You Tube copyright

thebaz

Hi there - haven't posted in a while - but have a technical copyright question.

Theres been a fair few main media copyright questions, where they use images without consent , basically invoice the publication.
Last night I noticed 2 videos using my images (and those of one or 2 other photographers ) in a video by same YouTube account, no consent by me was given to use my images in these 2 videos.

Contacting Google is not as easy as contacting a mainstream media , there telephone system is appalling for such a hi-tech company , obviously they don't want telephone conversation and the online information is really hard to follow.

The licence on the videos says Standard YOUTube licence

Any advice - thanks.

DaireQuinlan

probably via https://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form
Dunno how effective it's likely to be though or how quick the process is.

thebaz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

probably via https://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form
Dunno how effective it's likely to be though or how quick the process is.

This happened before , and I had to call into Google office cause it took so long to take down , they did get taken down immediately then - but have not the time at the moment to do this.

Wondering have others had this issue - are Google liable for this breach of copyright ?

gloobag

I would imagine it's the content creator themselves that are liable. Have you asked them to remove the images?

A lot of YouTubers consider a google image search to be their own personal stock library. They haven't a clue that they are stealing someone's work, and possibly putting it in a context that it was never intended to be displayed in. Unfortunately, unless the content creator is claiming the image as their own, or advertising a product/service with an image, the only thing that can happen is that the image eventually gets removed, probably after a lot of back and forth. Google couldn't give less of a ****, to be honest. They'll do something if you have the patience to hound them for long enough, but that's about it.

thebaz

gloobag wrote: »

I would imagine it's the content creator themselves that are liable. Have you asked them to remove the images?

A lot of YouTubers consider a google image search to be their own personal stock library. They haven't a clue that they are stealing someone's work, and possibly putting it in a context that it was never intended to be displayed in. Unfortunately, unless the content creator is claiming the image as their own, or advertising a product/service with an image, the only thing that can happen is that the image eventually gets removed, probably after a lot of back and forth. Google couldn't give less of a ****, to be honest. They'll do something if you have the patience to hound them for long enough, but that's about it.

Its one of these users making there own videos using other peoples stills - its happened before - I had to call into Google and they eventually removed video - contacting the user falls on deaf ears.

With Google and the big software companies now controlling most of the media today, surely they should be responsible for copyright infringements.
If a mainstream media , like a newspaper, uses a picture without consent the image owner has rights , surely the likes of Google should also be accountable ? No ?

gloobag

thebaz wrote: »

Its one of these users making there own videos using other peoples stills - its happened before - I had to call into Google and they eventually removed video - contacting the user falls on deaf ears.

With Google and the big software companies now controlling most of the media today, surely they should be responsible for copyright infringements.
If a mainstream media , like a newspaper, uses a picture without consent the image owner has rights , surely the likes of Google should also be accountable ? No ?

Yes, they should. But I imagine they just don't put any resources into policing this kind of stuff, hence why you had to actually got to their office to sort it out previously. Also, I'd say their terms of service are very much in their own favour and designed to protect themselves more than anything.

Now, if you were a big movie studio or record label who can afford a long drawn out legal battle, they would probably sort it all out very quickly.

If you're not getting any response from the content creators themselves you could consider calling them out publically on their own social media pages. I've had to resort to this myself in the past. It's crude but effective.

ED E

If you and the other photogs put a copyright claim on the content YT will demonitize it while they check it. If they find in your favour the channel gets a strike (one of three) and will be taken down.

Problem is repeat offenders can spam it but at least they won't be paid doing it that way since the 10k threshold came into effect.

thebaz

ED E wrote: »

If you and the other photogs put a copyright claim on the content YT will demonitize it while they check it. If they find in your favour the channel gets a strike (one of three) and will be taken down.

Problem is repeat offenders can spam it but at least they won't be paid doing it that way since the 10k threshold came into effect.

sorry, don't really follow - if I make a complaint , Google will give channel owner one strike ?
Yet 3 strikes are required for channel owner to remove video ?

Someone without my consent used my images to make music videos with . -
If it was a national newspaper, or local newspaper or TV station , they would be liable - why should Google be any different ? and make it so difficult to file legitimate complaints.

beauf

3 strikes and the user gets booted off YouTube.

