Google has had to get tough on copyright violations on YouTube. Fair enough. But surely removing a video clip featuring footage shot live by someone on their own camera is going a little too far.
YouTube Copyright Infringement
Copyright-infringement has always been a problem on YouTube. The early days of the site (pre-Google) saw YouTube filled with clips which very obviously infringed on many content owners copyrights. Which is why Viacom chose to file a $1 billion lawsuit against the company.
The situation has improved in recent years. Once Google acquired the site for $1.65 billion in November, 2006, it knew something serious had to be done in order to stop the flagrant abuse. Hence the introduction of the much-maligned Video Identification System, an anti-piracy tool which allows content owners to quickly and easily identify on of their clips.
Gone Too Far?
However, there’s definitely a case to be stated for the system having gone too far. Some video clips are removed if there’s even the slightest hint of a copyright violation, and it’s up to the uploading party to then argue the case that their clip should have been left well alone. Much like Stephanie Lenz did when Universal Music demanded she remove a video of her toddler dancing because one of their artists (Prince) was audible in the background.
And now we’ve seen another example of a complete lack of common sense on YouTube’s part. Rory Cellan-Jones is the BBC’s technology correspondent, and in that role he has to test new equipment and Web sites. Which is exactly what he was doing when he filmed a segment of a soccer match with a new mini HD camera and uploaded it to YouTube.
Seriously?
The clip, which featured 37 seconds of a Football League Two match between Brentford v Exeter City, was deleted a couple of days after being uploaded, and Cellan-Jones was warned that his whole account could be closed if he failed to behave himself. He detailed the incident in a BBC blog post.
The reason for this heavy-handed approach? A copyright claim on the clip by The Football League Limited. A video clip recorded from the television, fine, that deserves to be deleted as it clearly infringes on the company’s copyright, but a self-shot clip from someone actually at the match? Surely that cannot be right.
Right Or Wrong?
I’m no legal expert and maybe The Football League is right on this score. But I doubt it. With still-image photography this certainly wouldn’t be the case. On Flickr, for instance, there are millions of pictures taken at music gigs, festivals, sporting events and shows which remain the property of the cameraman and not the people hosting the event. In layman’s terms this would seem to be no different.
Even when it comes to video on YouTube, there has been a precedent set where self-shot footage is fine. While music videos are taken down if not licensed, clips of the same song being sung live at a concert remain on the site without any issues being raised.
And as Cellan-Jones points out, he had no such problem when uploading a live performance Billy Bragg gave at a press conference. No takedown notice, and no warning he risked having his account deleted. And Bragg is hardly YouTube-friendly being one of the musicians backing the PRS’s stance against YouTube.
Conclusions
The Football League clearly needs to lighten up, YouTube needs to pay more attention to which clips it’s being asked to remove, and Cellan-Jones should consider taking this case further. He’s a man in a position to actually get something done about this in order to show it isn’t right. Because it clearly isn’t.
Related Ads
Buy ‘Copyright’s Paradox’ on Amazon
– A look at how copyright law stifles creativity.
