WARNING Anyone On YouTube UPDATE MAY 12/2021
Faeryl Womyn
Posts: 3,273
Youtube has just implented a new option that basically gives anyone and everyone the right to take samples of your video's and use them for whatever and wherever they want, without your permission or any say in the matter. It's turned on automatically and to stop it you have to go to every single video you have, locate the option cause they buried it and turn it off.
This second video the guy shows you where to find the option to turn off.
Post edited by Faeryl Womyn on
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I don't imagine dmca abusers are gonna enjoy this
It seems good move. It will help more people to reach your video sample.
it is never a good move when you lose control of your own content. There are already way to many channels that are making money from YT by just stealing content from others and making complilation videos. Fair Use already allows for a user to play parts of other copyrighted videos in your video, so this new ploy isn't needed at all.
Thanks for the heads up, went through the my videos and unchecked the box.
If someone wants to share your video, they are free to do so, and embedding your original video gives you that reach without compromising your rights to your content. In theory, the option mentioned here would allow media and advertising to use portions of your videos as if it was stock footage, without crediting you. It would allow another creator to re-edit your video and add their own audio over it. I run one channel where I take the viewers along with me while I create pages of my comics. It's raw, on the moment, unscripted, so only interesting to a few die hard fans. But this option would allow someone else to edit it down to something cleaner through sampling, throw in their own scripted voiceover, and pass it off as their own how-to video. If I find out and go back and uncheck the box, the content they sampled will be deleted, but if they're running a monetized channel, they made money off my work in the meantime.
If someone is providing genuine exposure, they'll link or embed your video, and give credit for it.
Another way to screw the little guy. But don't try this with Big Media.
Google trampling on copyright? I'm shocked. Evil is as evil does.
Oh, 'scuse me. Alphabet.
+1
AFAIK it's legal to download anything publicly accessible from anywhere on the internet as long as it's for personal use only (i.e. not redistributed).
I doubt google says "use them for whatever and wherever you want" for that is indeed illegal (unless google claims ownership of any material you upload, in their TOS, in which case they can probably do anything they want with it).
U.S. copyright law is complicated, and then you have to add the DMCA on top...
Sorry, but that's just not true. Copyright law applies to published material. Publishing includes placing on the web. It doesn't just give you the automatic right to download and use it yourself, even just for personal use. Unless there is a creative commons licence or express permission the default position is no.
That is quite a broad claim.
You know, there are some unmentionable things involving humans below certain age or existing biological species other than humans on the Internet, the mere possession of images or videos of which is considered a criminal act in some countries, such as mine. Those won't be on Youtube, though.
I guess it depends on where you are then. According to the laws in my country (just checked) "anyone is allowed to make copies for personal use of any work that is publicly accessible, as long as the copies are not used in a commercial context".
Of course, things that are illegal to own or distribute are excluded.
You need to watch that second video, he explains it much more clearly, also explains how YouTube is able to get away with this and what you can do about it.
For the record...of course they did not say that, I was summerizing. Since the company does not say what you can or can't do with the samples taken and does not say where you can or can't upload them, pretty much amounts to the same thing.
As for what YouTube is allowed and who own's what, these 2 images are from YouTubes TOS.
Thank you for the heads up. I've unchecked mine too {not that anybody would want them but hay} ... I have been noticing several #shorts on the tube - usually made by the content creators in the first place. Some are using the feature as a way to promote an esp. cute moment of their pets' lives, etc.
I think using a watermark or some kind of branding will promote the original channel or video. Though I am not a compilation video maker, most of the time I like to watch compilation videos rather than a lot of short videos one by one.
It is interesting to watch how the copyright issues play out over time. Some years ago there was a significant problem with people copying DVDs and there were doom mongers predicting the end of the movie industry due to lost profits. A few years later that problem shifted to torrents and again, the dire predictions. These days, there is so much content available over a few relatively cheap streaming services that torrents are the kind of risky hazard that most people will not bother with.
I don't know what the answer is for personal content and I don't particularly care because I don't put anything on YouTube (or anywhere else) but I'm guessing that something will again happen which sidelines the issue and makes it irrelevant.
sounds like your country has got it right then. Thats the logical way to go about it in my opinion. Doesnt do anyone harm if you are not redistributing it or commercialising it.
