September Clues research banned by Youtube & Vimeo
I get to take credit for sharethisinfo's upload, he is from Concen.
Here is a list of the uploads of the video to youtube that I am aware of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcXdIlAK0e4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa_w_d3GVTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUXJXAPUUg
Thanks again
Peace and mudkipz
Here is a list of the uploads of the video to youtube that I am aware of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcXdIlAK0e4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa_w_d3GVTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUXJXAPUUg
Thanks again
Peace and mudkipz
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
I got this response in my personal e-mail box today from noreply@google.com:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/y ... 61e4&hl=en
Any expert on the 'fair use' terms here?
And the music is :
-first part (sitar solo): An improvised intro to my song "Hope" by Luca Osscech, a part-time member of my band and fellow recording engineer.
-second part : An extract of my song "Hope", a tune of my composition duly registered under my name with the swedish STIM (ASCAP equivalent).
Thanks for any help in responding about the 'fair use' stuff !
Stefanie Damm has posted an answer to the question "My video "SYNCHED OUT" was removed due to "terms of violation". WHY?":
The best thing is to refer yourself to the source of your content- in your case that is http://www.archive.org
Check the terms: http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php and note that the first sentence in the second paragraph states: "Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost
to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes
only" and after that the third paragraph gets heavy on copyright and mentions fair use which clearly tells me that they do NOT give you the legal licence to broadcast the content of the site.
And then the audio- it was not just recorded in your studio but was also your own composition, yes?
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/y ... 61e4&hl=en
Any expert on the 'fair use' terms here?
And the music is :
-first part (sitar solo): An improvised intro to my song "Hope" by Luca Osscech, a part-time member of my band and fellow recording engineer.
-second part : An extract of my song "Hope", a tune of my composition duly registered under my name with the swedish STIM (ASCAP equivalent).
Thanks for any help in responding about the 'fair use' stuff !
http://www.septemberclues.org
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Absurd!
here's that part of the Web Archive terms of use:
Here's what wikispedia tells us:
Isn't SYNCHED OUT clearly in the realm of news report, commentary, criticism and research?
Hypocrites...
here's that part of the Web Archive terms of use:
In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law.
Here's what wikispedia tells us:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.
Isn't SYNCHED OUT clearly in the realm of news report, commentary, criticism and research?
Hypocrites...
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Since when does YouTube qualify as a 'broadcast'?
When a video gets more than a few thousand viewers? :lol:
TV broadcasts to millions and they continually show the contents of the archive and credit NARA for that matter as well. Exception for billionaire companies but not the average joe?
Methinks I smell a rat ... like Martin C. Faga.
When a video gets more than a few thousand viewers? :lol:
TV broadcasts to millions and they continually show the contents of the archive and credit NARA for that matter as well. Exception for billionaire companies but not the average joe?
Methinks I smell a rat ... like Martin C. Faga.
Simon, this doesn't sound like any copyright claim was made by anyone, or YouTube would be required to state that in the notice they sent you (which would also include links to 'learn more' with a copyright dispute form).
When any copyright material is either auto-matched (audio content) or reported, the notice received always refers to it as such. e.g.
As I discovered when the Emerson, Lake & Palmer song I uploaded was blocked for matched copyright content (evidently an automatic program on YT), it also automatically UNblocked it as soon as I submitted the copyright dispute form (pending copyright holder's response). i.e.
2. This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
The odd thing is, that second copyright claim was made by Sony on the same vid only a few days ago, blocking it in Germany (which I've also disputed citing 'fair use').
If they take down your re-upload as well, I would phone/fax YouTube asking them to cite what TOS 'violation' they are claiming with a proper explanation for removal, as this smells like harassment to me. :angry:
When any copyright material is either auto-matched (audio content) or reported, the notice received always refers to it as such. e.g.
As I discovered when the Emerson, Lake & Palmer song I uploaded was blocked for matched copyright content (evidently an automatic program on YT), it also automatically UNblocked it as soon as I submitted the copyright dispute form (pending copyright holder's response). i.e.
2. This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
The odd thing is, that second copyright claim was made by Sony on the same vid only a few days ago, blocking it in Germany (which I've also disputed citing 'fair use').
If they take down your re-upload as well, I would phone/fax YouTube asking them to cite what TOS 'violation' they are claiming with a proper explanation for removal, as this smells like harassment to me. :angry:
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ? George Orwell
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
- Contact:
I can guarantee there's tens of thousands of vid clips presently running on You Tube with TV's running in the backround showing national chains in commercial ads and there's just as many with songs playing in the backround that are copyright protected, this is simply a Witch Hunt being brought down on a knowledgable 911 researcher Nothing more nothing less!! Looking for reasons for the Deletion are pointless since we already know!!
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
I don't really see how archive.org can hold any copyright for any of the material on their site. They essentially only have anything on their site because they "recorded" it from other sources, or material was uploaded to their site by the person who actually holds the copyright to the material.
Just like if I were to use any number of mediums to record a tv show from my tv or a song off the radio. Just because I hold a recording of whatever doesn't give me a copyright to that same material. If it did, it would essentially negate the entire reason of the copyright in the first place.
So I don't think that even though archive.org has all that legal jargon on their website that it would actually hold up in court, since they really have no legal basis to back it up, unless they have documents proving that the stuff on their website has had the copyrights transferred to them for the content on the site, which I doubt they have.
