Video Stealing

[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.

[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.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Bochek

Everyone,

<snip>

Are you serious? Your site is being counteractive to the "message and unity" you seem to be promoting. Wouldn't FIRST benefit more from having everything aggregated in one place with everythinf(match scores, awards, videos, basically TBA)?

I know 1676 pride themselves on the significant amount of match videos they post. Saying you "forgot to credit them" is just as bad as ignoring it completely. Its great that you webcast and archive all Canadian events, but is it necessary to host every other video?

Either way if you decide to start asking permission from other teams to host their videos, I can guarantee you're going to have a hard time getting approvals from some people...

[Zach O]

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.

You shouldn't need proof of ownership from anyone. Are they yours? Did someone else make them? Don't rip them and re-upload them.

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.

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

I guarantee you if you had taken the proper channels in order to receive explicit permission from the owners of the videos that you could rip them from their original source (this is apparently against some terms of service? I'm no lawyer) and re-host them, things would've been okay. But this isn't what you're doing. You're stealing from people. I can't go on to YouTube and steal my favorite One Direction music video and re-upload it somewhere else so I can serve ads on it. I didn't make it, I wasn't given explicit permission to use it, and I'm clearly profiting off of it.

Also, we did suggest a solution. Several times, in fact. Need another solution? Feel free to email me, I know how to drag and drop a few videos to a trash can. Is it on a server? Perfect. Here's my ssh public keys. I'll login and remove them for you.

It doesn't take a programmer to make this right.

Originally Posted by Lucario

It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.

Ads for free web hosting is exchanging a service for ads, as opposed to directly getting money to pay for web hosting. It's still an ad, they're still profiting off of it.

[Brandon_L]

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.

I found that little paragraph particularly disturbing. You need proof that you don't own something?

Originally Posted by Bochek

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

Its really quite simple, you ask before you take. You're doing more damage to the community then you are doing good.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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.

It's actually more complex (and potentially annoying) than that.

Though FIRST is the video provider (e.g. through the AV hookups at the venue), their agreement with the film crew may not necessarily specify a transfer of copyright. In the U.S., absent a work for hire agreement, the person operating the camera is the copyright holder of the video.¹ (The lack of such an agreement would be unlikely, but to the extent that FIRST believed the webcast was a one-time event rather than a body of content that could be preserved and used forever, it's not inconceivable that the contract could omit this.) For the same reason, the person operating their own camera at a FIRST event owns the copyright to that video.

If there was editing and production work that was creative in nature, then there would be a copyright embodied in those elements, and separate from the camera work. Again, this could be assigned to FIRST by contract, and probably is.

The main complications arise as a result of the content of the video. FIRST has music playing in the background (which is presumably under licence); they don't own that copyright, and therefore can't transfer it.² To the extent that creative performances take place (perhaps in the form of a speech or the rendition of a national anthem, but almost certainly not gameplay), those are copyrighted by their performers, and FIRST can't transfer that copyright either. If you re-use that content, you have to be ready to assert that your use of the portions for which you have not secured copyright approval are fair use or de minimis infringement (too small to cause any meaningful harm). Or you have to hope they don't find out and start checking items off the list I provided above.

Another complication arises because the video host can terminate its agreement with the uploader, likely for little or no cause. Even if you legitimately own the copyright, the video host can (legally, but perhaps unethically) kick you off and take the video down. Users who are frequently the target of DMCA takedowns may find themselves in that situation.


By the way, don't file a DMCA takedown request if you're not the copyright holder. Misrepresentation will open you to liability for damages.

¹ In Canada, the law is a little more complicated, but ought to work out the same way in the case of a work for hire.
² In theory, they actually could write such a copyright transfer into the contract, but I doubt it's there. I bet the agreement only covers FIRST, not downstream re-users.

[who716]

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

That is wrong, for one, the video is copyrighted and is not public domain

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

Then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your english teacher is wrong.

Compare what WFN is doing to something he MIGHT understand: I've got a lot of posts on here, some of which almost provide some educational value. Now, copy the text of that and put it verbatim into a book. Is it bad to do this without citing me? You bet it is. You're taking my work as your own. Now, yes, that work is a derivative of other's work. But the fact is that I am the one who wrote it originally.

Now, if I record an event happening is it really any different? Nope. I hit the record button, I set the angles for the shot, I did any required editing. Now, if someone takes it and uses it for their own gain (which this is undeniably doing) it is infringement. This is a really simple case.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by who716

after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.