Copyright law is actually about rights of ownership of reproduction rights. Mainly in regards to publishing and similar things. Storing copies you got from wherever isn't really covered by the scope of copyright, as the copy you recieved came from the original owner. There isn't really any part of copyright that pertains to use in a non publishing manner. But I think you're perhaps talking about something different than the comment you're replying to. The comment was about downloading and using it for personal use (as in, on your own computer for your own amusement) not distribution.
As you can't view an image without downloading it to your device in some way, placing something publically viewable on the internet can't be done without some kind of permission to download. You'd also need to "store" it in several ways (RAM/Cache/VRAM/etc/etc/etc).
Problem with that is any website with any form of advertising or monetization (eg DAZ) could be considered a "commercial context", even if you personally make no gain. Which basically rules out the entire internet..
No, I know, I have done IP law, I just used the wrong word because I was doing 2 things at once, but "downloading" to view something in a temporary file and copying it your computer to use later are technically 2 different things. The OP was talking about copying and copying is forbidden in most jurisdictions. The interesting technical question is what law applies, the jurisdiction of the producer or the jurisdiction of the viewer. Case law seems to suggest the first.
Well I'm not surprised about that TOS. But if you can say no to this sample thing what is the problem?
Well as far as I understand it doesn't mean that you can grab pictures from someone's website and use it on your own site without permission. But it's OK to keep copies on your own computer for "personal enjoyment". In the past it was actually allowed to borrow music CDs at the library, and then make your own copy for personal use (no sharing with anyone else) but that's not allowed anymore, which is understandable.
My former ISP give all their users free streaming access to millions of music CDs, also brand new ones, as part of your internet subscription. I hardly ever used it though, there's tons of radio stations on the internet anyway, if you want music.
Ouch. Lots of misinformation here. First of all, you can use virtually anything for your own PERSONAL use. You can't take something and redistribute it even if you don't profit from it. "Redistribute" includes posting on a personal web site or social media account. Secondly, you cannot share anything without the permission of the owner. Period. This is probably why YouTube is changing their agreement. If you post something that is yours, you are granting rights to redistribute per terms of use under YouTube. You still cannot post work from others without permission and if you do, it can be taken down. One thing that happens on YouTube is people post their goofy videos and then others steal them, compile them together, and post them on their channel. For example, there are a number of marriage proposal fails. Someone records it, throws it out there, and another comes along and puts them all together in a single video and may do a voice over trying to add humorous comments to them. It becomes a mess for managing the rights to all this so you know what, let's just make a rule that if you post a video under our platform then anyone can use it and we wash our hands of everything. Take something outside of YouTube and put it in your video, it can still be taken down if you get caught. And I'm not going to argue with those who will reply to this with more misinformation, the perpetuation of rights-usage myths is way beyond the ability to educate the masses beyond the numbers who just really donb't care. CNN and Fox News and the rest grab stuff off the internet and redistribute without permission, try stopping that let alone everything else. Yet they somehow know not to freely grab Getty Images because they have really, really good lawyers.
Ask content creators with hundreds or thousands of videos on their channels. Youtube switched the "yes" option on by default on all of them.
They have to switch it off manually for every single video separately, one by one.
With things like temporary internet files, which basically every browser ever has, viewing any image online will create "permanent" files, functionally no different from right clicking and clicking save. I don't think there's ever been a legal case made against internet caches, keeping offline internet files for more than a certain period, or copying files from one drive location to another. The average person likely has hundreds/thousands of "copywritten" images stored already.
Remember the Sony vs MCA lawsuit (I mean, I wasn't born, but still) basically said that as it's not a commercial purpose or for "unjust enrichment", that the copying of media for personal use fell under fair use. So using that as a legal precedent, it's fairly safe to assume that copying files from the internet you can already legally view for personal use would be similarly covered.
Generally it depends. So it would depend on the territory and it's laws~!
Yeah, when it comes to music, things have progressed even more so. Gone are the days of ripping my CD collection to my PC hard drive. My son gets Spotify free with his phone contract while I pay a few $$ for YouTube Premium which comes with YouTube Music (the successor to Google Play Music) so I can listen to anything I want, any time I want. Plus I took the option of uploading my whole iTunes library so that I don't have to struggle with that awful piece of software ever again. Also, with YouTube Premium, I avoid having those persistant and annoying ads interrupt everything I watch so a double benefit. The downside is that YouTube as a music player is even worse now than it was when it was Google Play Music and I would prefer Spotify purely as a player, but hey, hopefully Google will get it right some day.