There's one issue that is shared among many websites, from video-sharing communities, to short-story outlets and article distribution sites. That is the dreaded issue of copyright infringement. It deals with what to do when someone claims that their (or someone else's) copyright has been treaded upon, and whether or not the complaint has any merit -- or an attempt at arbitrary censorship.

Let's take one example, as mentioned in an article at wired.com. A Finnish YouTuber who went by the name of STSanders rose to fame by his hilarious parodies of rock guitarists and bands, in what was called "shreds". It gained the attention of some famous musicians depicted in these parodies, and his creative humor even earned him a guest spot on Jimmy Kimmel. However, according to a YouTube insider, all it took was complaints from 3 artists without a sense of humor (in contrast to the many that had one and praised his work), for YouTube to deactivate his account.

However, just as there is copyright protection, there are also protections in place that cover parodies and "fair use". The same YouTube insider also said that in order for STSanders to get his account (and his work) reinstated, he would have to hire a lawyer to appeal the infringement claims.

It's worth noting that this wasn't a court ruling -- it was solely YouTube's decision to pull the plug based on complaints (3). This also begs the question, to take it a step further -- can anyone along with a few cohorts get just about any video removed from YouTube , for arbitrary reasons under the claim of copyright violation? In this case, the burden of proof seems to rest on the accused, not the accuser. And as we all know, hiring a lawyer to appeal can be costly.

Legal fees can also be realized by YouTube, who may not want to shell out dollars for every instance of copyright complaints just to see if the case has merit. Therefore, it's much cheaper and easier to simply pull the video and leave the legal fees to the accused to make their own appeal.

Where am I going with this? Perhaps any of you have, or are thinking of starting a website where you would publish user-generated content. Though there are some safeguards you can put in place, such as having a disclaimer for them to acknowledge that they are the creative owner of the work, such safeguards are only good until a complaint is made. Perhaps the complaint is legally valid. Or perhaps it's a case of someone simply not liking someone else's article / story / video for other reasons. Or yet, maybe it's just malice.

Then you are faced with a decision. What would you do?

__________________
DesignerTrade

You really have to take it on a case by case basis. The first question that you have to ask yourself is if the person making the complaint actually the owner of a copyright? Secondly, even if the person is the owner of the copyright, does the use constitute a 'fair' use? (Really all you can do is to look at the content itself to make that determination. Some content can be borderline of course, ie. is it newsworthy? constitute a parody, etc. etc.,) At some juncture, you also have to put some business sense into it as well, ie. is it worth it for me to bother with this, or is it simply easier to remove the content?

YouTube is a private entity, the first amendment does not apply as between the user and you tube.

__________________

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) actually has very detailed information for web site owners on what to do, how to do it, and how to determine if the complaint is real.
It also protects web site owners in the case of actual copyright infringement, provided you follow the directions...

Wikipedia has good information on the DMCA at:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is the actual text of the DMCA
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

__________________
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Daffodil Valley Times, Tacoma Web Designers, $3.99 Web Hosting

Regardless of what the DMCA says, youtube is going to take down a video at even a sniff of copyright infringement, and no matter if it's unsubstantiated. The reason? The RIAA and MAFIAA are looking over Google's shoulder and waiting for a slipup, and google owns youtube. Many illegal filesharers find their content using google, and google has been playing the "we just give results, we don't have control of the content" angle for all it's worth. In other words, it's political, in a sense.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

Always inform the Domain Holder/ Hoster of the offending account about the infringement, if they are a reputible hoster they will suspend the offending website.

If they are disreputible, you're out of luck...but it's the first step.

__________________
Web Geek http://www.sjvwd.com
http://www.arthurspools.com

YouTube did what it was suppose to do to be protected under Title II of DMCA... the insider neglected to mention that in order to be "protected" YouTube must follow Title II to the letter... which means...

it is up to the account owner to counter-claim...

On receiving a counter-claim YouTube must then go back to the original claimants and advise them to commence court proceedings...

It is here where the accuser tends to get a leg up...

If the claimants don't show proof of court procedings within 14 days YouTube MUST reinstate the account...

