
Google 'stole my videos', says film-maker Philip Bloom - venturis_voice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44228756
======
cwkoss
If Phillip Bloom uploaded these videos to Youtube, didn't he consent to a
broad TOS on the usage of these videos for internal company purposes?

I'd be surprised if he had a case, which may be why he's taking his grievance
to the media instead.

~~~
falcon620
Bingo.

[https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms&gl=US](https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms&gl=US)

From section 6c:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content.
However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a
worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable
license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display,
and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its
successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for
promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works
thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels."

~~~
raesene9
IANAL but I'm not sure that clause applies to this case. From the article it
wasn't a Youtube executive who used the footage but someone from Google's
research division.

Also that clause appears to apply to Youtube using content from the site to
promote Youtube's service(s) and not for content entirely unrelated to Youtube
but to Google's wider interests.

~~~
Jwarder
> Also that clause appears to apply to Youtube using content from the site to
> promote Youtube's service

I'm not sure about that. The preceding statement of "including without
limitation" to the mention of promotion seems like Youtube et al can use your
content for literally anything they want. However, if that's the case then why
bother including the mention of promotion and redistribution at all?

~~~
d0lph
Looks like it's kinda up to the courts how to interpret it, but, also, it
looks like your logic is valid with it being more restrictive than permissive.

"First, some courts have held that an item only falls within the preceding
noun if it falls within one of the items in the list. The thinking is that if
the preceding noun were being used to convey its unrestricted meaning,
referring to subcategories of that word would serve no purpose. See, e.g.,
Application of Central Airlines, 185 P.2d 919 (Okla. 1947) (holding, with
respect to use of the word including, that “if the lawmakers had intended the
general words to be used in their unrestricted sense they would have made no
mention of the particular classes”)." [1]

[1]: [http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-
limitation/](http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/)

------
anthonybsd
Wow. Philip Bloom is a pretty well known and revered figure, especially in
indie film making scene. He has a huge following. If Google is smart they will
settle this quickly.

~~~
coldtea
Not exactly in the indie film making scene (he's no Cassavetes, or Gus Van
Sant or whoever is the indie equivalent today).

Bloom was an old British (BBC?) cameraman/video journalist, who came into web
prominence with his "DSLR for video" posts and reviews.

For a while he/his was one of the few goto persons/websites for this niche. So
his audience has indie film-makers, but also ad people, wedding shooters, and
generally people interested in DSLRs and digital video for
news/ads/wedding/documentary/fiction in general. Himself does various
ads/documentary/tv gigs (e.g. he worked on CNN's travel series).

That said, content-wise he has jumped the shark the last 1-2 years.

~~~
anthonybsd
Right you are sir. I haven't actually followed him since I got out of the DSLR
filming (rigs, follow focus, all that jazz) nearly a decade (7?8 years?) ago.
I just remember that on dvinfo and similar venues he was a force to be
reckoned with along with Vincent Laforet. People would follow his travel
schedule almost religiously.

------
patorjk
Reminds me of a video I watched yesterday by some photographers that
successfully sued a company for using one of their images on an iPhone case
product. The company wound up having to pay 40k for their use of the photo
[1], which seems a little mind boggling. The photographers were willing to
settle for less, but the company kept making excuses and tried avoiding them.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0)
(video title says 60k because they're estimating what the other side paid for
their lawyers)

------
zokier
I think the "internal use" argument is interesting because of its bearing to
question what rights do employees have to internal software that is based on
copyleft software?

Like for example should Google employees have right to redistribute their
internal patched Linux (that I'm certain they have) code without repercussions
(ie getting fired)? How would one even enforce such thing?

~~~
wlesieutre
As I understand it, Linux is GPLv2 and you're allowed to make private
modifications without publishing the source code, just as long as you don't
release your modified version anywhere public. Once you do that, you have to
share the source code modifications.

[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePos...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The "internal use" argument for not needing to license the video is more like
"I don't need to buy a license of Windows as long as I only use this computer
in the office and nobody tells Microsoft about it."

~~~
nightcracker
To clarify this, there is nothing in the GPL that forces you to distribute to
anyone. E.g. you can make a highly modified GIMP for internal use in your
company and keep it closed source and internal.

