Great Moments In AP Protectionism: Demands Takedown Of Videos It Purposely Shared With Affiliate

from the brilliant-work dept

A bunch of folks are submitting the latest and greatest in the Associated Press's attempt to become the RIAA of news. The AP, smartly, has a YouTube channel, where it puts up a bunch of AP videos, with the embed code enabled. An AP affiliate in Tennessee reasonably embedded some of those videos... and were promptly accused of "stealing" the AP's licensed content and ordered to take it down. There are so many things wrong with this situation it's difficult to know where to start:

• It's the AP's own YouTube channel.
• This radio station is an AP affiliate.
• The AP turned on the embedding function
• When told all of this, the AP exec demanding the takedown had no idea it had a YouTube channel.

This is clearly part the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing... but it's also a sign of how out of touch the AP remains. When it purposely offers up content for sharing, it did something smart. Demanding that anyone take down content that was specifically designed to be shared in this manner is just amazing.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Embedding Infringement? MPAA Sues Two Sites

from the we-may-find-out dept

While we still need to wait for the end result of the YouTube/Viacom case to learn whether hosting infringing videos is infringement itself, there's another open question about whether or not linking to or embedding infringing videos is also infringing. It seems difficult to understand how it could be infringing, as it's no different than pointing someone to freely available content (and, technically, linking and embedding are no different at all -- it's just some HTML). The person (or computer) doing the linking or embedding has no idea whether the content being linked or embedded is infringing -- and it seems reasonable to believe that if it's available online, there's nothing wrong with linking to it.

Yet, here we have the MPAA suing two sites that both link to and embed various movies. The two sites in question, FOMD (Found Online Movie Database) and MovieRumor, don't host the movies themselves. They merely point people to various movies that are publicly available online. It would seem like a rather drastic stretch of copyright law to claim that is also infringement, but don't be too surprised at how this will be argued. The MPAA will play on emotional, rather than rational, arguments -- and it may actually work, given some similar cases in the past.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

We Can't Quote The AP... But Can Embed Its Videos?

from the left-hand,-meet-the-right-hand dept

The Associated Press is still insisting that bloggers shouldn't be excerpting its articles online without a license -- but apparently no one told the folks pushing AP videos. Jon Ashley wonders about this difference, noting that the AP has its own YouTube Channel, where it appears that the videos all have embedding enabled. This, of course, takes us right back to the question we asked last week concerning whether or not embedding videos can be seen as infringement. In the meantime, since the AP insists it really wants to be a part of the "conversation," can it explain why embedding videos is great, while quoting is not?

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Blog Receives Takedown Notice For Embedding A Video With Authorized Embed Code

from the keep-the-lawyers-busy dept

A year and a half ago, I wondered outloud if embedding an infringing video would be considered infringement as well. Technically, it's no different than just linking to infringing content. However, imagine an even more ridiculous scenario: what if a website puts up its own videos with an embed code, but then sends out takedown notices to anyone who embeds it? Russ writes in to let us know that's exactly what happened with an Iowa sports blog that was trying to raise awareness of the floods in Iowa (a good thing) and embedded a video from the website of the Des Moines Register using the very embed code offered by the Des Moines Register. So what happens? The Des Moines Register sends a takedown notice claiming copyright infringement. After complaining about this on the blog, and getting some attention over it, someone from the Register apologized and said that it was an overeager staffer who was unfamiliar with the fact that videos on the site included embed codes.

While it's great that the Des Moines Register quickly recognized its mistake, apologized and promised to make sure it wouldn't happen again, it still does raise some questions that are almost certain to show up in the future. It's still not clear if a site is responsible for embedding infringing videos. But what if the video's copyright holder doesn't like how a video is being used? What if, for example (and this is not what happened in this case) a site had used that same video of the Iowa floods to mock the victims? I would imagine that it would be tempting in that case to send out the takedown notice, even though the embed code had been offered up. We're almost certainly going to see this happen in the near future. Someone who puts up a video with an embed code is going to be unhappy with how that content is being used, and will claim infringement, even though the content was freely offered up.

The copyright implications of embedding are not at all clear -- and that means you can be sure that lawsuits are on their way.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Viral Weezer Video Not Allowed To Be Viral

from the not-so-brilliant dept

The band Weezer has been getting a lot of buzz for its latest video for the song Pork and Beans, which takes a bunch of viral video "YouTube stars" and has them reprising their roles in its own video. Others have done similar things, so perhaps it's not that unique. However, a Techdirt reader named Mike noticed something quite odd about the Weezer video on YouTube. For a supposedly "viral" video -- Weezer or Universal Music has disabled the ability to embed the video in other sites (see update below). Embedding these kinds of videos, of course, is exactly how they go viral. Specifically disabling that feature on a video that's entirely based on viral videos seems backwards.

It's difficult to believe that Weezer did this themselves -- as the band has long been seen as embracing the internet and new technologies and distribution means. Hell, just doing this type of video shows how connected to the internet scene they are. So it makes you wonder if it was the band's label, Universal Music, that has stopped the embedding. If they're going to do this, why not follow Viacom's footsteps and ask the video to be taken down completely.

Update: Aha! Within hours of us posting this, the embed feature was re-enabled. No explanation as to what happened. Someone from Weezer or Universal care to comment?

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Viacom's New Argument Against YouTube: Embedding Videos Removes Safe Harbors

from the active-vs.-passive dept

While we already discussed Google's latest response to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, Cynthia Brumfeld has picked up on an interesting point that's been overlooked: Viacom's amended complaint includes a slightly different argument as to why Google/YouTube are not protected by the DMCA's safe harbors, effectively claiming that YouTube takes an active role in transmitting the content. This is somewhat similar to an earlier argument that some made that YouTube is disqualified from the safe harbors because it transforms video from its original format into flash, but stretches it even further.

Even worse, Viacom brings up the issue of embedding videos. Of course, YouTube's embedding feature that allows anyone to easily embed a video in any webpage was one of its big selling points. Last year, we had raised the question (that still hasn't been answered) whether or not it was copyright infringement to embed an infringing video into your own site (even though you don't host the content at all). Viacom seems to be claiming that by enabling this act of embedding is infringing. Why? Because it's YouTube serving up the video, rather than the original uploader.

That's a huge stretch by any imagination and hopefully the court will toss it out. Otherwise, it effectively nullifies the entire safe harbor provision of the DMCA. The point of the safe harbors are to protect the platform provider for the infringement of its users. If the court accepts Viacom's claim here, then it completely throws out that clear meaning of the safe harbor provision. It basically says that any service provider who "hosts" content that is accessed via another site is now guilty of copyright infringement, even if the company is never alerted that the content infringes. That goes against the clear meaning and purpose of the safe harbor provisions.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..