
Sony Filed a Copyright Claim Against the Stock Video I Licensed to Them - mayneack
http://petapixel.com/2015/10/25/sony-filed-a-copyright-claim-against-the-stock-video-i-licensed-to-them/
======
neurotech1
I think Mitch Martinez(OP/content creator) did a good job of making it clear
to Sony/Epic that false copyright claims are not acceptable.

IANAL but maybe for next time he should include a "false copyright claim" fee
(plus attorneys fees) in the original license agreement.

On a related topic, Dreamworks were trying to get a license release for the
Noisebridge logo[0], but apparently had difficulty understanding the concept
of "fair use". It was pretty funny.

[0] [https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-
discuss/20...](https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-
discuss/2013-January/034416.html)

~~~
serge2k
What would be great is if you could add a clause stating that any assertion of
copyright (by them), including automated systems, would result in a revocation
of the license. Then whenever you get a notice from youtube respond by
demanding take-down or monetization of their videos.

------
Oatseller
The YouTube notification contains:

    
    
        Due to a copyright claim, you are no longer monetizing the following
        YouTube video. It is still playable on YouTube, but the copyright
        owner could choose to show ads on it.
    

The key phrase is "but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it".

Google is automatically transferring the benefits of copyright to anyone who
files a claim?

That seems ripe for abuse.

Theoretically, you could claim copyright of a video, show your ads on it, and
profit until the dispute is settled (if it ever is). A popular video could
have hundreds of thousands of views before a dispute is settled and a company
the size of Sony could probably claim some form of copyright infringement on
thousands of videos.

And there's no downside (other than the effort/costs of filing the
complaints), a small content provider won't pursue the perjury clause in the
DMCA, it'd be too hard to prove (if they know about it at all). They'll just
be happy it's over and go on with their lives.

</tinfoilhat>

~~~
rspeer
The tin-foil hat is unnecessary. What you describe is happening, all the time.

It's not even perjury. I was going to describe things that falsely take down
videos as "perjury-bots" but then I remembered that major sites such as
YouTube and Twitch have set up their own expedited process outside the legal
system. They'll even find the content for you.

You just have to say "This sound/video is mine, whenever it appears", and when
a sufficiently high percentage of sound and video actually _are_ yours,
organizations will believe you whether or not it's true.

So large content companies just claim everything they possibly can, regardless
of whether they're allowed to or not. It's all upside (more revenue from
videos!) and no downside (nobody will hold you accountable).

~~~
Oatseller
I agree with your conclusions, the 'tinfoilhat' was for my conspiratorial tone
with no citations to back it up.

------
tacotuesday
>Explain that if they do not remove their copyright claim within the time
allotted that I will revoke their rights to use my footage in their video due
to a terms of use violation.

The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's
very slippery though.

If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all
is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great
inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse.

However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's
video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now
they've perjured themselves.

My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison.
It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this
little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds
like someone at Sony still violated the law.

~~~
ceejayoz
No one ever gets charged under that, because it requires _knowingly_ filing a
false claim. Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say
an algorithm knowingly lied.

Even with a human in the loop (for example, the "copyright holder has
confirmed the claim" from the article) it's hard to prove someone lied. "Idiot
intern" makes a generally acceptable defense.

~~~
morganvachon
When it comes to criminal law, the standard is "knew or should have known". At
the very least, Sony and possibly YouTube are liable for the results of a
flawed algorithm causing them to break the law. It's been in (mis)use for many
years now, and it's obvious it's a horribly inaccurate method of determining
copyright violations. Without human intervention to investigate and ensure
each and every claim is legitimate, YouTube and the copyright claimants are
committing fraud and perjury on a massive scale.

~~~
icebraining
YouTube and its system doesn't issue DMCA takedown requests; what law are they
breaking?

It's not illegal to takedown whatever videos you want from your own platform,
nor to allow a partner company from choosing videos to take down.

~~~
morganvachon
YouTube acts upon DMCA requests from companies claiming copyright
infringement, using an algorithm that YouTube employs. When said request is
known or should be known to be perjurious, the parties involved should be held
liable.

While you are correct that YouTube reserves the right to remove whatever they
want to from their site, they do not have the right to monetize on behalf of a
third party (Sony, et. al.) content you create and own the copyright to, nor
claim copyright on behalf of that third party, just by waving around the DMCA.
However, that is exactly what they are doing, and are doing it under color of
law, and while committing perjury to boot.

