Video Stealing

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

This leads me to my title. There are is a new site(s) that are taking videos from youtube and uploading them to their own site(s). It is being done without permission from the owners of those videos, and frankly its wrong.

Wrong or not, you need to distinguish between stealing (which implies that the original is now unavailable to its owner, and which is a criminal act) and infringement (which does not deprive the owner of the content, merely the opportunity to use it exclusively, and which is not necessarily criminal).

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

While FIRST events are open to the public and anyone can record them this does not mean you can then take the videos they (the owners) recorded and use them as your own. It would be different if you (the video stealers) were using "Fair Use" (Examples of fair use are works used for news reporting, criticism, comment, scientific research, teaching, and parody.), But this is not what happening. The videos are being used completely unedited just to promote their own site(s).

How are you certain it's not fair use/fair dealing? Legally speaking, in the United States, the only way to be sure that something is fair use is to litigate. Precedents can be a good guide to the way courts are likely to rule, however U.S. and Canadian law is relatively undeveloped with regard to the fine details. From the other thread, which appears to be relevant, here's what I posted:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Given the need to manage the content centrally (to make an archive consistent in function and appearance), uploading with a single account used only for that purpose is a good compromise [from a usability point of view, though that may cause intellectual property concerns]. Definitely include an explicit credit to the original source, preferably including a link outside the video (so that if the embedding breaks, the content can still be found, and so that the source is clearly acknowledged).
...
That approach, writ large, underlies the Internet Archive's efforts to archive the entire public Internet at relatively frequent intervals. Their argument is that the value of having (what amounts to) a set of cultural artifacts frozen in time and archived by a neutral party outweighs the personal intellectual property rights of their creators, so long as the content is used for limited purposes that are justifiable under United States fair use law.

You might make similar arguments for this archive, though they might be somewhat weaker given the limited scope of WatchFIRSTNow.

The approach to I referred could be the basis of a claim of transformativeness, which is a strong argument in favour of fair use (though not sufficient alone).

If the other site (or WatchFIRSTNow, if that's indeed the site to which you refer) were to make an explicit assertion of fair use, and specify the grounds, I think we'd be more able to assess their intentions. (Note that the lack of such a declaration could be read as ignorance, malice or a desire to keep their arguments in reserve in case of legal proceedings.)


For completeness, I should also point out that it could be fair use/fair dealing, and still be wrong, because of other moral considerations. If those are at issue, let's lay them out and discuss them.

[PayneTrain]

Classic Canada: first they steal our American pharmaceuticals, now they take our videos! Life will never be the same!

[Lucario]

I'm pretty sure that the aforementioned usage of FIRST recordings falls under the category of fair use (on watchfirstnow.com)- it might fall in the category of education, since it is educating the public on what FIRST does. While the original recorder technically has the exclusive rights to public distribution, the fairness doctrine overrides this right when it applies.

There's 4 items considered when determining if a scenario classifies as fair use, but these two items (from 17 U.S.C. § 107, fair use doctrine) are, in my opinion, most salient to this case:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It can be reasonably argued that this work is for educational purposes (as it educates the public) and the website, seeing that it is devoid of advertisements, seems to be of a non-profit nature.

(I will admit the WHOIS obfuscation is annoying... Grr... those people...)

It can also be argued that these videos have minimal market value that's being lost in this case (I mean, no one's getting paid from YouTube yet, right?) and based on the number of views these videos get, I'm not even sure losses in ad revenue can even be remedied in court (is it even worth the filing fee, anyways?)

Personally, annoying as it may be, I think that this website has a strong case for fair use. Without any monetary market for these videos, legal arguments against this site may not only fail, but be detrimental to FIRST's goals of expanding the program.

(TLDR) People will share things on the internet no matter what you do; just let them be.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Lucario

I mean, no one's getting paid from YouTube yet, right?

Can' tell if ignorant or joking.

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by Lucario

It can be reasonably argued that this work is for educational purposes (as it educates the public) and the website, seeing that it is devoid of advertisements, seems to be of a non-profit nature.

OK I am going to go post every episode of pawn stars and myth busters on YouTube. I won't ask for ads and just tell the discovery channel and history channel its educational so I won't get in trouble.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Not that it makes things right or anything, but an offended party that has had its video ripped and uploaded to a different video sharing site can always file a DMCA takedown with said video sharing site. As long as you're the copyright holder of the material, you can do that and it's likely to get the video taken down or at least get the offender put on notice if enough complaints are made.

Mind you, you need to be that actual copyright holder for the material. If all you did was record the FIRST provided video stream, then it's probably FIRST that's the copyright holder, since they did all the production, etc. I think unedited, uncommented video from your own camera of an FRC event is probably shaky on whether you're the copyright holder. And something like RoboShow is very clearly original material that the RoboShow guys hold the copyright to.

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Not that it makes things right or anything, but an offended party that has had its video ripped and uploaded to a different video sharing site can always file a DMCA takedown with said video sharing site. As long as you're the copyright holder of the material, you can do that and it's likely to get the video taken down or at least get the offender put on notice if enough complaints are made.

Mind you, you need to be that actual copyright holder for the material. If all you did was record the FIRST provided video stream, then it's probably FIRST that's the copyright holder, since they did all the production, etc. I think unedited, uncommented video from your own camera of an FRC event is probably shaky on whether you're the copyright holder. And something like RoboShow is very clearly original material that the RoboShow guys hold the copyright to.