The only condition is that IF you distribute your program, you must also
distribute the source code.

~~~
daemin
Or you must make the source code available to anyone that you distributed to
if/when they ask for it.

------
btrettel
Are there any good examples of copyright hypocrites? That is, companies which
have spent great effort pursuing copyright infringement while infringing on
copyright themselves.

I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought
to expand access (when it's in their interest, at least). Companies like
Disney come to mind, but they're not exactly the same. They often adapt works
where the copyright has expired, while lobbying to prevent their own works
from having their copyright expire. That is definitely unfair, but not quite
the same.

~~~
will_brown
>I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought
to expand access

They have fought to expand access to other people’s protected property but
make sure theirs is locked behind paywall.

Think of all the copywrite violations on YouTube, from movies, tv shows,
copywrite broadcasts of sporting events.

Now try to watch episode 3 or beyond of YouTube Red (Premium) series Cobra Kai
without signing up for the service and giving them your credit card.

Do as I say, not as I do.

~~~
tmpz22
There's also the scraping of third party sites to use as in-search cards
within Google search, whilst having extensive scraping defenses for their own
searches and charging for programmatic access to Google search...

~~~
icebraining
Third party sites only get scraped if they want, Google Search obeys
robots.txt. There's nothing hypocritical about it.

------
Crash0v3rid3
Question for the HN community. What if you take some copyrighted picture and
make it a meme and put it on /r/AdviceAnimals, should the person submitting
that post or Reddit be liable? Even if the intended purpose of posting that
content was a joke/satire of some kind? I don't know what the right path
forward here is. I do feel that if the intended purpose of using the copyright
material was to make money then I do feel that legal action is required. I
don't see that is the case here though.

~~~
Kalium
Using copyrighted material for commentary or satire, even to make money, even
if the original was commercial, should be heavily protected.

~~~
delta1
Isn't Weird Al Yankovic a great example of this?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic)

~~~
dfxm12
Not exactly, because he always gets explicit permission from the original
artists to parody a song.

A great example would be someone who doesn't get such permission.

~~~
Kalium
Weird Al always gets explicit permission from artists whose songs he releases
parodies of on his albums. He's got an additional repertoire of songs he only
performs but never records, some of which I believe he was denied permission
for.

It's still legal.

------
LinuxBender
Does fair use [0] apply to this at all?

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)

~~~
ajross
If it was just some rando on the Internet being accused of clipping someone's
youtube for a yoga video or whatever, sure. But this is HN and the perp is
Google, so they must burn.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Presumably because HN understands the difference between a private citizen and
a huge multinational corporation.

~~~
ajross
There is no such distinction in Fair Use.

------
z3t4
The Google video: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-
selfish...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-
ledger-video-data-privacy)

------
mankash666
What's to settle? Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the
legal bounds.

For instance, you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation
slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. IF your son leaks
the said video,are you to blame?

~~~
jstanley
By that logic, are you free to show copyrighted films you torrented to all
your friends and family as long as the event is not open to the general
public?

~~~
trothamel
No, but you are allowed to show copyrighted films you bought to your family
and friends as long as the event is not open to the general public.

Doesn't this hinge around if Google legally acquired the film in the first
place? Assuming they did that, wouldn't the only other violation be if it was
distributed?

~~~
Kerrick
Those blu-ray discs come with a license specifically calling out that you're
allowed "home use" \-- the videographer in the news story did _not_ give
Google a "home use" license.

------
GuiA
_" My footage is represented online by two major stock-footage companies. And
I license it for all sorts of projects and uses, from commercials to broadcast
to corporate films," said Mr Bloom. "A fair amount of my footage has been
licensed for internal use only, so to hear Google not state that they will
compensate me for its use is very surprising._

The footage was licensed for internal use, and Google has presumably paid for
that.

The contention arises because the video was leaked; in the film maker’s view,
he should be compensated because it is not internal anymore and thus breaks
the usage agreement.

If Google has purposefully published the video, that’d be a very easy ruling
to make in favor of the videographer; but the fact that it was leaked will
make this an interesting case to follow.

~~~
bigiain
> The footage was licensed for internal use, and Google has presumably paid
> for that.

That's a pretty far fetched interpretation in my opinion.

I'm 99.99% sure the article says/means "other people/companies have licensed
footage for internal use from the appropriate online stock-footage agents, but
Google has not".

