O.O Littlekuribo’s videos were taken down? I loved them! Youtube’s gone a little crazy with the whole copyright violation thing, if you ask me. Posting movies and shows should be banned but it’s getting to the point where you can only post vblogs… that’s bad for people like me, who make AMVs all the time.
One: Whats an AMV? But off of the top of my head when you say copy right infrigment I think of someone stealing someone elses idea thats protected and making shitloads of money off of that. Thats copyrightinfrigment! I dont think what littelkuribo did was wrong because he wasnt making a profet. Now if he were selling the over dubs than that would be a violation to copyright law.
I think the original copyright holder has a right to assert his/her ownership, and contest anyone else using it. YouTube is not a court of law. Don’t use someone else’s material – even satirically – without an awareness that it could be challenged.
fair or not, i’m uncertain. i wonder if youtube is operating under international codes of copyright protection or US codes, and whether there’s a difference. as to the hypothetical SNL not being allowed to satire copyrighted material, i could only hope that it would make the writers apply some *gasp* creativity, or at least make the show funny again
mmmmmmmmm the entire episodes are copyrighted , soundtrack AND video and I know I wouldn’t like it if I started making money for my productions and then have people “compress” them. It still is breaking the copyrights weather it’s entertaining and cut down. : ( sorry but that is the way the world works and if you don’t want to make it easy for everyone then yes punishing will come.
Good video, Blunty. recently Matt Hawes had a similar issue with Viacom taking down one of HIS vids in error. A side note to THIS case, however, use of ANY copyrighted material, like music, sounds, AND/OR images can be considered infringement, so that’s probably the angle they took, as crappy as that may be.
THANK YOU!! Oh my gosh! You really are life saver for putting up a video against this. I am big fan of his satire series, it was absolutely ridiculous for being put down! His videos are hilarous and it’s just not right for them to ban it! I’m so angry, I might video blog it if I have time.
He would need to recreate the visual aspect of the episode. The image is has a copyright even if it is satire. You do not need to have permission to “cover” a bands song… you just can’t make money off it. A complete recreation of content with likeness of something else should be ok. We are not making money off YT yet.
I’m sorry, you’re incorrect – officially you DO need to seek permission to “cover” a song. and yes while the images in the eps are copyrighted, the provision for “fair use” in copyright law allows for satirical use (as well as certain allowances for educational and review use). And that’s what I believe applies in this case.
No, one can perform any song that’s registered with the Harry Fox Agency (and that’s probably most of the songs we’ve ever heard) and put it on a CD for a statutory rate per CD, no permission needed, just payment.
AS for performing live, one can perform any BMI or ASCAP song (most songs) as long as the venue has BMI and ASCAP licenses.
However, with non-satirical videos/films it is a Sync license, which must be negotiated with the rights holders.
With so many Tv networks and Film studios asking youtube to take videos for copyright infringement .. a lot of the tv shows and movies have been posted on Dailymotion , france’s answer to youtube…
Blunty, do you think Dailymotion can grow big enough in terms of popularity and views as youtube .. Why or why not ? Would love to know your views on dailymotion
It’s a very thin line here…but yeah, I think they went a bit far in this case because, yeah, like you said, he’s not posting the whole episode and he’s making it his own, sort of thing. I don’t think it’s copyright violation PER SE, however, I can also see the other side that says it is copyright infringement. Point: In this situation, I don’t see it as copyright infringement.
I’m sick of amv’s and parodies getting deleted (even though I rarely watch them). I know amv’s are 100% copyrighted materiel, but parodies and other things that involve personally added content don’t violate any laws. LiberalVeiwer was a guy who used news clips and clips of Jon Stewart along with his voice in them as FAIR MEDIA ANALYSIS which is protected, but sadly his account got suspended anyways. My oppinion is that YouTube isn’t properly reviewing flagged materiel.
I agree with you on the point that youtube is taking things a little too far these days. But as for the slippery slope argument, SNL and other shows have to get consent from whomever they are doing the parody of. Family Guy has had to go with a lot of plan B stuff also due to difficulties associated with gaining permission (bonus features on one of their DVD’s talks about it).
