubes case for example, when a Vlogger uploads they do so stating implicitly that they own the content and all rights therein. When a claim comes in countering this, YouTube can claim a ToS violation to be dealt with appropriately as is their want.

This is why Content ID is dangerous; it allows publishers ('Claimants') to make 'soft' copyright claims against users that typically result in take-downs, disablement's, or revenue share/confiscations without specifically having to invoke full Copyright claims and remedy through DMCA (or it's localised equivalents), which would broadside them for prosecution where a claim would have to be explicitly clarified.

Content ID is what happens when corporations abuse their power to find ways around established Law. And make no mistake, they will have had plenty of dark, smoky room conversations with lawyers to make sure none of them can be held liable for anything as a result of Creators incomes being screwed with. So be warned.. if music in particular does need to be used, do your due-diligence, and cite sources (give credit) where necessary to avoid, if not mitigate, the types of mess the chap linked to above found himself in.

Incidentally, just because the song itself may be in Public Domain, that should not be taken to mean the manuscript, arrangement or other aspect of the music used is. And that's where the trap lies. So be warned.
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: kat on January 07, 2014, 09:42:44 PM
Interesting article (in Develop Magazine) on the whole YouTube Content ID issue from the laws point of view (http://www.develop-online.net/analysis/uploading-gameplay-content-to-youtube-the-law-versus-the-commercial-reality/0187828) - a very important read if we're to have a fuller understanding of the basic problem faced due to legislation written when printers ruled the roost; it's actually quite complicated because any laxity on behalf of Copyright owners can be interpreted in a way that might undermine future claims, should they need to made.
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: ratty redemption on January 07, 2014, 10:06:25 PM
i've recently been watching the content id vlogs by the youtuber darksydephil. who in the first week of this automated system being turned on for most of the multi channel networks, received about 500 content id claims.

some disabled the audio tracks in a few of his let's play videos, which is very frustrating if it's a story based game and his viewers miss out on not just his commentary but also key elements of the dialog and plot, but he's also had a few video blocked (as in won't play at all) in certain countries.

and other than nintendo's heavy handed claims of all let's play content featuring their games, the majority of the claims phil received were from music publishers, and not game devs or their publishers.

i'll have a read of that article you linked to after this post.
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: kat on January 22, 2014, 03:36:00 PM
It gets better. EA dragged into YouTube paid coverage dispute (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ea-dragged-into-youtube-paid-coverage-dispute/0127039) (MCV). This is a pretty big deal for vloggers and just adds to the Content ID Claim mess because the system itself appears to be automated (via their API - it seems highly unlikely that a person is flagging content due to the number of claims made and the speed with which that is being done. Ed.). So whilst EA can make, what appear to YouTube and the proverbial vlogger at least, a 'valid' CID claim against a user and their content infringements automatically, it's effectively being done in error due to there being no verification checks against claimed content being paid-for-placement (no different than someone being paid to write a blog or comment).

For vloggers this means a few things that could ultimately result in account suspension for materials they are actually being paid to produce, or the all too real possibility of not having access to the means through which  disputes can be properly and effectively managed in timely fashion - it's in the claimants interests to drag their feet when claim is in dispute as it keeps the infringing content offline, this is why disputes can drag on for months all-the-whilst the vlogger is loosing views/subs/income etc. (it's important to know that within the realms of Copyright, having material disabled has more 'standing' than being compensated for tacitly allowing it - 'compensation' is not equivalent to 'licence'. Ed.).
Title: Re: You don't own that YouTube video you uploaded (Content ID Claims)
Post by: ratty redemption on January 22, 2014, 05:02:21 PM
@kat, do you think this content id mess, in general, will ever be cleared up?