I am a fan of competition it lowers prices and delivers better products to consumers. The blue alliance has done a great job of an open source place to where you can get photos and videos of teams, and IMO saving the history of first. What the blue alliance does is great. They ask for donations of videos and pictures and never posts things that they do not have permission to post.
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. 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).
My suggestion to the group(s) doing this is to go invent a better mouse trap if you want to compete with the blue alliance, but stealing videos is not the path I would recommend. I am also sure the teams your stealing the videos from would also appreciate it.
I agree that ripping and re-uploading other people’s videos without permission is a problem, especially if the re-uploader is personally gaining something from the action. There was a thread not too long ago that went down a similar path of reasoning here.
I didn’t know this was such a huge problem. (As in I didn’t know people were doing it.)
Whenever I use someone else’s videos on my team’s site. Which I may have done once. It was using the YouTube embedding function. Therefore I never took/stole their content at all I just “shared” it. I think the whole concept of sharing video/photo content vs stealing content is a bit mixed up and because of how public and open places like YouTube are the lines between sharing and stealing are somewhat hard to see.
I get your problem and I agree, but I also think it’s too easy for people to take content for themselves and Google/YouTube should have fixed the big allowing such easy downloading of video content ages ago.
You should be fine if you use the embed function on youtube. If you don’t want your videos embedded on other people’s sites then you can turn this off in your video settings on youtube.
Now if they are downloading them and reposting them without the youtube embedding then it is wrong.
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/showthread.php?t=127932
I understand what WFN is trying to do by archiving the videos outside personal youtube accounts and in some cases they are given permission to grab videos. I just hope they find a way to achieve this without stepping on people’s toes.
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).
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:
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.
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:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
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.
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.
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.
Let’s run with that example. Here’s what could happen in a best-case scenario for the copyright holder:
Since you told the channels that you’ve uploaded the material. They’re probably going to file a DMCA takedown.
The material will get temporarily taken down by YouTube.
Since you are asserting it’s educational, you’ll contest the takedown using the DMCA process.
YouTube will acknowledge that and put the material back.
The channels won’t believe your claim, and will threaten a lawsuit.
You’re behind 7 proxies, so you don’t believe that they can find you.
The channels file suit against a John Doe defendant.
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.
They serve you with the suit.
You defend the suit, and argue fair use owing to non-commercial educational use. They’ll counter with loss of commercial opportunities.
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.
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.
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.
And later on, when FiM realized they’re doing the same thing
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.
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
I’m not qualified for the legal discussion but I like the benefits of a stable video archive. Teams don’t always last and don’t always manage the transition of accounts. (There’s an old 610 channel with a video of someone tripping that we can’t remove for example)
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.