I know very little about copyright law so wouldn’t even approach the legality of it, but I have to say it seems pretty mean-spirited…it’s a different piece of work entirely (even though the images are used). I think I remember a case of Mattel suing when Barbies and Kens were used in an indie film…can’t remember if they won!?
Short (1-5 sec) video clips or sound bites in your vidoes from tv shows and/or movies is probably alright I think. Second hand footage (recorded off tv) is suppoed to be ok too.
Maybe its more an issue with the amount of footage/audio that you use, regardless of whether its used satirically or not.
This is getting sad. Our whole world is getting sue-happy.
Example: Two kids are rough housing outside, just playing around you know? One gets a bruise from falling on a rock or something, and the parents want to sue the other family! What happened to “kids will be kids”? People are sueing for the silliest things nowadays!
I think you’re exactly right. Fair use allows for satires and parodies. Short clips are allowed to be used. I think the only way that they could have gotten him though would be on the fact that he sums up the episode. That’s technically hurting the commercial value of the show which isn’t allowed.
Well I agree with ya Blunty, I think your point about SNL was almost the same thing. Goes with MadTV also, if they god into trouble everytime they made fun of a show then they would be off the air in a heartbeat. The Abridged Series is quite funny and I would hate to see it all go away.
I think YouTube is banning videos based on tags and not looking very closely at what they’re banning. A user named MattHawes got his parody of “The Real World” banned when the Viacom purge happened, even though it consisted entirely of original material and was merely a parody of TRW. Personally I think YT should allow fair use but they’ll probably err on the side of avoiding a lawsuit from a media company rather than from a user.😛
I had to cut this comment up because it was too long, so look for the second part shortly after this post. Too bad it doesn’t strictly work like writing a research paper. I’m not knowledgeable in copyright infringement, but I do know that every time I use someone else’s ideas, words, etc. in a paper, I need to give them credit and cite the source.
Could the fix be as simple as a disclaimer, saying he’s not claiming Yu-Gi-Oh as his own work and has only has the intention of producing his own work using his source, in his case Yu-Gi-Oh? That would seem reasonable, and in the case of a site like youtube, where everything is free access, I would think the Yu-Gi-Oh people would be happy for a little bit of free, popular advertising.
apparently not. Even if he used a disclaimer his vids would still be removed regardless of a disclaimer or not. Because the shit head arse holes that complained about this dude taking a shity anime and making funny. Its almost like those japanese bastereds only find humor in there own shity commedy and anybody that makes it any better needs to be obliterated by that very same shit head!
You Tube does not blindly delete stuff, how do they know whether I got permission to use something or not? They delete stuff if the copyright holder complains. The Yu-Gi-Oh thing was in violation of copyright. There are ways to satirize something without breaching copyright, but this didn’t quite make it.
But it shouldent have been deleted because he didnt make a profit. Quite simply it wasent a violation to copyright law. He didnt make cash off of it so I dont think it should have been deleted. There is a user that makes a DVD series of them playing Halo online and they didnt get deleted.
That is a common misconception. You ask almost anybody and they all say that as long as you don’t make money off it then it’s OK. But that is NOT true, copyright law has almost nothing to do with whether you make money off someone else’s work or not. You’re talking about piracy. Less than 1 percent of copyright law covers piracy.
The Halo stuff didn’t get deleted because the copyright holders of Halo haven’t complained. Maybe they bothered asking permission first.
Nope. They never asked permission to do that. So I guess this means no more pariodies then huh? Well either be baned or just our vids removed from you tube. Newgrounds. com isnt like this! You can make fun of shity movies all you want and not get removed. But here on youtube you dont get video game pariodies or movie dubs because there all removed. Thank god I draw my shit instead of using the actual pixel charicter.
From what I’ve heard recently, there’s a new UN law, that really screws the user over in these cases.
What is does, is that if Blunty for example were to post a video containing clips of, lets say, Underworld, even if for satirical purposes only, the company have the rights to that video (Underworld) would have monopoly control over Blunty’s video for the next 50 years.
Meaning the Yu-gi-oh videos uploaded by this user was removed legally. -_-‘
PS: Guess what country proposed this law? U.S.A
In Australia, it’s “fair dealing” as opposed to the US’s “fair use”. There is a difference.
