
Lionsgate copyright claims over reviews by YouTuber AngryJoeShow [video] - grecy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diyZ_Kzy1P8
======
lousken
Interesting that even youtubers with millions of subscribers still have to
deal with this stuff. Would be interesting to know how many smaller youtubers
got owned by fake claims and we never see any videos about it.

Since this has been going on for years I wonder if youtube has even any plans
to deal with this nonsense or just ignore it and force youtubers to create
their own platforms like Linus and Floatplane and move their audiences there
while smaller ones will have to move to something like peertube.

~~~
lathiat
The thing that frustrates me, personally, watching a large number of very
popular youtubers who are clearly producing both popular and also educational
content, is that they still have a "3 strikes" system no matter the size of
your channel of quality of videos that you upload. If you hit 2 strikes you
can't live stream and if you hit 3 strikes your channel is gone.

And those strikes are not just for copyright but also community violations.
But not just egregious ones, it applies equally to "borderline" violations.

3 strikes probably makes sense when the rulings are more absolute and clear
intentional violations of these policies. But you would think that channels
which have a long history of generally follow the rules and producing original
content would have a little more lee-way on the channel-shutdown level of 3
strikes, particularly for more borderline cases.

A common one I keep seeing is popular scientific channel "Cody's Lab". In one
case his strike was for a video making basic, centuries old, gunpowder. A
topic covered by 100s of other videos still up on YouTube. All of his strikes
have been along those lines. In another case he microwaved fruit flies,
knowing that they would not be harmed by this, they weren't harmed and the
point of that video was exactly that. I would say yes, it's arguable, but it
seems to me like these are the kinds of cases that should allow a little more
lee-way than 3 strikes and your entire career is gone. Also consider that
there is no way to ask for a review ahead of time to say "yes this is OK" \-
you just get randomly struck down later most often many months after the video
was published.

Meanwhile to criticize this after a string of these, he released a wonderful
video of him "dangerously" drinking Hydric Acid (also known as Dihydrogen
Monoxide):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCdHfyaDLM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCdHfyaDLM)

~~~
cryptonector
The YouTube 3-strikes concept is draconian. The risk to content creators is so
outsize that it is the thing that could give a competitor a leg up, and the
only reason it's not enough is that YT could fix this at any time, thus
limiting the appeal of a competitor. But the risk to YT is not zero: at some
point there may be a terrible-for-PR incident that drives content creators
elsewhere.

YT management must be aware of how terrible the situation is for content
creators. The question is: why not address this?

------
gumby
The DMCA protection against false claims are woefully inadequate to the point
of being non-existant.

~~~
Khaine
Except they are not using the DMCA, they are using google's own content id
process, which has no checks and/or balances[1].

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-
injus...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-injustice-of-
the-youtube-content-id-crackdown-reveals-googles-dark-side/#3b78c46c66c8)

~~~
polishTar
Not exactly true. The YT claim system is optional. Either party can bypass it
and force it through the DMCA/other legal process if they want (the claimee
can do this by filing a dispute+appeal). Of course doing this opens the
claimee to potentially far more dire consequences if the claimant chooses to
for example file a lawsuit against the claimee, which is why
disputing+appealing can be dangerous and most creators aren't willing to do it
(or they might just dispute but choose not to follow a rejected dispute with
an appeal).

The benefit of the YT claim system is that 1) it usually gives a good enough
remedy to copyright holders such that they won't feel the need to file DMCA
takedowns or lawsuits against creators 2) it isn't subject to the DMCA's
repeat infringement requirement (which manifests itself on YT and most other
platforms as a 3-strikes-your-out policy) 3) it offers far more granular
remedies (a claim won't always result in the video being taken down for
instance) and 4) it's optional! If a claimee is willing to defend their
content against a DMCA takedown or in court if need be, then they can always
dispute+appeal

On the other hand, one of the big disadvantages of the claim system is that it
makes navigating YT copyright confusing as hell to those unfamiliar with it.
The misinformation that's so prevalent on the claim system just makes
everything so much worse. Not entirely sure how YT could improve that TBH.

~~~
6nf
> Either party can bypass it and force it through the DMCA process if they
> want

That's not true as far as I can tell. If my video gets claimed there's nowhere
in the Youtube UI that allows me to do this? If this is really an option could
you show me how to do this please? From what I can tell my only real option is
to 'dispute' and then the supposed 'rightsholder' just says 'nope' and my
dispute goes away with no further recourse.

