Discussing "Where's The Fair Use" Youtube Movement

[Shinko]

So I am intensely curious to see some opinions from you guys on an issue that's currently trending on youtube- a movement started by ChannelAwesome (home of the Nostalgia Critic and Linkara among others) that they have dubbed Where's the Fair Use, #WTFU. Although it has spawned off many, many videos echoing assent, here's the original one that explains the issue they're presenting in detail.

The youtube content creators have jumped on Channel Awesome's bandwagon, and one creator even set up a thunderclap set to go off on March 2 that has, so far, gotten over 8,000 supporters with a social media reach of four million people. Things escalated even further today with the takedown of Team Four Star's youtube channel (for those not in the know, Team Four Star are the creators behind Dragonball Z abridged.)

So that all being said, I'm curious to hear you guy's take on this. Honestly it's not an issue I was even aware of until a content creator I subscribe to (KrimsonRouge, creator of The Book Was Better, a webshow that critiques movies based on books) posted his own video to spread the message.

Thoughts?

[PFA]

I think a huge part of the problem is that the system is largely automated. I mean, there's no way a single company can scour the entirety of YouTube, so they would have to set up bots to search out certain movie clips/key words/whatever. (Which I think is what happened with the React fiasco a while back but, beside the point.) Which means that they're grabbing a whole ton of stuff even though it should technically fall under fair use, because machines don't know any better. And then YouTube's content ID system just snags them all indiscriminately because it doesn't know any better, either.

Unfortunately, there's not really a simple way to stop those false claims, outside of a really hefty staff of content ID monitors. Though I do agree that system itself could use work—right now it is waaay too punishing to the content creators.

[Shinko]

PFA Yeah, I think the biggest thing that made me kind of "=\" was the idea that the content claims could be used to allow companies to monetize the video in question without any sort of grace period to see if the content creator would try to dispute the claim. That not only punishes the content creator harshly (the first month or so of a video's existence is when it sees it's most heavy viewer traffic) but it actually incentivizes making the claims unjustly. Which a lot of people have come forward to say that they've gotten content claims on videos from companies who had no legal rights to what they were claiming. KrimsonRogue, for example, used a fan remix of the Doctor Who theme song as the end credits of one of his reviews- it got tagged with an automated claim from the BBC, but when he fought the claim they immediately cleared the strike from his account. A second company called The Orchard also claimed the Doctor Who theme song and flat refused to drop the claim, even issuing a takedown notice, when they are just a third party online licensing group- ergo, they don't actually own the legal rights to the doctor who theme song, and should've backed off when the BBC gave the video the green light.

[Jae]

Just weighing in, I generally agree with the video and the movement just because I've seen a lot of YouTubers I like get hit with BS copyright claims and strikes. The system is heavily weighted against content creators; if your video is 99.9% unique but .01% was borrowed from another source withing the realm of Fair Use, you might not see a cent. Content creation tools aren't cheap.

My biggest issues are

1) I think someone from Game Grumps originally posted a comment about this, with a bunch of other CCs chiming in that they've had similar experiences. There are people who make terrible cookie-cutter dubstep/techno songs and 'sample' public domain music (i.e. jam the entire, unedited original song into their new song), then they are able to file claims on people using the public domain music. That needs to change.

2) The video touches on companies hiring firms to file claims on their behalf, with these firms being the most difficult to deal with. If that's allowed to occur, then YouTube definitely needs to up their game and hire arbiters to determine if the claim is legitimate before the CC even sees it/has to deal with it (such as in cases like my first point where it's quite clear that sleazebags are trying to profit off of public domain resources). Companies should be penalized somehow for making claims on videos that are determined by a third party to fall into Fair Use.

3) The limit on the number of disputes a CC can make needs to be removed, or at the very least increased.

Right now, it's really difficult to be a CC on YouTube unless you are given a partnership with a large YT partner, which itself is difficult unless you project to be the ~next big thing~. It's just driving more people to Twitch. Twitch has its own issues and I prefer YouTube, so I would really like to see nonsense like this get cleaned up.