If they don't - the account holder can now file action against YouTube for wrongful termination and coercion with the original claimants.

DMCA Title II Safe Harbor for Designated Agents is explicit in its details.

This is a bigger problem than many acknowledge, and I don't blame YouTube for yanking some content at just a whisper of copyright issues. There's a ton of stuff on there that definitely infringes copyrights, but hasn't been yanked.

The band King Crimson is well known for seeking out violators when it comes to bootlegs, but i'm really surprised Robert Fripp hasn't gone after those that have proliferated YouTube with their music, without their permission.

Bloggers are terrible violators of copyrights. As owner of a travel, science and entertainment news site for the Oregon coast, (Oregon Coast Daily Travel: Oregon Coast Vacation Rentals, Lodging, Dining, Map, Oregon Coast Info) we get victimized a lot by bloggers. Many are highly ethical, and post teasers of our articles with links to the whole thing.

Others, however, copy and paste OUR original news content into their blogs, including our pics. I had to chase one guy down, who whined "it's a shame, there's a lot of interest in it." Well then link TO it, moron....don't steal it!

Some of these bloggers i can't contact, and most i just don't have time to track down. It's frustrating to have stuff stolen on the Net.

1.
I would say the first step would be to contact the person posting to copyrighted content. If it was posted on a website try to contact the owner of the website. If it is something like YouTube try to contact the user.

2.
The second step would be to contact the company hosting the copyrighted content and ask them to remove it. If the copyrighted content is on a website contact the web host. If it is on YouTube contact the administrator.

3.
The last resort would be to take the infringer to court. This is very expensive and should only be used as a last option.

__________________
Nate Desmond
Visit My Ecommerce Blog!

An addendum to my last post:

I had to go after two bloggers over this stealing content issue, and it turned out google itself was the host of these blogs.

In both cases, the only response i got from Google was that i had to fax them something about this complaint. And although i can't remember all of what they needed, I believe they wanted some proof of ownership of the article.

It sounds like Google is talking from two sides of its mouth. On one hand, they yank material easily from one part of their operation, but when it comes to blogs...well it sounds like Google is mumbling from that side of its mouth.

Here is a strtegy for removing copyrighted content from a blogspot.com blog.

1. First, flag the blog by clicking the "flag blog" button at the top of the page. When you have clicked this button the words will change to "unflag blog".

2. Next, contact the blogger and tell them that you have flagged their blog, but that you will unflag it when the copyrighted content is removed from their blog.

3. Finally, if they do remove the content from their blog, you simply click the "unflag blog" button at the top of the page and you are done.

or,

3. If they still will not refuse the copyrighted content from their blog, get all your friends to flag the blog also. When enough people have flagged a blog, blogger will check the blog and might (but probably will not) remove it. Read more about how blogger uses the "flag blog" button here.

__________________
Nate Desmond
Visit My Ecommerce Blog!

There is no issue here. You pull the offending material.......period! Not knowing of any copyright or accepting the word of a client is no excuse in law.

A couple of years back I built a site and was given the material to use. I asked if this material was original. The answer was yes, all ours.

Wrong, there was a little almost insignificant picture of a firework exploding in the sky. (100x100 pixels) After a year of it being up on the net I received a notification from a lawyers office representing a major, world famous (really, really, really big) US foundation to pay $5,000 for the use of the image and a further $5,000 for the continued use or pull it within 24 hours. No contest....... it went! I was surprised to be so firmly dealt with by a such a huge organisation, but getting stroppy with the lawyer or the client was never an option.

This is fast becoming big business on the internet, copyright infringement, finding it, then terrifying the web designer/site owner into parting with money. It did not work with me because I am on a little Greek island and financially secure enough to call the bluff. There are now the equivilent of lawyer Ambulance chasers working the WWW over copyright. Beware!

However on the other side of the coin I spend hours every week taking pictures here and working images for my websites. Every single image is mine and mine alone but I see my images on other peoples' websites all the time. When you have worked an image you know what's yours! Some have not even bothered to change the properties!

So far whilst it is irritating, I take it as a compliment, any other way would involve me in lowering myself to the level of this U.S. Grotty foundation.