Fair dealing allows for research or study, criticism or review, (recently added) parody or satire, news reporting or lawyer use.
It’s a tricky area. For example, a copier business can’t copy from a book, study material for a student as the copier business is making a profit from the copying and thus not fair use.
Oh and I understand that in Australia.
When you create something, written, visual, aural or a combination of some or all of the preceding. It’s automatically copy-written and you don’t even have to use the copy-write symbol of the “c” inside a circle to indicate it as such.
I like that law, as it shows that Australia wants people to be creative and not be concerned with being ripped off because they haven’t lodged relevant Intellectual Property forms.
YouTube and Google are American companies. Americans pretty much lost all of their fair-use rights when the DMCA was enacted. YouTube has no choice but to take down material when a copyright-holder asks. The copyright holder doesn’t even have to offer proof of violation: the DCMA mandates that all they need do is ask and the service provider must obey. No judge. No jury.
if you havent noticed .. they ban people for less than that. they dont seem to stick to a set of rules. and especialy they seem to be more likely to ban people who actualy alter the content, like in this case. posting unedited material, those accounts dont seem to have much problems. maybe its like the BBC said: we consider it advertising, but if its altered, it delivers the wrong picture, we dont want that.
also people who talk about topics that are politicly unpopular get banned alot. videoclips which show politicly explosive things are banned within a few hours.
when people like mordeth13 are taken down, you simply loose all trust in youtube😦
(1/3) Suppose it is a borderline case. Why should YT put themselves at risk? If they refuse to do a DMCA takedown, all they gain is another pack of crazy content industry lawyers at their heels that want to lay their hands on that big Google money. Assume they lose the year-long lawsuit that ensues; that could be the decision that many others have been waiting for. I’m still surprised that people seem to think YT qualifies for the Safe Harbor Provisions at all.
(3/3) This could easily develop far beyond takedowns and user suspensions. I’m really not quite at ease with some of the recent cases (LiberalViewer, especially, but also, say, Paperlilies’ Chicago video), but I suppose the last thing we want is a lawsuit against YT. This site exists as long as things remain grey area; grey area videos, grey area takedowns. – Do you read Mark Cuban’s blog? It should be mandatory reading for every YTer.
(2/3) Section 512 (c)(1)(b) says quite clearly «[if the service provider] does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity». How else does YT earn their money if not through videos being watched? Also, consider the situation when later this year they start the whole revenue sharing thing (if they do). All of a sudden, people like LittleKuriboh would offer videos derived from copyrighted material — commercially!
:O OMFG! A Wii shirt😀 I want one, where do you get it? Also, I totally agree about how youtube are always deleting ‘copywrited’ stuff. Say, if someone is posting all the episodes of a certain series, that’s against the laws of copywrite, but dubbing an episode and making it shorter isn’t, so wtf?
IMO this whole copyright stuff is taken way to far. As long as people not making money from it one should be happy with any use of their “creative work”.
Original makers should allways be credited in end titles tho. It’s all free advertisement… what are they wining about??
The only people that really understand this are game studio’s because most of them give out free promotion packs with images and sounds one can use to make fan art, websites etc.
hey blunty, im a fan, and personally belive copyright is an outdated oldfashion pile of crap.. BUT!!!! this is not the same as a skit on saturday night live… the user did not animate any of the orginal meterial, so technically its diff, its only his cool voices not his cartoons
I have to agree with what you’ve said blunty3000. There’s a lot to consider in regards to copyright. I think two main area’s to start on and work towards a realistic solution – because satire will always exist in this world….hopefuly – is giving the original artist/producer a mention before/after your take-off, and secondly that you can’t make money off of someone elses work unless they give you permission. My quick two cents.
I believe satire is only protected in the event that it is an original work. Ie in the case of Mad magazine or SNL they are creating original artwork or sketches. In this case he was using copyrighted material in his work.
If he wanted to do a legel satire he would need to create his own artwork. If SNL creates a satire of a TV show for instance but uses the actual TV show’s theme song they would have to get permission and pay royalties for the use of that music.