[Shinko]

Now there's an interesting complication to the case that has been brought up in the wake of the Team Four Star shenanigans. (By the way, their channel is back up now.) The team has confirmed on their twitter and on their channel that Funimation, the U.S. licensing company for DBZ, is not responsible for issuing the copyright strikes. This has lead to the popular theory that the strikes were issued by DBZ's Japanese production studio, Toei Animation. A few people have since come forward explaining that they've had strikes levied against anime content by Japanese studios, and when they explained that the content's use fell under the provisions of Fair Use, the studios made no bones about the fact that they didn't care. Fair Use, at it's core, is an American law- strictly speaking, in Japan, what these U.S. and other worldwide content creators are doing is illegal.

Thoughts?

[Jae]

I know copyright is a bit different in Japan (think I read somewhere else on this forum that if a Japanese artist's work is distributed without their consent, the artist can be penalized even if they don't know about it)

International and especially internet law is quite murky. The simplest solution would be to say that since YouTube is based in the US, that the website is subject to US laws but I can imagine the backlash for that would be enormous. :S

Why is it just anime, though? I've seen people post LPs of games made by Japanese companies that don't get flagged to the point the channel gets taken down

[Shinko]

Jae Well game studios and animation studios aren't the same entities, so my guess is that it boils down to an ideological difference between the two. It's possible that JP game studios like Nintendo aren't stupid and know free advertising when they see it, whereas animation houses are more touchy about having their content shared around. Theoretically speaking, watching a Let's Play or walkthrough doesn't give you the experience of playing the game. You just watch someone else play for their reactions and/or to see the story. Or because you personally are playing and got stuck. Conversely, if someone uploads an entire episode of an anime or a critical summary of an episode of an anime, it could be argued there is then no point in actually purchasing the licensed DVD release. Why would you when you already know the whole plot and can get it for free?

[Jae]

Well if it's people uploading entire episodes when those episodes are behind paywalls on sites like Crunchyroll, I can sort of understand why the companies are a little upset.

I know LPs are very unique to the creator, I was just trying to figure out what the issue with anime is using comparisons, because I'm not familiar with anime content on YT that isn't original. I imagine DBZ abridged is fairly self-explanatory, the episodes stripped down to the important moments. Do other anime YTers post abridges and unofficial dubs/subs and that's what's getting taken down as far as anime content goes?

[PFA]

I don't watch much anime content on YouTube either, but there's an anime channel I discovered through the WTFU hashtag, and she mostly does reviews and top ten lists and still gets flagged rather persistently—not by an American network or a Japanese one—but by an Italian one, of all things. Which I think just goes back to the point that international laws are all kinds of murky.

(The video, for reference: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYL_eLZLfw8 )

[Jae]

wut?

If it's the same Italian company regardless of which anime appears, maybe they're a licensing company who owns the rights to the Italian version? Doesn't give them to right to claim English versions, though, I don't believe. Or maybe they're one of the new firms that sprouted up to file claims on behalf of other companies.

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2016 18:31:20 GMT -5 Jae said:

I think I read somewhere else on this forum that if a Japanese artist's work is distributed without their consent, the artist can be penalized even if they don't know about it

Okay, that's pretty messed up. Big time. I mean, I love Japanese video games and I used to be a big anime fan, but the folks who make the stuff really shouldn't be punished for it. That's ridiculous =/

[Killix]

Youtube's system is wack.
(I didn't watch the video, but I've already heard a lot about YT's problems with content ID XD)

One of the major problems is that there's no consequence for filing a false claim. Literally anyone can make a nonsense claim and mooch off a content creator's revenue while the claim is in dispute. Then whoops, the claim was false! Oh well, the claimer doesn't have to pay back all that revenue they leeched under false pretense.

Companies and individuals are essentially stealing money from content creators, it's illegal.

[Shinko]

So this is a thing apparently. (No this is not an April Fools joke, or at least Nostalgia Critic insists it's not.)

[Jae]

Signed up for it. I'd rather look like a sucker who tried to do the right thing than a cynic who could have helped but sat back for fear of ~looking stupid~

If this is an April Fool's Joke then it's pretty ridiculous. The standard for jokes is usually 'something bad happens on April Fools Day, is removed and lol'ed about on April 2nd.' Giving someone false hope that something desirable would happen and then pulling it back while laughing is only funny to sociopaths.

[PFA]

I wonder if they're banking on people not taking it seriously so they don't have to do anything about the broken copyright law. But that ain't gonna happen because WE'RE THE INTERNET, am I right