Astro
(Here we go!!! MIB with surgically removed fins at my door!....................... I didn't name 'em your honour promise!)

P.S. Sometimes I think this world would be a much better place without lawyers or polititians, they never make anything, save anything, or improve anything. They are just an expensive cost centre!

__________________
Chill & be happy with www.astro-holidays.com

As a professional writer, and member of ASCAP, I treasure and fully support copyright enforcement in any measure. A frightening sign of our times, however, is the megamedia organizations (like the G word) are now pushing for legislation to require registration (for a fee) for any copyright to be enforceable. Imagine a blogger who creates one article a day, having to pay approximate $6,000 per year (or more) in registration fees.

I agree astro, but I guess sometimes we just have to have those little parasites in our intestines to help us digest. B^)

__________________
Ron http://www.chalicemedia.com
http://www.ronchalice.com

Can you point me to a source for that, please?

And would you please comment on the RIAA and MAFIAA cases where they sued people for copyright infringement via filesharing on the internet when some of those people didn't even own a computer or have internet access? Where they've sued poor people and talked them into settling KNOWING the people couldn't afford an attorney to fight them even if they were innocent?

Personally, I do think that some form of copyright is reasonable. However, I think it's absolutely ridiculous for copyright to extend 70 YEARS after an author's death, and that is a fairly recent development brought about by the Media Company lobbyists.

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

That was not at all what the founding fathers had in mind.

I do think that the internet is going to blow copyright out of the water. It's inevitable and simply a matter of time. Read the words of Lawrence Lessig. Nothing you can do will stop it. You'd be better off trying to figure out a way to make a living without depending on it.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

Not always:

SEOmoz | I Broke the Law and the Law (made me number) One

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog | Cheap Web Hosting

Someone tell me what you think about this.
My father forgot to change his exp date on his card and lost the domain name on a small cemetery site we put up to hold cemetery lists..

Thats no problem I am not going to pay extortion to a domain name hyjacker I will just move the site which I did.

But the new owner in rushia has copied our old site onto the domain name and is making it look like ours. All the content he is using is ours.

Any suggestions on what to do about this.

Georgetown Cemetery Grant Parish Louisiana I am considering making a copyright complaint to google.


This is the second time this has been done to one of my sites the first was on the domain shootingshow.com where the hyjacker wanted $600 to get it back which I refused to pay.

__________________
---
* SLMR v2.0 * Have many Nice days

The first step is actually checking to see if the content claimed to be copyright "actually is"... in US it would be registered at copyright.gov...

if it isn't "ignore the complaint and file a counter-claim"...

According to DMCA Title II they have 14 days to file court action "BUT" you can't file without a copyright registration number and that generally take 4 months to get.

NOTE: commonlaw copyright is understood once a works is in physical form but it extends only as: "you have a rightful claim of copyright" if you don't act on that claim and never file you are really saying your "copyright doesn't matter".

I would first make a backup of the CD of the domain and a printed version and send it to copyright.gov with $35 and a copyright application and wait the 4 month to get your registration number then file takedown orders as per Content Infringment - pls advise and if they are making money off your content also file with their affiliate providers [also it's worth knowing who is on this list U.S. Copyright Office - Service Provider Agents as they are protected under DMCA Title II.

However on the other side of the coin I spend hours every week taking pictures here and working images for my websites. Every single image is mine and mine alone but I see my images on other peoples' websites all the time. When you have worked an image you know what's yours! Some have not even bothered to change the properties!
So far whilst it is irritating, I take it as a compliment, any other way would involve me in lowering myself to the level of this U.S. Grotty foundation.


Always put your site url on all your photographs when somebody steals uses or links to them they are giving you FREE advertising for your site!

__________________
historical information links re uk and usa
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

YouTube exercised very good judgement by removing the content.

Under DMCA Title II - it is the only way an OSP / ISP can limit their liability.

__________
DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent.
__________

It has nothing to do with censorship - everything to do with exercising your rights and responsibilities as a business.

__________________
David Williams
www.DavidWilliams.Biz
Professional Web Design - Affordable Web Solutions