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.