YouTube violates Electric Slide copyright

[javasaurus]

Before I post the link to the article, let me start with this:

Suppose a late night tv host read the latest short story by your favorite author during his show, without the permission of Bradbury. Clear copyright violation, right? Suppose that the host also changed the story's ending (not in a parody sort of way). Would the author be right to be angry? Suppose a clip of the incorrect reading showed up on YouTube. Would the author be right to force YouTube to remove videos showing the reading?

This is basically the situation with the Electric Slide. The creator of the dance (who holds a copyright to it), claims people are doing it wrong in movies, on tv shows, and at weddings. Video clips make it to YouTube, propegating the incorrect version of the dance. So he's suing movie makers, tv shows, and YouTube, trying to eradicate incorrect versions of his dance.

clicky to the article


It will be interesting to see how laws regarding copyright and public display services (like YouTube) will evolve.

Comments

[thatwasjen]

I think copyright law in this country is entirely out of control. OTOH, copyright is articulated in the Constitution, and in my mind that makes it almost sacred. So, to your hypothetical,

Suppose a late night tv host read the latest short story by your favorite author during his show, without the permission of Bradbury. Clear copyright violation, right?

Yes.

Suppose that the host also changed the story's ending (not in a parody sort of way). Would the author be right to be angry?

Yes.

Suppose a clip of the incorrect reading showed up on YouTube. Would the author be right to force YouTube to remove videos showing the reading?

No. The author could ask. YouTube, in the interest of maintaining the societal infrastructure of copyright, should choose to comply. But I don't think there should be any forcing going on. Youtube and other technology providers are not responsible for what individuals do with their technology.

I've ranted and railed on this topic since the Napster case and even before: A person should not photocopy a book for non-protected uses. But Xerox should not be held responsible if a person does photocopy a book for non-protected uses. Would anybody think of suing AT&T over the con artists who finagle retirees' bank account numbers? Doubtful.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

"force" was an inaccurate word for my intention here. My focus in that question was on the artist taking action to eliminate unauthorized and inaccurate reproductions of their work.

For the record, I love YouTube. Not only for the service they provide, but for the manner in which they provide it. In particular, they actively respond to artists who claim copyright violations.

I'm not really sure how Napster worked (did they maintain a database of songs uploaded by users for future download? or did they simply act as a sort of musical dating service?) With YouTube, the company cannot practically control what is uploaded, and I'd agree that they should not be held responsible for uploads. The person posting the copyrighted material should be held responsible, not YouTube. But if YouTube is made aware of the material, then they should (IMHO) be held partly responsible for removing it, since they own the servers.

[thatwasjen]

My focus in that question was on the artist taking action to eliminate unauthorized and inaccurate reproductions of their work.

Well, yeah, the author can and should. But I don't think YouTube should be legally obligated to help an author preserve his copyright.

With YouTube, the company cannot practically control what is uploaded, and I'd agree that they should not be held responsible for uploads. The person posting the copyrighted material should be held responsible, not YouTube. But if YouTube is made aware of the material, then they should (IMHO) be held partly responsible for removing it, since they own the servers.

We almost agree. Maybe if YouTube is made aware of the material, they should back up the copyright holder's request with a warning that the poster is in violation of copyright law and really ought to take the content down.

It's a question of shooting the messenger, and placing the onus on the person actually committing a violation.

How is YouTube to know and/or judge the veracity of someone's claim that posted material is copyrighted, by someone other than the poster, and should be removed? In some cases it's probably obvious -- but not always.

I do get passionate about copyright at times. (I work in publishing, after all.) Don't ever ask me how I feel about fanfic...

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Just a quick note to point you at this link: YouTube's copyright policy

I really like their policy.