Time for my periodic public callout of @UMG, who claimed this video, specifically the song starting at 13:43, an extremely clear-cut example of fair use, as the discussion is the lyrics of the claimed song. There's subtitles and everything.https://youtu.be/xU1ffHa47YY?t=823 …
-
Show this thread
-
See here's the thing - this video has sponsored content, meaning there should not be ads running on the thing at all. Because
@UMG has claimed the video and refused to release the claim, I am in violation with my contract with@Audible_com15 replies 129 retweets 4,042 likesShow this thread -
Technically, isn’t YouTube in violoation of that contract, since you and Audible both had good faith reasons to believe YouTube would never put ads on this video per their own policies regarding sponsored content? Might be time to get your sponsor involved...
4 replies 16 retweets 1,846 likes -
That's a good question - since the video is marked as having sponsored content in the metadata, it's not like YouTube was unaware. What's the deal
@TeamYouTube?7 replies 32 retweets 2,941 likes -
Replying to @thelindsayellis
Following up: Our Copyright team looked into this & confirmed that the claim is valid. We see that you’ve appealed the claim, which provides UMG with 30 days to review your appeal. If you would like to resolve the issue directly with them, please DM us for more info.
186 replies 9 retweets 246 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube
No really tho tell your valid claim I will take this all the way to court because this is honestly absurd
26 replies 90 retweets 6,355 likes -
Replying to @thelindsayellis @TeamYouTube
@questauthority curious if you’ve got suggestions or impressions to share2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @elseedubya @thelindsayellis and
I'm not Mike (though I do endeavor to be like him), but the transformative use is pretty clear. Commentary on the original is quintessential Leval transformative use. My knowledge of the DMCA process is shakier, but I *think* the 30 day is they have to release the claim or sue.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @apark2453 @thelindsayellis and
I imagine that as long as
@thelindsayellis doesn't suffer economic damages as a result of the incidental breach of her sponsorship contract, there's no grounds for her to sue YT; meanwhile UMG collected ad revenue, but I don't know how they could be stopped from abusive claims.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Dunno. Someone else deriving revenue from your noninfringing work strikes me as an issue in search of a test case. Strikes me that there could be an argument that their income from the ads = damages.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.