Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Open Source

Company 'Hijacks' Blender's CC BY-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes User (torrentfreak.com) 74

Posted by BeauHD from the favoring-large-rightsholders dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: The Blender Institute develops Blender, a free and open source 3D graphics tool used to create animated films. Sintel and Big Buck Bunny are among Blender's most recognizable titles and due to Creative Commons licensing (CC BY), they are widely shared, used, remixed and reshared. According to original Blender creator Ton Roosendaal, "Open licenses are essential for sharing our films and their source material." Right now, a company is claiming that Blender's free content is actually their content and as a result, must be immediately removed from the internet. We're talking about content that was created with Blender's explicit blessing but even after multiple appeals, not even YouTube will see reason.

Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz is the co-founder and CTO at AI-focused driver safety company, Nexar. On Sunday he informed TorrentFreak that he's also an independent film composer and producer, working with music production libraries, and distributing to the main music platforms. TorrentFreak contacted Bruno after noticing a post he made on a music production forum. He wrote that after uploading a video containing a clip from the Blender movie Caminandes 3 -- Llamigos, YouTube notified him that a rightsholder had filed a copyright complaint, his video had been taken down, and a copyright strike had been issued to his account. The complaint, sent by Uzbekistan-based media/news company ZO'R TV, was not the result of automatic matching under Content ID. It was filed as a formal DMCA notice, meaning that someone probably reviewed the details before sending the complaint. The notice claimed that Bruno had infringed ZO'R TV's copyrights by reproducing content (6:21 to 8:26) from this YouTube video published in 2018.

Since the content in question is obviously from Blender's film Caminandes 3, ZO'R TV was in no position to issue a DMCA notice. On that basis, Bruno followed the recognized procedure by sending a DMCA counternotice to YouTube. It didn't go well. After filing his counternotice with YouTube, Bruno was informed that since he'd provided insufficient information, YouTube could not process it. However, YouTube did inform Bruno of the risks of filing a counternotice, including that his name could be sent to the claimant, ZO'R TV in this case. Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked him for filing it -- but still declined to process it. YouTube's email advised Bruno that counternotices should only be filed in case of a mistake or misidentification. Consulting with a lawyer first might be helpful, YouTube added. After three attempts to restore the video and have the copyright strike removed, YouTube responded once again. The message contained yet more disappointment for Bruno. "Based on the information that you have provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor your request," it advised. This signaled the end of the debate as far as YouTube was concerned and by rejecting Bruno's right to send a counternotice, the platform denied him an opportunity to have the video restored, stand up for Blender's rights, and get the strike removed. After notifying Blender of the situation, Blender developed Ton Roosendaal replied, saying the company has "no staff here available to go after situations like this" but suggested they could "escalate it to the Creative Commons organization."

"After all, it's their mission," he added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Company 'Hijacks' Blender's CC BY-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes User More

Company 'Hijacks' Blender's CC BY-Licensed Film, YouTube Strikes User

Comments Filter:

  • No penalties for YouTube under the DMCA? (Score:3)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:09PM (#63106098)

    Isn't this the part where both Bruno and the Blender Institute get to drag YouTube and ZO'R TV into civil court?

    • Re:No penalties for YouTube under the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Len ( 89493 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:15PM (#63106112)

      No, because it costs tens of thousands of dollars just to get started fighting this in court. That's a big problem with the DMCA - someone can go around ripping off a bunch of people who don't have the resources to assert their legal "rights".

      • And also there would be zero damages available to be awarded. The whole result of winning the lawsuit might be that the video gets restored.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dasunt ( 249686 )

        No, because it costs tens of thousands of dollars just to get started fighting this in court. That's a big problem with the DMCA - someone can go around ripping off a bunch of people who don't have the resources to assert their legal "rights".

        That tends to be a problem with the law in general.

        While on paper, the wealthy and the poor are equal under the law, in practice, we have different legal systems for the wealthy and the poor.

        • While on paper, the wealthy and the poor are equal under the law, in practice, we have different legal systems for the wealthy and the poor.

          The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
            -- Anatole France

      • In the end of the day, litigation-based justice is not about justice, is about how much money you want to deploy on this... Is like playing Risk, real life

    • Actually, I think it's the part where Youtube restores the video and Z'OR has to be the one doing the court dragging. Filing a counter-notice isn't supposed to go through a review process except to make sure that it's properly signed and documented and gives proper contact information.