The only ones who could possibly have complained about the material being used would have to be the news organizations themselves. They would be the ones who hold the copyrights to the news footage. It possible that they have a standing request with the folks at Youtube to take down certain material, but we all know that 90% of what's on Youtube, if not more, is copyrighted material.
This is a paragraph taken from Wikipedia about the term "Fair Use".
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
And here is a paragraph taken from Wikipedia about the term "Balancing Test".
Another balancing test occurs in the copyright domain, when analyzing whether a particular usage of a copyrighted work constitutes "fair use". The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Article 13 allows for uses "which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder."
As you can see, the last sentence about "Balancing Test" could be what they are using to remove Simon's video, since his video obviously conflicts with what news organizations want you to believe about the clips he used. They want you to believe that an airplane hit the 2nd tower and Simon is using those clips to show that the opposite has to be true.
Just like if I were to use any number of mediums to record a tv show from my tv or a song off the radio. Just because I hold a recording of whatever doesn't give me a copyright to that same material. If it did, it would essentially negate the entire reason of the copyright in the first place.
So I don't think that even though archive.org has all that legal jargon on their website that it would actually hold up in court, since they really have no legal basis to back it up, unless they have documents proving that the stuff on their website has had the copyrights transferred to them for the content on the site, which I doubt they have.
The only ones who could possibly have complained about the material being used would have to be the news organizations themselves. They would be the ones who hold the copyrights to the news footage. It possible that they have a standing request with the folks at Youtube to take down certain material, but we all know that 90% of what's on Youtube, if not more, is copyrighted material.
This is a paragraph taken from Wikipedia about the term "Fair Use".
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
And here is a paragraph taken from Wikipedia about the term "Balancing Test".
Another balancing test occurs in the copyright domain, when analyzing whether a particular usage of a copyrighted work constitutes "fair use". The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Article 13 allows for uses "which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder."
As you can see, the last sentence about "Balancing Test" could be what they are using to remove Simon's video, since his video obviously conflicts with what news organizations want you to believe about the clips he used. They want you to believe that an airplane hit the 2nd tower and Simon is using those clips to show that the opposite has to be true.
Ah huh, this has nothing to do with copyright! As I said, they would be legally obligated to state that explicitly in the official notice they sent you, plus the name of any copyright holder(s) making claim.simonshack 4 Sep 12 2010, 11:02 AM wrote: Thanks Ma'at - much appreciated
Well, I re-uploaded a renamed copy of the video. It was blocked straight away - but this time because of...
"Content inappropriate?" "Terms of use violation"? Which one is it ? :huh:
This is obviously a flagging campaign by person or persons unknown ? probably specifically complaining about the text at the end. I suspect that was the ammunition they used against it, where it states explicitly that there were no planes, no passengers and probably no victims died.
You know, "Waah, waah, he's disrespecting the poor victims and their perpetually weeping families" :rolleyes:
The problem is, once YouTube starts issuing "Terms of Use Violations" on an account, it counts as a "strike" ? I think it may only take 3 for them to delete the whole account.
Best I can suggest is, no more attempts to upload that particular one on your simonshack channel. Maybe open a second test account (e.g. simonshack2) to try again (unless they have the audio auto-matched now as a trigger-flag on you). In which case, change the audio track before uploading to a new account (perhaps even edit the explicit text conclusion at the end and/or only leave the septemberclues.org site ref). i.e. not to 'self censor' per se, but only thwart their ability to cite specifics. e.g. pose it as a question rather than a statement?
I do know of an Arab speaking ex-Muslim YouTube user who got his channel flagged and shut down for "TOS, inappropriate content" violations because of educational, expository audio vids critical of Islam and the Koran. He simply opened another channel and continued as before.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ? George Orwell
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
nonhocapito 4 Sep 12 2010, 07:50 PM wrote: Simon can we access this version of Synched out on some part of your website(s) so that we can download it and then try to upload it ourselves to youtube? Just to try...
I have uploaded "SYNCHED OUT" (126M) on http://septclues.com (next before last file at bottom of page).
You can download it to your hard-disk from there just by right-clicking and "save as".
Yeah, please do that, folks: Upload it on your own YT channel so that this censoring thing backfires completely. (already 4 other YT users have done so).
ps: Thanks again Ma'at: I think I'll follow your wise advice.
http://www.septemberclues.org
Thanks for the idea. ;)simonshack 4 Sep 13 2010, 01:01 AM wrote: Yeah, please do that, folks: Upload it on your own YT channel so that this censoring thing backfires completely. (already 4 other YT users have done so).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Not only is a copyright claim absurd, you modified it to fit your own purposes which constitutes "art" and is deeply within fair use for video collage. YouTube's case would never uphold in a people's court.
I love how they tried to hint at the idea that using your own music was a violation because it's copyrighted and owned ... by you!
How absurd is that? I can see a satirical article coming out of this...
Extray! Extray! YouTube sues artists for posting their own music
"We can't allow copyright holders to exercise their own copyright. That would be lawful respect of ownership."
I love how they tried to hint at the idea that using your own music was a violation because it's copyrighted and owned ... by you!
How absurd is that? I can see a satirical article coming out of this...
Extray! Extray! YouTube sues artists for posting their own music
"We can't allow copyright holders to exercise their own copyright. That would be lawful respect of ownership."