~~~
polishTar
You have to appeal the dispute. The appeal goes to youtube who will force the
claimant to either escalate the claim to a DMCA takedown or release it
entirely.

YT has official docs on how to do this under the "How to appeal rejected
disputes" section:
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en)

~~~
6nf
'Request immediate removal of your video: They may issue a copyright takedown
request against your video if they believe their claim is still valid. This
means you’ll get a copyright strike on your account. If you still believe that
you have the rights to the content, you can submit a counter notification at
this point.'

You still get a copyright strike and I can't tell if Youtube removes that
strike when you send a counter notification?

Three strikes and you're out?

~~~
polishTar
That's the DMCA for you unfortunately! Most platforms like YT have a
3-strikes-your-out policy as a result of the DMCA's "repeat infringers"
requirement.

If you send a DMCA counter notification in response to a takedown, the strike
will be removed (possibly allowing some delay for the counterparty to show
intent to file a lawsuit).

~~~
cannonedhamster
However you've already lost almost all revenue for a video with no
compensation from YT or the false claimant. It's specifically against content
creators and does nothing to prevent copyright infringement. It does nothing
but prove copyright infringement isn't a problem that can be solved in the
courts or through the legal system. Most people do not believe the courts are
fair, the law is fair, or that compensation is equitable for the product.
Companies that solve that problem don't tend to have that problem. Don't
believe me? Try looking up how easy it is to get Netflix content. It's not
nearly as widely available on illicit sources as content that's more heavily
locked down.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I'm usually very much on the side of the small(er) YouTubers who have to deal
with these bullshit, broadstroke copyright claims by large media companies,
but then I looked at the original HellBoy trailer reaction video. It contained
the _entire_ trailer, in full, no editing. I can't imagine any court deeming
this is fair use. You couldn't just take a video of an entire movie, add some
commentary to it, and expect a fair use defense to stand.

~~~
barnesto
You mean a trailer studios use to promote movies?

This seems more like them not appreciating the criticism than copyright
infringement.

~~~
zenexer
Unless you're actually licensed to distribute the trailer, you don't actually
have the right to do so, I believe. Of course, the copyright holder probably
isn't going to care if you do it in a way that helps them, but it's entirely
their decision.

------
oth001
Would somebody be able to manually copyright claim videos produced by Lion's
Gate? By the way, this is happening with BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.) claiming
videos in which there's no music at all.

------
demarq
Why don't you tubers just form a union. YouTube will always lean towards favor
of the bigger scarier party. Also such a union would be able to lead boycotts
and protests of movies albums etc

~~~
neuralRiot
What kind of union can fight against a corp. that spends $200M making just one
shitty movie.

------
lucd
The French youtuber Benzaiehad this happen to him too.. Culprit was 20th
Century Fox, for X-men Apocalypse. Reuploaded the review without the movie
content playing in the background.
[https://youtu.be/9DjfTisCYDg](https://youtu.be/9DjfTisCYDg)

------
moron4hire
Uhm, his video contained the trailer in whole.

~~~
judge2020
It was likely fair use since there was discussion and criticism of the
trailer, but I agree that the full trailer shouldn't have been played.

~~~
moron4hire
Unfortunately, Fair Use is a guideline, it's not a strict set of legal
exemptions. It's usually considered impossible to claim Fair Use when
monetization is involved. I can't tell if they were trying to run ads on the
video originally, but given the general sense of the channel, it seems likely.

------
cannonedhamster
Stop using Youtube then. Seems like a mass exodus of top talent might make
Youtube react. Otherwise they aren't going to do anything. You're not worth it
unless you're impacting Google's bottom line.