      • YouTube isn't complying. What next?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Yes they have their own process that media companies can use. But this one came through the normal DMCA legal channel so they still have to follow that procedure.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward
            They don't have to follow it. They just lose the safe harbor protections if they don't.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Yeah - nobody's disputing that. But if they're claiming the reason that the content can't go back up is the DMCA process itself and not because they don't want to, then they are still in violation of the law.

    • Re:No penalties for YouTube under the DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bookwormT3 ( 8067412 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:42PM (#63106196)

      The reply above this that says "no, because" should really say "yes, but it won't happen because". Otherwise 'Len' is correct.

      Yes, the law itself (DCMA) doesn't put real penalties on false takedown requests, not by negligence (shotgun approach, most commonly by an automatic tool) or even malicious intent. And platforms like youtube go further in how slanted they are towards the side issuing the takedown. (For one, once the counterclaim happens, under the law they can just put the content back online and let the courts settle it) Granted by raw numbers I'm sure most claims are going to be accurate, but platforms like youtube need a mechanism to deal with when the takedown really is willfully wrong. The problem is they don't want to, and basically can't have this suck away their profits by actually having someone study the issue closely or whatever. (I seem to recall that a copyright 'strike' still counts against someone even if they win their appeal. How's that for a heckler's veto!)

      I think what they really need to do is have an additional layer of appeal, where the person taken down can to pay for an appeal (and have it be a fair study of the matter, not a revenue maker). Something like $500 or $1000 after you've exhausted the free level of appeal. It gets looked at fairly by a professional, and the money pays for the reviewer. Maybe even, both cough up that amount if they continue to claim they own something, and the winner gets their money back, so that the loser pays. That would certainly cut down on people willing to stand by a fake claim.

      • Some research has found the huge majority of DMCA claims are inaccurate.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kisai ( 213879 )

          Citation needed.

          No, the vast majority of "full media" claims are valid. Basically wholesale piracy.

          The claims that are generally invalid are cross-border claims between countries that have rubbish attitudes to copyright. For example. Germany, Spain, most of South and Central America, Japan and Korea all have vastly different takes on copyright.

          Ask anyone who has received an illegal claim from "latinautorperf" , this person has claimed damn near everything on youtube. How do they get away with it? I don't kn

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by nasch ( 598556 )

            So I was remembering something specific to Google, not all DMCA notices.

            "in total, 99.95% of all URLs processed from our Trusted Copyright Removal Program in January 2017 were not in our index."

            https://www.michaelgeist.ca/20... [michaelgeist.ca]

            However, DMCA abuse is quite common and widespread. For example, on WordPress:

            "As discussed below with respect to Subject No. 30, our statistics show that more than 25% of notices fail to meet those requirements, and it is our belief that the failure comes not from overly burdensome

    • Re:No penalties for YouTube under the DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonfr ( 888673 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @10:27PM (#63106404)

      They are located in Uzbekistan, a known hub for copyright pirates and general for profit pirates in the copyright space. This is how they operate. Make a false claim (to gain the revenue from the video they strike) and hope that YouTube doesn't do anything, because there's a 90% chance that they won't do anything to stop them. Being located in Uzbekistan also makes it impossible to sue them since Uzbekistan doesn't accept court judgments from United States (as do most countries, but the government in Uzbekistan) won't do anything either to stop this.

    • Re:No penalties for YouTube under the DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kisai ( 213879 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2022 @05:44AM (#63106886)

      No the problem is that Youtube doesn't have to care. The dispute is between the company filing the invalid DMCA and the other person.

      See this is what I hate about the Creative Commons License. You see this happen with Kevin Macleod's CC0 Music as well. Where some jackass will take the CC licensed media, put it on some other monetization platform, and then THAT platform claims it on youtube.

      How do we solve this?
      1. Never license media as CC0 or CC-BY without a "copyright holder does not abandon ownership of the media" clause. CC-BY-SA at the minimum.
      2. Upload the media itself to Youtube, Spotify, etc FIRST, before releasing the CC version for people to use. Explicitly state "This is the ONLY version that is CC licensed"

      To that point, NEVER, EVER use the CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA license with media shared/streamed to youtube. The reason is that Youtube is explicitly making it so the NC is a violation.

      Here's a rough interpretation of what the CC license really means:
      BY - My name must be on all uses of it
      SA - You may remix this but must retain this license (which is why you should always us SA)
      NC - Non-commercial - You can download this, but you may never upload or stream it ANYWHERE for ANY REASON. Private use only.
      ND - No derivation, basically you may NOT edit this in any shape or form. That includes transcribing it for closed captions, transcoding it for a newer device, resize, crop, or pretty much anything other than play this file exactly as it was obtained.

