Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony Graphics Youtube

Blender Foundation Video Taken Down On YouTube For Copyright Violation 306

Posted by timothy
from the now-it's-ours dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As if the automated take downs on Youtube weren't already bad enough, today fans of the popular open source 3D software Blender were greeted by a copyright take down notice for their third open movie, Sintel, despite it being released under a Creative Commons license: 'This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.' It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blender Foundation Video Taken Down On YouTube For Copyright Violation

Comments Filter:
  • by fxbar (2627205) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @08:20PM (#46673157)
    https://cloud.blender.org/goos... [blender.org] For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal ;-) Of course there are also cheaper deals.
  • Re:Perjury? (Score:5, Informative)

    by amaurea (2900163) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @08:55PM (#46673321) Homepage

    Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

    I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:06PM (#46673377) Homepage Journal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

    "... falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:12PM (#46673393)

    Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

    I call bullshit on this one. Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.

    However, the linking of Google Plus to Youtube does indeed suck.

  • Re:Perjury? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jdi_knght (3507915) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:30PM (#46673441)

    Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

    I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

    Just to expand on the process, when a video is first hit with the claim, you can dispute it within YouTube, and have to provide an explanation. What they *don't* tell you is that the company who made the claim (which would be Sony in this case) is the one who reviews it and makes a determination.

    If they deny your dispute, you can then appeal from within the YouTube interface, again stating an explanation about why your content is your own, or fair use, or whatever. But this time you get to read a lot more legal scare stuff, AND you have to provide your address & phone number along with the appeal. Yet again, the claimant is the one who reviews this. At this point they either have to retract their claim, or send a formal DMCA takedown notice to keep your video down. Or I suppose they could just directly sue you now that they have your info.

    If they go the DMCA takedown route at that point, that's where you can file a DMCA counter-notice, and they'll have to bring you to court if they want to pursue things further. Since you gave them your address & number during step 2, you won't be hard to track down.

    The system is completely stacked in favor of the big media companies, and I'm sure it works well for them. Make claims on all kinds of content, and the vast majority of people will be too afraid to challenge it, and many of those people might even assume that they were in the wrong even if they weren't. Next benefit is that the claimant's allowed to put advertising/etc on the video that Joe User made and profit from it. And the very existence of steps #1 and #2 allows big media to skirt around the risks of sending false DMCA notices.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:15PM (#46673617)

    Not exactly.

    Because of multiple lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the recording industry, Google has struck this deal with major stakeholders whereby they can basically bypass what limited due process exists in the DMCA and takedown videos on a whim.

    You have no recourse under this system because the DMCA isn't being invoked by these media companies where there is an ability to file a DMCA counter-notice and sue for damages for false copyright assertions.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:17PM (#46673625)

    There are, but conveniently enough you have to file your own suit against them rather than the government enforcing it.

  • by ikhider (2837593) on Sunday April 06, 2014 @01:13AM (#46674151)
    There are better alternatives, like Archive.org--especially for Libre/Opensource projects. I would not bother with Youtube, which is riddled with ads anyway. Archive.org has a mandate to serve the public, Youtube has a mandate to line the pockets of the rich. I'll take Archive.org. The Blender team should have known better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06, 2014 @06:05AM (#46674825)

    And who's going to stop them?

    Since Blender is a Dutch organization it would be EU. If Sony ignores the copyright they will end up with an Antigua-situation where EU will essentially claim to WTO that since Sony doesn't follow copyright regulation they are exempt from it and all Sony IP is free for copying within EU.

  • by Technician (215283) on Sunday April 06, 2014 @10:42AM (#46676325)

    It seems to have been noticed and fixed.

    Link to video on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...