I’d take it down, but I’m afraid that YouTube could later construe that as me acknowledging some wrongdoing. So there sits half of the film. The implications of the Google corporation effectively making an edit to a film produced by young people earnestly trying to better the conditions of their communities are massive.
Q: If Content ID is a powerful enough search and destroy tool to find Pipeline’s use of copyright material, why don’t they simply mute that section of the audio track?
A: Because it would be outrageous for YouTube to make an edit on a film based on their legal interpretation of a third party’s copyright claim.
So instead they cut the entire soundtrack off, leaving Pipeline eviscerated.
With the recent reporting around YouTube’s plans to move away from user-generated content and towards big money licensing deals, I get the impression that they’d be happy to see folks like us just get frustrated and walk away. This being the last week in my job, and no-one replacing me because of budget realities effecting all non-profits next year, it’s entirely likely that GAP will just move to Vimeo or Blip.tv and pray that those platforms don’t start doing something similar. I’d rather see YouTube say they’re sorry and repost the video.
Universal Music Group and YouTube continue to block the exhibition of Pipeline. In case you missed it, Part I of the story here.
Following a failed dispute through YouTube’s built-in process, I did a bit of searching around and found the requirements for a DMCA counter-takedown notice and dutifully fired off a letter to YouTube’s copyright department, hoping that they would recognize that this was a legitimate case of fair use. They promptly acknowledged receipt of my letter, as they are required to do by the DMCA, and seemed to say in their response that the decision to put the video back up was out of their hands, but that they would forward my assertion of fair use to UMG. They even had the nerve to refer me back to square one, their own page advising how to respond to a takedown.
A few days later, this notice appeared on Pipeline‘s status page…
…which is not even correct. The video has not been muted, it’s been taken down.
I understand I’ve probably earned Global Action Project a strike in YouTube’s shitlist. Two more and they take down our channel! My organization has no budget for hiring lawyers to take on these HUGE corporations, so I’m in the process of looking for someone to give us some proper legal advice and potentially write a heavier letter than my dinky form letter. I’ve written to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but I’m sure that they’re absolutely inundated with complaints like this one following YouTube’s recent takedown rampage. I’m hoping that this case stands out because of its implications for the entire youth media field.
If these corporations cannot be held accountable, the repercussions for youth producers and their educators, mentors, or facilitators are remarkable. The laws might say very noble things about the safeguarding of public interest, but if it takes a team of lawyers and many hours of my work to deal with a benign case like this, then the protections in law are not worth a damn.
One of my tasks before I leave this job is to help develop internal guidelines for the handling of copyright material that is consistent with fair use provisions of the law. Unless I see some remedy to the situation in the next few weeks, I will be forced to advise that neither US copyright law, nor the guidelines developed by the Center for Social Media are what we should look to as our guide (unless the producers and their educators are prepared to go into battle over each instance). I’m not about to tell teenagers that the law will protect them when I am not at all convinced that it will. Similarly, the prospect of getting an exemption from DMCA for our organization, or even for the whole field would be unsatisfactory because I see no point in training young people in a method that is not applicable once they transition out of the educational setting.
And yes, we could just pack up and leave YouTube for another platform, but right now that’s where the audience is and there’s no guarantee that another platform won’t turn around and pull the same moves. For now I’ll contiue fighting this fight, because I’d love to set a precedent to save other people from having to deal with this nonsense. I’m afraid that what is really needed here is a humiliating loss for the corporations in the courts, preferably with a large sum of money attached to make them actually notice, and to offset some of the harm that this has done.
Returned to work from a month’s paternity leave to find that one of the videos from a few years back has been taken down (for the second time) by YouTube. The video, Pipeline, contains a Dizzy Gillespie track that Universal Music Group holds the copyright on. Apparently YouTube checks the waveform of uploaded videos against a database, and takes stuff down on behalf of the copyright holders. I disputed the original takedown on the grounds that the use of copyright material in the video is allowed as fair use, and YouTube made it “live” again, pending contact with UMG.
Now it’s been taken down again. I guess YouTube have determined, or UMG are asserting, that what this group of teenagers did is not fair use. It doesn’t even show up on youtomb, the awesome new takedown Valhalla from MIT Free Culture.
The Center for Social Media at American University in DC recently published widely accepted basic guidelines for both documentary filmmakers and media literacy educators for the use of copyright materials under fair use provisions that already exist in the law. Using these guidelines, I’m confident that Pipeline‘s use of the Dizzy Gillespie track is fine for a couple of reasons.
One of the four main classes of material that is generally covered by fair use is the use of copyrighted material in a historical sequence, which I think is an excellent description of this case.
Also keep in mind that this video was produced by a group of 15-18 year olds in an educational setting, so the provisions for distribution of works that are media literacy exercises should also apply.
Copyright material is in the first minute
(NB: much black at beginning. video begins at 25 seconds.)
If I get no joy after a letter to YouTube, we’re going to be looking for legal advice. I’m all sorts of riled up about this one! It’s just plain old mean!