      For all intents, if you see NC or ND on a Creative commons item, it is toxic as hell, and you should not touch it, ever. If you are unwilling to license something as CC-BY-SA, you should not put it on the internet at all. NC is for "private use only", ND is "and also f*ck you for being a fan of this."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quetwo ( 1203948 )

        ND does not prevent transcribing for closed captioning, transcoding, transrating, etc.. Those actions don't change the /content/ of the work. Closed captioning is almost always protected as fair-use. Resizing, cropping, remixing, etc. where any part of the content is changed would be prohibited with the non-derivation clause of CC.

    • We don't talk about Bruno.

  • System Broken (Score:3)

    by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:11PM (#63106102)

    So ZO'R TV doesn't have to provide evidence that they own the copyright to the material?

    Why doesn't Blender create DMCA takedown against ZO'R. Then, ironically, Z'OR would need to prove the material is creative commons and in doing so kill their other case.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      This is what happens when the dogmatic overwhelms the practical. If I go to the CC website and create a liscense that works for me, no commercial use, share alike, I am told I am a fascists who dies not believe in freedom.

      In fact, if one looks at history on sees the reason for these license is that uncopyrighted material, open source, was open rewritten for commercial purposes, copyrighted, and the original source material sued into non existence.

      So there is no reason not be pure CC if you are ok with t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kisai ( 213879 )

        Using the "NC" or "ND" CC licenses is indeed being fascist for the sake of copyright.

        It's your media, you can do whatever you want with it, but if you are putting stuff on the internet with NC or ND, you know people are going to spite you for it. So don't do it.

        The only CC license you should use is CC-BY-SA if you want to retain control over it. BY itself is only useful for media that you want people to share without asking permission beforehand (eg film, social media, etc), useful for artwork, useless for

    • Re:System Broken (Score:4, Informative)

      by Pembers ( 250842 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:45PM (#63106202) Homepage

      So ZO'R TV doesn't have to provide evidence that they own the copyright to the material?

      In theory, yes, in practice, probably not. If I file a DMCA takedown notice alleging that some film A that you uploaded to YouTube infringes the copyright in some film B, then the part of the notice where I assert that I own the copyright in B (or I'm authorised to act for B's copyright owner) is made under penalty of perjury. So if I lie about that, I could go to jail. But I've never heard of that actually ever happening.

      All the other parts of the notice, in particular the part where I allege that A infringes B's copyright, are not made under penalty of perjury. The official reason is that in the general case, the question of whether A actually infringes B's copyright can be answered only by a court, but you can supply your own conspiracy theory.

      • As DMCA doesn't apply to those in Uzbekistan, yet they can issue false claims (why are these honoured in the first place?), that means so can I, as I'm not in US either. I don't mind whiling away an afternoon issuing notices against all of ZO'Rs content.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      This. If false DMCA takedown notices are not punished, why don't either Bruno or Blender just issue a bunch of takedown requests for ZO'R TV's youtube content, see how they like it.

    • My understanding is that Youtube wanted to make it easier for the big-name companies (record labels, movie studios, etc.) to stop the plebes from stealing their material. They don't particularly care if criminals can use the same process to steal from those that aren't big-name/big-money. If you release something for free, someone else steals it a tries to claim copyright, that's fine and dandy under Youtube/Google's watch. Unless you got tons of cash to back you up.

      The only way this gets solved is if someb

      • Nope. You would just see the rich artist protected. Nothing else would be done because it doesnâ(TM)t matter to them.

        • It depends on who it is. Not sure where Taylor would land, as every once in a while she seems to put a tiny bit of effort into appearing human. There are a few big names that like the idea of appeasing their fans and making themselves look good. It could be a huge publicity win, if played the right way. Which is the only way anything ever changes for us commoners and pissants that live so far beneath them.

  • Look if YouTube falsely accuses me of piracy in a very public way, shouldn't I have my day in court with them?

    • How much money ya got?
    • I agree in principle, however, did YouTube announce to the world that this was occurring or did Bruno? Second, it generally takes a lot of money to take something to court even if you later win, and then the other party can just "Oops, we went bankrupt fighting this claim, so sorry."

    • If you live in Japan go for it (they have strong defamation laws)

    • That sounds like a good idea, but it was Blender that made this public, not YouTube.

