Joined: 3/18/2006
Posts: 971
Location: Great Britain
A friend of mine had some of his videos removed by youtube because someone submitted a copyright claim against him.
The issue is that the videos are of a 'livestreamed' video game.
The friend recorded a video game tournament that was freely broadcast as a live stream.
The person who filed the complaint does not, of course, own copyright of the game. Sony/Nintendo own the copyright of the game.
I thought this case was quite interesting.
So, can someone be successfully sued for uploading a livestream of a gaming event to youtube? The gaming event was broadcast freely on a livestream website. 90% of the videos are of the game being played, as opposed to the 'event' itself.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6437
Location: The land down under.
antd wrote:
detail of stupid YouTube and Copyright law crap
Wow, what? This shouldn't be possible on my archive channel I got 2 livestreams of AGDQ on there SMBBlind and SPOBlind.
Unless that's a completely different thing, then it would be because of the original owners of the livestream if it's him then what?!
It should not be possible unless there is copyright music involved which usually makes YouTube go hang on this is not meant to be there.
That's my best analysis on this.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
If the person who filed the copyright against you doesn't own the rights, then you can dispute the copyright claim. There's a form on YouTube for that.
So, can someone be successfully sued for uploading a livestream of a gaming event to youtube?
Yes. Just because it is aired for free does not mean you can upload it elsewhere. This is no different than uploading a tv show, which also air for free.
Except when they do.
In the US, all of the major tv stations broadcast for free, over the air. All you need to watch it is an antenna, and a tv. It doesn't cost a cent. Furthermore, it's pretty common for them to offer their shows online, again, for free.
Just because someone gives you something for free does not mean you can give it away for free too.
Generally, the us is the same, but all of the major networks (including fox, nbc, cbs, abc and others) broadcast over the air, which doesn't cost anything, other than a one time fee of $10-30, for an antenna. This usually is limited to maybe a dozen channels that are worth watching, and depending on where you live, perhaps a few dozen others, that may or may not ever be worth watching. But it's free.
Regardless, the point is, just because something is broadcasted or otherwise given away for free, does not mean anyone else is allowed to do the same.
The gaming event was broadcast freely on a livestream website.
Note that distributing something for free does not remove copyright, or diminish the rights of the author in any way. If the author / copyright owner does not specify any usage license, the default (in the vast majority of jurisdictions and the international copyright) is that you can't use the work for anything (not even redistribution), rather than the opposite (as many people seem to think).
Now, as for this particular type of content, I don't know the answer. Copyright gets fuzzy when it becomes a question of whether the material contains some actual original work or not. In these unclear cases it's probably up to a judge to decide.
Edit: Oh, and a big IANAL!
All you need to watch it is an antenna, and a tv. It doesn't cost a cent.
Don't you need something called a radio/TV license? We need that in Sweden at least, and converted to dollars it costs like 280 per year. This fee is for the so-called free channels (about 15 channels). We need to pay the license even if we don't watch any channels and just use the TV for gaming for example.
No, there's no TV license in the United States. However, there also aren't any government-run TV channels; the closest you get is PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) which is nonprofit and relies heavily on both viewer support and government grants.
Instead, the wavelengths used to broadcast TV over the air have been auctioned off to the companies that use them; they're required to conform to broadcasting standards (meaning that anyone with a TV and antenna can watch what is broadcasted) and make their profits off of advertising.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Youtube staff don't check the validity of the copyright claims they get. Even if they are blatantly fake, the video will still be removed on the spot, because that's how their system works. It's sort of an automated process. File a complain, get a video immediately removed, no questions asked. You still have the option to dispute the claim, though.
Youtube staff don't check the validity of the copyright claims they get. Even if they are blatantly fake, the video will still be removed on the spot, because that's how their system works. It's sort of an automated process. File a complain, get a video immediately removed, no questions asked. You still have the option to dispute the claim, though.
As I understand the DMCA, they are required to behave this way. Any complaint must result in an immediate removal of the offending content. However, they are also required to put that content back up if the person who uploaded it claims that the complaint was erroneous -- at that point, the uploader and the complainer have to duke things out in court.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be misrepresenting things. That's just my understanding.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
However, there also aren't any government-run TV channels
at least not for internal consumption, due to the Smith-Mundt Act, but the government does run a radio and television network called Voice of America (VOA)
and although, as I said, VOA doesn't broadcast over the airwaves to residents of the United States, it doesn't (yet) prevent US-based IP addresses from accessing its video and audio content on the Web
still, VOA is funded by general tax revenues, rather than user fees on antennas, televisions, or radios