I agree 100%

[Bochek]

Everyone,

I don't have time right now to write an at length response to this entire thread. But I would like to make sure you all know that I am aware of the thread. I'm going to do my best with the time I have right now to respond to some comments, I will get to the rest later tonight or tomorrow.

If you read through my responses to the last thread I stated that

I have plans to add a "video provided by" line to the page, but things take time. I am not a programmer, I pay to have the site developed.

I understand that crediting the source of the videos is an important bit that I have forgotten when originally developing the site.

which like Hallry's email never got a response

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.


From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.

Requesting video take downs is of benefit to no one.

If people have specific issues. Lets come up with ideas to solve them instead of just complaining.

- Bochek

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Bochek

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.

What email account did you use to reply back with? I have not recieved a reply on either of the 2 email accounts that I emailed the administrator account with.

EDIT: I've check through all of the emails on both accounts...Can't find anything from WFN.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Bochek

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.

This is fairly straightforward. You're breaking the youtube terms of service.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
(section 4)

You're also connecting that breach with the FIRST name.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Bochek

From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.

Requesting video take downs is of benefit to no one.

If people have specific issues. Lets come up with ideas to solve them instead of just complaining.

Well, those videos are theirs, they filmed, edited, and published them in a medium of their choice (youtube). Sounds like you're the one fighting to call something yours, when it's clearly not.

If we're giving out gold stars for "spreading the word of FIRST" - who would you give more credit to...

A) The teams filming, editing, and uploading events - who work with the admins of TBA to link match results to match video.

or

B) Someone using a bot to download videos from youtube, upload them to a Vimeo account, and serving them on a superfluous website laden with ads.

If your view is that re-uploading videos to a separate account is beneficial - knock yourself out. But to do so without the permission of the creator (in this case the explicit disapproval of the creator), isn't the proper way to go about it. I know that team 25 has purposely not published their match video from Hatboro since they don't want you to rip and re-upload it. That's not a net gain for the FIRST community.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by scottandme

If we're giving out gold stars for "spreading the word of FIRST" - who would you give more credit to...

A) The teams filming, editing, and uploading events - who work with the admins of TBA to link match results to match video.

or

B) Someone using a bot to download videos from youtube, upload them to a Vimeo account, and serving them on a superfluous website laden with ads.

I'd say, who cares? The easiest behavior to change is your own.

Instead of trying to shut them down, why not just roll with it? If you want to take credit for this worthy activity, why not just talk about how many of your videos are featured on the distribution site? Uploading credit is certainly something to ask for, but in the case of an uncooperative host, a small watermark in the corner will certainly do the trick.

Just talk about how you're working with other teams/people to expand FIRST beyond your own personal capabilities.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Lucario

I'd say, who cares? The easiest behavior to change is your own.

Instead of trying to shut them down, why not just roll with it? If you want to take credit for this worthy activity, why not just talk about how many of your videos are featured on the distribution site? Uploading credit is certainly something to ask for, but in the case of an uncooperative host, a small watermark in the corner will certainly do the trick.

Just talk about how you're working with other teams/people to expand FIRST beyond your own personal capabilities.

The people who spent the time collecting and editing the videos???

It is not the responsibility of the people "providing" (its not really providing at the moment because they were never asked) the content to talk about this on their own. This is the responsibility of whomever is running the website. How about I grab pictures of you off of Facebook (or other media site) and use them on a website for promotional work. I'm not going to ask you can just tell everyone that its you. This is not how the real world works.

What they are doing is great in that they are providing a database of videos for matches. While redundant since we have TBA they each have their own way of doing things, every good thing will have competition. With that being said, more people would be open to the idea of linking their match videos to these websites if they are 1. ASKED and 2. credit is given either by a disclaimer or a link to the original work.

To whomever is running this: please stop taking videos for the time being and resume once you come up with a process for asking for permission and giving credit where it is due. You are only hurting yourself more by creating a bad reputation of your website. I believe your intentions are good to create a better video database considering when you started your efforts TBA wasn't getting much new content.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

It is not the responsibility of the people "providing" (its not really providing at the moment because they were never asked) the content to talk about this on their own. This is the responsibility of whomever is running the website. How about I grab pictures of you off of Facebook (or other media site) and use them on a website for promotional work. I'm not going to ask you can just tell everyone that its you. This is not how the real world works.

Legally, this is the way the world works in the case of fair use, which is why determining if it falls under that category is so pivotal in this discussion. I can take a photo off the internet and show it to a classroom for educational purposes- a case that definitely falls within the area of fair use.

Yes, credit should be given where credit is due, as I mention in my above post, but modifying their behavior is not something entirely within your control, while adapting to it certainly is.

(You also won't find me on Facebook- I have a thing against them )

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Bochek

From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.
- Bochek

I'm sorry, but you don't get to claim the moral high ground here or try to shame people who are objecting to your appropriation of their hard work and effort to record matches. You don't get to decide for those people what the best use and display of their work is, because you didn't do it. Allow me to demonstrate:

I think because of the controversy over your site, your brand is compromised and could benefit from relaunching under a different name with different management to provide a clean break from said controversies. I demand you provide me all the supporting source of your site so I can make the necessary changes and relaunch it under my management as "ThisIsFIRST". Under my new management it will be much more successful at helping the cause and spreading the word of FIRST. So you should totally hand over all that source to paid to develop. I'll (obviously) just rip the content from your video sharing accounts myself.