CNN and CBC Sued for Pirating YouTube Video(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
CNN and CBC Sued for Pirating YouTube Video
https://torrentfreak.com/cnn-cbc-sued-for-pirating-31-second-youtube-video-150813/
2 comments
Would it kill news organizations to promote someone's personal brand? The public realizes it's a home video so why resort to white labeling and completely fucking over someone? I don't get it
The problem is not the "white labeling" but the copyright infringement itself.
When someone uploads a video to Youtube with the "Standard YouTube License" [1] he grants Youtube (and Youtube only) "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business" but all other rights (and exceptions) given by copyright laws are reserved to the owner of said copyright.
Licensing viral videos is an emerging market nowadays, with companies like storyful [2] and Jukin Media [3] serving as a clearing house of sorts, licensing videos from the copyright owners and sublicensing them to the media outlets.
TV shows like Science of Stupid [4] (from NatGeo) and World's Craziest Fools [5] (among many others) make extensive use of these licensed clips to have enough material for many seasons.
Using an Youtube Video on a TV Show or News without licensing it first (even if properly credited) is for profit copyright infringement, in every sense analogous to counterfeit bags using trademark brands in the flea market.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms&gl=US
[2] http://storyful.com/
[3] https://www.jukinmedia.com/media-partners
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Stupid
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Craziest_Fools
When someone uploads a video to Youtube with the "Standard YouTube License" [1] he grants Youtube (and Youtube only) "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business" but all other rights (and exceptions) given by copyright laws are reserved to the owner of said copyright.
Licensing viral videos is an emerging market nowadays, with companies like storyful [2] and Jukin Media [3] serving as a clearing house of sorts, licensing videos from the copyright owners and sublicensing them to the media outlets.
TV shows like Science of Stupid [4] (from NatGeo) and World's Craziest Fools [5] (among many others) make extensive use of these licensed clips to have enough material for many seasons.
Using an Youtube Video on a TV Show or News without licensing it first (even if properly credited) is for profit copyright infringement, in every sense analogous to counterfeit bags using trademark brands in the flea market.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms&gl=US
[2] http://storyful.com/
[3] https://www.jukinmedia.com/media-partners
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Stupid
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Craziest_Fools
"A time-lapse view of Lake Erie during the lake-effect snow storm of November 18, 2014. This was taken from my office window in the Guaranty Building where I work as an intellectual property attorney at Hodgson Russ."
Interesting video, by the way.