  • Is this legal? (Score:3)

    by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @08:31PM (#63106158) Homepage

    Youtube doesn't have any standing to verify the the counter-notice. They are supposed to restore the video once they get a signed statement. And then the only recourse is for Z'OR to sue them. Like the summary says - this isn't content ID - it's the normal DMCA procedure.

    • Legal? Yes, YouTube doesn't have to host any content that they don't want to.

      They've struck bargains with major media companies to avoid continued court battles over the issue, and that's the majority of their complaints so they shoehorn DMCA complaints into that pipeline.

      It's certainly cowardly and unethical, but when has google ever let ethics get in the way of making a buck?

      • Legal? Yes, YouTube doesn't have to host any content that they don't want to.

        They can certainly do that, but can they legally claim that it's part of the DMCA process? I think they have to tell the truth about it.

  • Is to post links to related articles all over the comment sections of Zor TV's youtube channels, and other social media.

  • This is a quick lawyer moment. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @09:07PM (#63106242) Homepage

    The step I'd take is to get a lawyer and have them draw up a letter to YouTube noting that Bruno does have the rights needed to legally post the material identified to YouTube, include a copy of the CC BY license, and send it to YouTube along with a repeated counter-notice with an explicit reference to the CC BY license in it just so YouTube can't use that as an excuse. This should be fairly cheap since the lawyer's just drawing up a letter and not committing to litigate anything. I've noticed that companies that won't pay attention to users suddenly pay a lot more attention when they get physical mail under a lawyer's letterhead.

  • Making money of other people's videos (Score:3)

    by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Monday December 05, 2022 @09:09PM (#63106248)

    This scam has been around for years and with Youtube moderation being next to non-existant, companies get away with it.

  • I can't find how to license a video here (at some years ago, I remember that define "Creative Commons" [generic, not "-BY"] was possible...)

  • YouTube's takedown system is not for little people (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2022 @01:44AM (#63106634)

    YouTube's DMCA counter claims process is seriously broken.

    In both this case and in the reverse it hurts the little guy.

    A lot of people steal my youtube content, and normally it's not an issue to keep this in check with their automated matching system. 99.99% of the offenders take it down and don't try to perform a counter claim. Usually because they are copying the video wholesale like they are with many others and if one gets taken down they just move on.

    But one time someone used my video as part of a top 10 list. It was most of the video, for commercial purposes and not within any of the usual fair use parameters and would fail a fair use test in any court. But when I sent a takedown notice he filed a counterclaim, and it was then that I found out that the only way to proceed to the next step would be for me to initiate legal action and provide proof of that action to youtube. Youtube pointedly will not become the decision maker in these processes as they don't want to be liable. The problem is if you are a little guy and you can't afford to file a legal case, you are stuck and the offending video remains up. So they guy made thousands of dollars off my video and I have no recourse. This guy stole everyone else's content as well and that was his racket. The complete DMCA process only works if you are a big company with lawyers. If someone posted a clip from a Universal film, it would get taken down and stay down because they have a huge legal department that can spend all day doing this stuff.

    I wish there was a legal collective for individuals where everyone pays in and then gets to use a filing service whenever they have trouble, up to a certain number per year. Like having a AAA Auto Service membership.

    Also, for a little guy, having youtube send your contact info to the other party whenever there is a counter claim is very dangerous, anyone could abuse this system just to get your contact information. Always use a google voice number and a PO box....

  • I wonder how people can go and use Googleâ(TM)s products when cases like this just keep appearing.

  • Youtube answers to Alphabet. Alphabet is a tremendously open source company. Therefore there is probably some wiggle room that they have in such a blatantly obvious and inappropriate use of the dcma.
  • Does anyone know if any of the Creative Commons licenses have a clause that causes an entity to lose all rights to a CC work if they make a false copyright claim against that work? If not, would that help? I imagine the enforcement of the claim would be the most difficult aspect, but it may still be worth the effort. Perhaps it could be an optional clause added by the copyright holder. And perhaps there could be a more punitive clause the author could opt for that causes the entity which made the false
  • The issue here is that the DMCA process requires YouTube to take the content down if the notice is correct. ZO'R TV did this and YouTube followed. There is a a very lightweight review process for DMCA take downs (I tried to take down the offending CC-BY-3.0 content without attribution on ZO'R TV), if you do a fake one, your account can be suspended. But when Bruno tried to counter notice, at the end of three attempts, YouTube told him "Based on the information that you have provided, it appears that you do

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close