I agree with pppllluuummm’s point — it is not the same. If I were the creator of Yu-gi-oh, I doubt I’d have a problem with videos such as these. But Nate, what if I were to take one of your vids and mess about with the clips, overdub (?) my own voice and song, but otherwise add no original content? What if my purpose wasn’t lighthearted satire, but a hateful attack, or a religious, political, or philosophical argument? Is intent even relevant?
I agree with your views but, soon youtube is going to scan for for copyrighted material with a bot or some kind of automated script, to delete copyrighted material and a computer doesnt see the differents between satire video’s and blunt video’s that are copyrighted material. Going to be hard not to get those satire vidz delete unless youtube first watch all the vids before deleting them.
What about those AMVs huh? They principally do the same thing, small clips from a series (or many) of something. So technically, by what YouTube considers a copyright infringement, all of those should be banned as well.
In the end, I feel pretty pissed off because of the whole situation, since I really liked The Abridged Series.
I had a lecture about copyright laws just the other day and someone actually asked our lecturer the same kind of question, about if you dubbed over clips from another film/show, would that constitute infringement, and the lecturer dude said no.
That said, I think YouTube would rather just use their power and delete videos rather than fight over the fine print and possibly face losing money being taken to court or what have you…
The reason why SNL can use pieces from tv shows if it wanted is because, and correct me if I’m wrong, is because they are granted permission to use the copyrighted material. SNL wouldn’t make fun of a show like Lost anyway, maybe that crappy Heroes show though;)
Copyright infringement has everything to do with a company’s possible loss of revenue….I don’t see how a satire on the show would take away anything from the YoGiOh botom line; if anything it makes more people aware of its existence. I really don’t understand why this particular satire was pulled.
I’m sure lawyers that represent productions view ANY use as a potential infringement. I did some educational stuff that tapped current culture and even with “fair use” we constantly second-guessed everything we used. Notice a lot of music in SNL or others is not original artist, slightly different, or names are altered to avoid trouble (use Yuhigoh instead of Yugioh or something). I hate it, but I appreciate its intent, only as long as it doesn’t stifle creative exploration.
Slightly Off Topic: first time I saw my neices playing Yugioh I thought the older was just making up rules since the younger didn’t know better. Then I saw an episode and realized she was actually probably following the rules! It totally sounded like FizzBin or something.
Blunty! Which video of yours brings this up when thousands of YouTube users were “banned” over little 2 or 3 minutes clips of South Park or The Daily Show? Their accounts wiped out. Did LittleKuriboh get banned? Does this have anything to do with 30,000 subscribers? It’s all or nothing, the first battle has already been won. Taking down a couple of videos is nothing to what happened in the February massacre, and you never even mentioned it.
We are slowly being manipulated away from the Rule of Law into a Rule of Corporations. Look at the ridiculous extensions granted by the copyright term laws in the USA. The intelligent reasoning behind copyrights expiring has pretty much been gutted to uselessness. Combine that with stupid Patent Office grants, and we eventually have a corporate takeover of trade… and thoughts.
LEGO could demand your stop-motion vids be removed. And YT would probably remove them. Scary.
I was thinking about LEGO too. same thing happened to Newgrounds content couple months ago. LEGO contacted them, and removed all LEGO content as to not deal with legal matters.
a scary thought to have. We can’t really express are thoughts/feelings without worrying about copyrights. it’s saddening, because at the same time we want to have these laws so we receive credit for our work. holders COULD think of it as fan service instead of “stealing money”, but it seems corporations aren’t like that.
too bad hundreds and hundreds of videos should be taken down every second because of copyright infringement, in fact i bet you can’t even wear that Wii shirt because you’re not promoting the views of the people of Wii and they don’t want to be asscociated with your views.
I noticed the music in the background. It sounds familiar but can’t place it. Maybe it’s public domain or royalty free, but have you ever switched your choice of background music just because of fear of copyright infringement? Do you generally find yourself thinking about such things when you decide what to use?
I’ve done a few videos singing karaoke songs before, about a month ago one was removed at request of the music company that owned the licenese, a few days later, they took down my video of me singing the song (it was a chinese version of “Can’t Help Falling in Love”) yet they left up about 25 videos which were posts of the actual music video for the song.