~~~
icebraining
Why do you say they are using the DMCA? My point is exactly that: if you own
the platform, you don't need the DMCA to take down videos from it!

 _they do not have the right to monetize on behalf of a third party (Sony, et.
al.) content you create and own the copyright to_

Why not? YouTube can put ads on any video, why couldn't they distribute that
income with whoever they want to?

~~~
morganvachon
> Why do you say they are using the DMCA?

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:

[https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-deal-with-universal-
blocks-...](https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-deal-with-universal-blocks-dmca-
counter-notices-130405/)

> YouTube can put ads on any video, why couldn't they distribute that income
> with whoever they want to?

It's a matter of trust. YouTube implemented a monetization policy to encourage
regular folks to create viral content, and reward that effort with
monetization for original works. However, YouTube is gaming their own system
and stacking it in favor of Big Content. They are breaking the trust they
asked their users to place in them, and breaking their own policies to support
their biggest customers.

~~~
icebraining
_> Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:_

While the email mentions a DMCA notice, I doubt there was one. Content-ID
probably detected it, and UMG blocked it without needing to send any DMCA
notice, just using YouTube's backend tools. If you search on the DMCA database
that Google/Youtube uses, ChillingEffects, there's no match for a notice sent
by UMG:
[https://chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&te...](https://chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=rakim&term-
require-all=true&sort_by=)

Essentially, my point is that the DMCA is a legal mechanism to force hosting
services to comply, but it isn't needed in this case, since YouTube complies
voluntarily.

 _> It's a matter of trust._

Oh, absolutely, I never meant to say that YouTube aren't being assholes by
behaving like this, but we were talking about _legal_ rights, and I don't see
them violating those.

And playing Devil's advocate, I'm not sure YouTube is all that interested in
implementing these mechanisms - their customers are the advertisers, not Big
Content. I'd say it's more like paying protection money after getting the
proverbial horse head in the bed - or in this case, the barrage of lawsuits
they got between 2008-2012.

------
ilamont
_I recorded all of my phone calls with the person from Epic’s legal
department. I knew that without his acknowledgment of the recording that the
call itself might not necessarily be admissible in court (depending on the
state statutes), but knowing how fallible memory is, it would still provide me
the ability to revisit exactly what was said on the calls and help me prepare
for a legal battle if it came to that._

Besides the question of whether or not the contents of a recorded conversation
is admissible in court, is it even legal to record a phone conversation
without the other person’s knowledge?

~~~
oasisbob
Yes, in some states it's legal to record telephone calls with the consent of a
single party.

I read his disclaimer as "I'm in a one-party consent state, but the person I'm
talking to may or may not be - and I have no idea how admissible this would be
as evidence but I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law."

~~~
larrys
What matters is the state that you are making the recording in.

So if your state is a one party consent state and you are one of the parties
it doesn't matter what the rules in the other state are.

Now what could get interesting is if you are in a one party state and you are
calling on a cell phone and you hit a tower in another state. So then you
claim that you are in State A and if they were to put in the effort to check
or cell records they saw you hit the tower in State B then I would guess you
would have to offer further proof of actually making the call in State A other
than your statement that was the case. (As opposed to a land line where it's
clear where you are located).

[http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-
co...](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-
conversations)

~~~
rahimnathwani
What if you just route all your calls through a VoIP server in a one-party
state, and record the call there?

~~~
larrys
Interesting thought. [1] Probably doesn't fill the letter of the law. Otoh
that is what I would call "a leg to stand on". That is it gives some wiggle
room and reasonable doubt that you weren't following the law. Would depend on
the exact wording of each States law and how tight it was. Ianal but often
things boil down to this type of thinking with other things as you probably
know.

[1] For that matter what if you conference in a friend and the friend is the
one that did the recording.

------
redcap
At the case closed comments, why is there no discussion of receiving payment
from SME? Surely the time and effort chasing down a bad copyright claim is
worth more than receiving credit.

