Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 I was watching CNN and saw when discussing the Michael Phelps weed story, they mentioned this issue as well. Even showing some outdated home video of a Wakakirin bout while in Makushita. I wonder if the "outdated home video" was mine, and if so, if I can sue them for using it without my permission and buy property. Does anyone have a copy of the broadcast or has anyone seen it and can verify and testify? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Asashosakari 18,959 Posted February 5, 2009 I wonder if the "outdated home video" was mine, and if so, if I can sue them for using it without my permission and buy property. Does anyone have a copy of the broadcast or has anyone seen it and can verify and testify? See for yourself...it's 2:00 into the clip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hidenohana 0 Posted February 5, 2009 I wonder if the "outdated home video" was mine, and if so, if I can sue them for using it without my permission and buy property. Does anyone have a copy of the broadcast or has anyone seen it and can verify and testify? See for yourself...it's 2:00 into the clip. I've seen that video before.(Showing respect...) Video Did CNN ask for permission? (Showing respect...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 I wonder if the "outdated home video" was mine, and if so, if I can sue them for using it without my permission and buy property. Does anyone have a copy of the broadcast or has anyone seen it and can verify and testify? See for yourself...it's 2:00 into the clip. Yup, it's mine, complete with the "wawawa" in the background. Now, the question is-can I sue? Anyone? It does say "from youtube", but does that give them my rights? Anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sokkenaiyama 80 Posted February 5, 2009 I suggest you recheck the youtube copyright policy, Mr. D. My guess is they can use it, since the clip is publicly available. You should look for precedents, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hidenohana 0 Posted February 5, 2009 I suggest you recheck the youtube copyright policy, Mr. D. My guess is they can use it, since the clip is publicly available. You should look for precedents, though. I don't think Kintamayama could sue them for infringement. Embedding a video on another website-like I just did-is not that far removed from a media outlet using the video in one of their broadcasts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 I suggest you recheck the youtube copyright policy, Mr. D. My guess is they can use it, since the clip is publicly available. You should look for precedents, though. My solicitors are on to it-they say I have a case, since CNN and other broadcasters are not outlaws like the internet guys and are bound by rules. Just like the major broadcasters are endlessly having stuff taken off youtube for copyright infringements, it works both ways, say my Jewish lawyers, who are on the phone with CNN at the moment. On a totally unrelated subject, I'm at the local Jaguar dealer's garage looking at stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fay 1,677 Posted February 5, 2009 I suggest you recheck the youtube copyright policy, Mr. D. My guess is they can use it, since the clip is publicly available. You should look for precedents, though. My solicitors are on to it-they say I have a case, since CNN and other broadcasters are not outlaws like the internet guys and are bound by rules. Just like the major broadcasters are endlessly having stuff taken off youtube for copyright infringements, it works both ways, say my Jewish lawyers, who are on the phone with CNN at the moment. On a totally unrelated subject, I'm at the local Jaguar dealer's garage looking at stuff. Don't forget to complain at the american embassy (I am not worthy...) . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kofuji 0 Posted February 5, 2009 Posting a video on YouTube or photograph on Flickr does not mean you lose your copyright on something. It depends on what rights you granted when you put the item up. If the item is used commercially, they must at least acknowledge the source. There was a big thing about this a little while ago when someone picked up a photo off Flickr and used it in a big ad campaign in Australia. They are also required to do some due diligence in locating the poster before claiming it's an orphan work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 Posting a video on YouTube or photograph on Flickr does not mean you lose your copyright on something. It depends on what rights you granted when you put the item up. If the item is used commercially, they must at least acknowledge the source. Oh, they acknowledged the source alright.. Youtube.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Washuyama 638 Posted February 5, 2009 If you get a settlement, do I get a cut for "finding" it?? (I am not worthy...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kofuji 0 Posted February 5, 2009 I'd at least get in touch with CNN and say you are the owner of the YouTube video shown in their newscast ... bet they'll offer you at least a few bucks for its use ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 If you get a settlement, do I get a cut for "finding" it?? (I am not worthy...) Goes without saying, as long as you are willing to split the legal fees that may arise if we decide to go ballistic.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Asashosakari 18,959 Posted February 5, 2009 If you get a settlement, do I get a cut for "finding" it?? (I am not worthy...) I demand 50% of your cut for relaying the evidence! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nomadwolf 8 Posted February 5, 2009 Posting a video on YouTube or photograph on Flickr does not mean you lose your copyright on something. It depends on what rights you granted when you put the item up. If the item is used commercially, they must at least acknowledge the source. There was a big thing about this a little while ago when someone picked up a photo off Flickr and used it in a big ad campaign in Australia. They are also required to do some due diligence in locating the poster before claiming it's an orphan work. If you look at the YouTube Terms of Service. Paragraph 6.C reads: For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Website. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 If you look at the YouTube Terms of Service. Paragraph 6.C reads: For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Website. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable. Yes.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Asashosakari 18,959 Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) If you look at the YouTube Terms of Service. Paragraph 6.C reads... FWIW, none of that seems to apply to this particular situation, unless CNN can be classified as a "Youtube affiliate", which I doubt it can (complete guess though, admittedly). Other than that, the closest call might be this: You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. I don't think that pointing a video camera at a computer monitor displaying youtube.com and broadcasting the resulting recording qualifies as "reproduced ... through the functionality of the Website", however. Edited February 5, 2009 by Asashosakari Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harry 67 Posted February 5, 2009 However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. It said courtesy of Youtube, right? Well, Youtube has the right to distribute your stuff in any media format or any media channel worldwide, and that includes CNN. Free advertising for Youtube, free video for CNN, squat for you. Maybe you don't want to post your videos there after all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Asashosakari 18,959 Posted February 5, 2009 It said courtesy of Youtube, right? No, just "From Youtube.com". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kofuji 0 Posted February 5, 2009 You may want to peruse these two resources: http://www.lightstalkers.org/cnn-used-my-pgotographs and http://www.lightstalkers.org/what-to-do Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kintamayama 44,639 Posted February 5, 2009 Thanks everyone for your advice. My lawyers have told me what to do and I shall follow their advice and let you know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted February 6, 2009 Moti - you could always claim you have an official licence from an oyakata / the NSK and claim originality that way! (I am not worthy...) No need to be true of course! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hananotaka 8 Posted February 6, 2009 On a totally unrelated subject, I'm at the local Jaguar dealer's garage looking at stuff. :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