DaireQuinlan

OSI wrote: »

That's analogous to saying The Sun printed your picture so the paper manufacturer should be responsible for it.

That is a poor analogy your analogy is analogous to saying that the ISP should be responsible for this, or your computer manufacturer. Google IS responsible, and have done the minimum to account for this responsibility in providing a mechanism to report violations and take down offending content. So long as there's a mechanism in place, no matter how laborious and slow, they're probably protected to some extent legally, doesn't mean they couldn't do more.

thebaz

OSI wrote: »

That's analogous to saying The Sun printed your picture so the paper manufacturer should be responsible for it.

no its not - they and Facebook are the new media providers of today - they like to present a nice hippy care free image , but are way more ruthless for profit than most of the previous media providers - They should be responsible for content and in particular violations of content and copyright , know so many creative people who are struggling to make a living these days , from measly payouts from Google, Appla and the like, whilst these corporations rake in massive profit (largely tax free).

DaireQuinlan

OSI wrote: »

But they are not the creators. They are simply a platform. If someone chooses to use the platform to create content that infringes copyright, then it is the creator who is at fault, not the platform provider.

They are not 'platform providers' they are, in certain instances (of which YouTube is certainly one) publishers, and that makes them responsible for content they've published.

thebaz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

They are not 'platform providers' they are, in certain instances (of which YouTube is certainly one) publishers, and that makes them responsible for content they've published.

exactly - I have worked in both industries - the new and the old - and Google and Facebook and Twitter and NETflix and Amzon are most definitly the new media - making massive money (at ridiculously low Tax levels).
For creative photographers, journalists and musicians to survive there rights must be respected - I know I don't like reading all the lazy journalism re-printed and rehashed by inferior low paid journalists of today , mainly online - we must reward or at the very least respect creativity. So yeah I think the new media - Google in this instance - should be expected to adhere to decent standards.

Sabre Man

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

They are not 'platform providers' they are, in certain instances (of which YouTube is certainly one) publishers, and that makes them responsible for content they've published.

If I stole your photos and published them in a photobook claiming them as mine, would you hold the publisher responsible?

DaireQuinlan

Sabre Man wrote: »

If I stole your photos and published them in a photobook claiming them as mine, would you hold the publisher responsible?

In that you are the publisher in that instance, yes :-D
Photobox (for example) can't be regarded as a 'publisher' in the proper sense of the word, if they were producing 1000 copies of your photobook for resale then they would be.

-edit- to clarify, I assume you're talking about vanity style photobooks here i.e. photobox and the like. They're more akin to printers than 'publishers'.

Sabre Man

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

In that you are the publisher in that instance, yes :-D
Photobox (for example) can't be regarded as a 'publisher' in the proper sense of the word, if they were producing 1000 copies of your photobook for resale then they would be.

-edit- to clarify, I assume you're talking about vanity style photobooks here i.e. photobox and the like. They're more akin to printers than 'publishers'.

Sorry, I meant printer, not publisher.

beauf

YouTube is publisher in this instance no.

thebaz

I'm overcome with sympathy for the poor souls at Google - they can have everything for free - is that what they want ? - original creativity at no price - Sergey Brin can make more billions while struggling artists in all mediums wither or starve or just give up.

EyeCake

Can we see an example of this pirated video.
With the size of the internet how do you keep coming across your images that have been stolen?
As this seems to have happened you before why do you put them up on the internet without large watermarks or whatever.
Can you imagine how George Lucas sleeps at night!

thebaz

EyeCake wrote: »

Can we see an example of this pirated video.
With the size of the internet how do you keep coming across your images that have been stolen?
As this seems to have happened you before why do you put them up on the internet without large watermarks or whatever.
Can you imagine how George Lucas sleeps at night!

I think I know my own images (like most photographers) - previously I was told about an offensive video that was using my images , Google took this down when I called in to them.
I am pretty generous with images in general , but despise anyone that Steals my images without asking, for whatever purpose including making videos for YouTube.
Now , regarding George Lucas I give up