From: Flick Harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 10:27:00 PDT
I'd say that Shooting Down Pictures case is a sad example of a naive,
earnest scholar expecting a giant faceless corporation to behave like
a decent citizen. Of COURSE your videos are going to be taken down,
unblinkingly, without any kind of scholarly analysis from the Youtube
That's a case against cloud computing (Chrome OS!), in my opinion.
Nothing protects your data like keeping it close to your chest. If
it's on somebody else's service, they control it.
Even if the FILMMAKER could claim fair (critical review) use as a
noncommercial entity, YOUTUBE can't. They're a commercial entity, and
so it would be Youtube who defends the fair use in court, with their
own costly lawyers:
"The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses,
but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses." (Wikipedia)
Not something Youtube probably wants to do.
Surely in really obvious cases, no court would ding them; but how many
really obvious cases could youtube afford to defend? A million a
year? That's probably a fair wild guess at how many "fair use" claims
could be made on their site, with or without justification, by earnest
Imagine a Charles Dickens / Kafka-style accounting office; row upon
row of people pulling levers on their adding machines. It goes to the
horizon in every direction. Now imagine they care about your video.
Put it on another site; put it on your own site; but don't trust
Youtube to respect your rights.
On 1-Apr-10, at 01:06 , Jim Flannery wrote:
> Then there's the sad story of Shooting Down Pictures ...
> Jim Flannery
> email suppressed
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
* FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com
* FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
* MYSPACE: http://myspace.com/flickharrison
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.