So where’s the logic in that?
In my opinion, he’s simply editing original episodes, and adding a new soundtrack yes? Wouldn’t that mean that every user thats created anime music video’s, video reviews or anyhting else of the like would also have to be deleted?
He wasn’t causing any-one harm, or effecting the sales of either YouTube or Yu-Gi-Oh. I think it’s all been blown out of proportion to be honest.
While I understand the need for copyright laws, I don’t understand why youtube and other companies get their panties in a bunch over content on youtube. Things posted here are, usually, fan made. We make these satirical or appriciative vids because we LIKE the shows we are satirizing or using in things such as amvs. Wouldn’t pulling them off of youtube simply discourage a fan from letting others know about shows or songs that they love?
Blunty;- The Law Is Enforced Into Existence, Not Created By Petition. Trust me… Whoever has the money can make up the rules. Youtube is owned by who? How much money do they have? It doesn’t matter. They don’t want it there, so they delete it. Your ‘law’ is invalid to them. They care about what buys them jets and moves them closer to becoming one of the more powerful elements within the system.
I dont think there is any copyright loophole that allows you to use other peoples material, even though he re-edited and over dubbed it, the visual is still copyright, the whole thing is copyrighted to the company who produces it. Like someone taking one of your videos, redubbing and cutting it down! Its your work. ITs not satire. Maybe Youtube should clarify this detail!
I understand that companies and such are always about the money. The user HAS a disclaimer in the describtion of each video where he clearly says “Belongs to (the original creator)” So I don’t see the problem. But I guess the user is expected to pay some sort of royalties for using the original footage. YET it’s satire, so he/she shouldn’t have to…gah. Copyright laws are messed up. I REALLY dislike them.
Hey – LittleKuriboh here.🙂
I think the problem lies in the fact that I did explicitly use Yu-Gi-Oh footage. Perhaps if I had performed the scripts using actors, or with *original* animation, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Personally, I’ve been kinda waiting for something like this to happen. I’m not overjoyed, but I’m not angry or anything. YouTube has to do what they have to do.
Its not copyrighted because not only is it a satire, he is not selling the episodes or claiming that show belongs to him. He strictly says in his description for every single episode that he does not own Yu-Gi-Oh and gives the credit to the original creator. Its not that big of a deal youtube! Let LK do his thing, He’s not doing anything illegal here!
well personaly i think its all bullshit, i uploaded 4 music videos and 3 were taken off by youtube, but theres probably 1000’s of users and maybe even millions of music videos still being allowed BULLSHIT!!!
anyway i think its perfectly fine using the using a source of copyrighted material (music, sounds, video, whatever) as long as your not using it to make money or posting the full un-edited source.
while it took you 5 min. to make a 1min. point, it’s one that i do wholeheartedly agree with what LK has done it create a well concieved, brilliantly executed derivative work. i believe YGO:TAS is entirly in the pervue of fair use and should be allowed to stay as such. if youtube continues in this fashon, nobody will stick around much longer.
Youtube’s taking copyright stuff a little too seriously. If it’s licensed, full episodes, fine, but fan-made material just for our enjoyment? No. That’s just cruel. It’s not like we’re cheating them out of their money by watching a music video or a good parody.
it should not have gotten deleted for 3 reasons. 1. it was not the real show just bits of it. 2. he said that it belonged to the people. and 3. THERE ARE EPISODES OF YUGIOH ON YOUTUBE. this makes no damn bit of sence why not delet those real episodes insted of a funny fun dub/ parody?
Well this wasn’t exactly copyrighted. If you give the author of the clip and/or show credit then that’s not copyrighting. If you could think back to the first episode in his description he put, this show belongs to: “the author of Yu-Gi-Oh”. That’s not copyrighting that’s throwing a dog a bone by saying it’s not his it’s the creator’s. I’m not pleased with youtube’s lack of judgment but It’s still not copyrighting ether way you put it.
YouTube has so many legal inquiries that I think “Fair Use” Gets no consideration at all most of the time. In a way I understand it because I bet they don’t have time to review many of the clips they receive complaints about. On the otherhand I think it sucks that satire and other elements of fair use are rendered useless as a result.