Perhaps you should review the Youtube Terms of Service, specifically Section 5, part B.

Originally Posted by 5. Your Use of Content

Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

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.

Let's run with that example. Here's what could happen in a best-case scenario for the copyright holder:

1. Since you told the channels that you've uploaded the material. They're probably going to file a DMCA takedown.
2. The material will get temporarily taken down by YouTube.
3. Since you are asserting it's educational, you'll contest the takedown using the DMCA process.
4. YouTube will acknowledge that and put the material back.
5. The channels won't believe your claim, and will threaten a lawsuit.
6. You're behind 7 proxies, so you don't believe that they can find you.
7. The channels file suit against a John Doe defendant.
8. The channels persuade the court to subpoena your registration and IP information from YouTube, and then subpoena that IP's subscriber name and address from your ISP.
9. They serve you with the suit.
10. You defend the suit, and argue fair use owing to non-commercial educational use. They'll counter with loss of commercial opportunities.
11. You might lose. Or can't afford to defend the suit and settle. Either way, you get to argue that your use isn't costing them any money, and so the penalty you should pay is minimal.
12. You probably end up paying more than you wanted to.

But there are complications. Will the channels risk a judgment against them on such a petty infringement? (If your arguments are accepted by the court, because of the precedential value, that will threaten their business more than letting you get away with infringement.) Will they even be able to get your real identity to sue you? (If there is uncertainty regarding the identity of the uploader, it may be difficult to convince the court to issue the subpoena.)

And look at how differently that would play out if the aggrieved party were a FIRST participant. Would the DMCA process happen? Would the lawsuit happen?

It's not unreasonable to think that you won't actually get in trouble. Look at the variety of copyrighted content on video hosting sites—probably including those series—as an illustration of that fact. Whether or not it's right, the uploader does indeed stand a reasonable chance of getting away with it.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

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.

Just like Tristan said, you probably won't get sued because they don't care enough; but in this case, you're definitely affecting the potential market. Shows on the Discovery channel are of a commercial nature, and it would be financially viable for them to sue you if you're causing them to lose enough ad revenue from their TV showings.

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

Can' tell if ignorant or joking.

Kinda. The Youtube Partner Program is a service people sign up for to get paid for videos. It's a reason why artists actually post music videos on YouTube and let you listen to them for free.

Originally Posted by Zach O

If it was devoid of advertisements, this might be true. But it's not. They're running advertisements for a Canadian hosting company at the bottom of every archive page. The other issue people have is that there is absolutely no attribution to the original source, and no one was contacted to see if it was okay to rip their videos and re-upload them privately to another video hosting website.

Ah, didn't see that- thanks for pointing it out. That does make it less okay, but who knows if they profit from it?
Also, attribution isn't connected legally to fair use, but it certainly is the morally correct thing to do.

[Zach O]

Originally Posted by ScourgeDragon

I'm sure there may be others, but one culprit of video grabbing without permission is WatchFirstNow. You can see the conversation heat up halfway down the first page when team 1676 realizes all their match videos were ripped from their youtube and re-uploaded to WFN's private vimeo account: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127932

And later on, when FiM realized they're doing the same thing

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.

If it was devoid of advertisements, this might be true. But it's not. They're running advertisements for a Canadian hosting company at the bottom of every archive page. The other issue people have is that there is absolutely no attribution to the original source, and no one was contacted to see if it was okay to rip their videos and re-upload them privately to another video hosting website.

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.

Or we can avoid a third party and settle the issue like adults. The administrator of the site has been contacted by several people about this issue, and this issue has been brought up publicly several times now.


This issue is pretty black and white. There should be no need for discussion about fair use or whether the videos are for "educational use". WFN is ripping other people's videos from websites, re-uploading them, displaying them as their own content, and serving ads on them. It's pretty safe to say no one is okay with this.

As Chris said (and as I pointed out in a private message to Adam - which like Hallry's email never got a response), the logic that there's "no source of income from the ad" doesn't mean they're not ads. Likewise, the logic behind planning to attribute people, but in the meantime not removing the videos or contacting the original owners and making sure it's alright if they re-upload the videos is flawed.

A quick solution for this would be for WFN to do the right thing, and just link to the YouTube videos on their website, like The Blue Alliance does. To Adam: If you need a programmer to replace the ripped videos with the proper embedded YouTube links, I'm sure we can work out a deal