Takedown, Shakedown: Paramount pulls T3 filming videos from YouTube
|07-28-2010, 11:47 AM||#31|
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
News Credits: 3
Security letting people pass does not make it legal, might I add.
|07-28-2010, 11:51 AM||#32|
Queen of the Rodeo
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Your Pants.
Collection Count: Let's Say It's Time For An Intervention...
News Credits: 1
Eh, it was fun while it lasted.
|07-28-2010, 02:01 PM||#33|
Reflector In Disguise
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New York
Collection Count: I don't want to count... I'm afraid to know how much I spent!
Facebook | Tumblr | Instagram | FlickR | Twitter
YouTube taking it down is all their consent, as Dreamworks doesn't actually have any legality in this matter, but YouTube doesn't want to lose a paying customer, since Dreamworks does have an official channel on YouTube that they pay for.
|07-28-2010, 03:58 PM||#34|
Join Date: Feb 2009
News Credits: 3
*Sigh.* Filming laws are so confusing.
I can take a photo of someone in a public place. I can do that.
But I can't publish it without their permission. Well, I can but I shouldn't.
Then the person in the photo if they see it can send me a cease and desist because I don't have their permission.
If something unlikely happened (that person lost their job or something unholy because of the photo I've used) where the subject can prove damages in court, then and only then could I be sued but it's a lengthy, expensive process that the plaintiff must be absolutely certain to win in order to retain lawyers and get the ball rolling. You can't just sue someone because it sounds like fun. It's expensive and very time consuming.
In this case, the owner of the intellectual property has their subjects in plain view. I think they don't have a case. This is an example of "the man" (Paramount) bullying the little guy (fans with cams) and I don't like it one bit.
I would encourage YouTube account holders with their videos in limbo to let YouTube know these videos were filmed in a public place and not subject to DCMA. It's unreasonable.
Can anyone post word for word what the DCMA notices were?
Any armchair lawyers out there who feel I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, these legal issues are complicated.
|07-28-2010, 04:17 PM||#35|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Collection Count: 322
I think it is too late for them to remove the videos. Most of us has seen them already.
|07-29-2010, 03:16 AM||#36|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chekov's Gun is always loaded
Collection Count: More than I can easily count
News Credits: 5
I'd have thought you might need a permit from the land owner to film in certain circumstances, I know if you cause a public nuiscence or interfere with the Traffic you would - you might get away with it though if you are not interfering with anyone else.
As for a Baseball game I'd have thought as you or Private property the could set whatever policy they like - Supermarkets don't like you filming in them for example.
If it's a public park having a sports game I don't think there's any way someone could stop you from filming.
People are likely to get ratty with a stranger filming their children though - I know it's very silly but in the UK you can't even film your kids school play without the written permission of everyone in it's parents.
I think Paramount might have a legitimate argument if someone wandered on set but if someone stuck a camera out of their own window I think they'd be looking a bit stupid to stop that.
I have heard of videos of excited queues before concerts being taken off Youtube so so pretty bizarre stuff gets banned.
I'D RECOMMEND ASKING YOUTUBE FOR A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION AS TO WHY THEY THINK THE VIDEOS ARE AGAINST POLICY ?
And if any Transfans are Lawyers to send counter proposals at them to unban them for the reasons that many were shot in public street from people own apartments or on public streets.
If Bay wants to drive Optimus Prime around on public roads how can Paramount complain if people film him ? (he's not on a closed set) or private property.
|07-29-2010, 12:58 PM||#37|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut, United States.
Collection Count: 24
News Credits: 4
Even though Viacom is the one coming pretty damn close to infringing on our 1st amendment rights
|07-29-2010, 01:16 PM||#38|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Boston MA
Collection Count: Who cares when you got MP Grimlock sitting on your desk :)
even if they rent the street it doesnt make it private you can view the entire thing from any non private location and that is completely legal. There have been debates about this because people dont like being photographed by strangers in public but it is all with in the rights unless its on private property and you have to trespass or violate measures taken to secure privacy.
just to give you a relative example taking photos of stars on location at any movie has never had a court case. Stars being filmed and photog'ed on the streets by paparazzi is completely legal as well.
|07-29-2010, 01:25 PM||#39|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The World That Never Was
Collection Count: Check out Dracula's smooth moves!
News Credits: 3
Paramount's not loosing any money here. Pretty silly, but they're crying their eyes out right now, and will go genocidal on things and videos like this.
|08-02-2010, 11:47 AM||#40|
Join Date: Aug 2010
So for the first time since youtube changed over (and I am on a new account)
they offered me a profit sharing thing due to the popularity of one of my transformer videos - oddly enough it hasn't had all that many hits (6k now.. was 5k when they sent the invite)
I saw some wording on there that made me nervous - and in looking came across this thread...
This is what gets me
I got this from youtube
but - with all this takedown crap going on.. Can they really do that? I guess they have all the lawyers so they can do whatever they want.
I don't think I am going to do it - having a fun video up is worth more than the 5 to 10 bucks I might make in "profit sharing" in any case - what's your take on the wording there?
Just got a call from my wife this morning, she was an hour and a half late for work due to transformers filming - which meant she got in the garage after "early bird rates" which means parking went from 12$ to 30$ for the day - I imagine they aren't gonna help me out any... good thing they can just buy our city up by giving money to our corrupt ass mayor.. bah.
In any case her office is on the south side of 300 S Riverside - overlooking the old post office (non chicagoans may remember it as the bank in the new batman movie) - they are filming in there today and they closed off her side of the office - she works 10' from the windows and is not allowed to walk past the windows.. wth?!
in any case this is the video - take a look before it gets yanked.. maybe?