Reverse Outlining

Current Outline:

• Introduction
• First Paragraph

      What is copyright? YouTube copyright policies. United states service code and Ashlee Knuckey. ContentID and why it doesn't work all the time.

• Second Paragraph

      Marvin Gaye vs Robin Thicke case. Nothing is original. Michelle Phan vs. EDM music. Nyan cat and ContentID.

• Third Paragraph

      Copyrights and trademarks. What rights do copyright owners have.

• Forth Paragraph

      Deadmau5 vs. Disney. Everything is a recreation of something else. Old copyright owners should not have control over so much time. Grey area of copyright.

Revision Outline

• Introduction

      Change it to focus on Copyright infridgment and the entertainment industry. Not Copyright and Youtube.

• First Paragraph

      What is copyright and copyright infringement, what rights do copyright owners have.

• Second Paragraph

      United States service code and Ashlee Knuckey. Content ID on YouTube and why is doesn't work all the time. Nyan Cat and Content ID

• Third Paragraph

      Marvin Gaye vs. Robin Thicke and Michelle Phan. People only get involved when money and fame is involved

• Forth Paragraph

      Deadmau5  vs Disney. Nothing is original, who is to determine when something is copying.

• Fifth paragraph

      What changes must be done to copyright infringement to now go with our current generation.

• Conclusion

                  Make a Conclusion

Assignment 18

 Paragraph 1

Before-          Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service, consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws in the United States, suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant. Ashlee Knuckey is an associate in Lock Lord's (an American law firm) Business Litigation and Arbitration practice group and represents client in state and federal court. Knuckey has focused her practices on complex litigation and arbitration and also handles matters that involve fraudulent business practices, state taxation issues, breach of commercial contracts, loss sensitive insurance programs, regulatory and government enforcement issues, and Medicare reimbursement issues. In the article YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? Knuckey talks about the copyright policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but  "even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2]. Meaning that even if someone was to register one of their works that was stolen in the past, they would be protected, but couldn't do anything about that incident since it was before the registration. And the United States Code Services on Title 17, Copyrights Chapter 4 on Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration it talks about  the fact that with registering content, there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money. And Knuckey says even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works."

After-              Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service, consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws in the United States, suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], but this isn't beneficial for majority of Youtubers who upload on a weekly base. This would only be beneficial for big video projects. Ashlee Knuckey who is an associate in Lock Lord's (an American law firm) Business Litigation and Arbitration practice group and represents client in state and federal court talks about the copyright policies in YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?. She writes about how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but "even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2]. Meaning once someone was to register their work, it would be protected but past incidents with it being copied would not be accounted for. But Knuckey says even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works."

Paragraph 2

Before-            With everything humans have created so far and everything being a recreation of something else, how can we tell when someone is stealing something? The rights that come with being a copyright owner tells you all about what you can legally do with your product and what others can not do with it, but no where does it say how to determine whether or not someone is taking your idea/creation. With the Blurred Lines vs. Marvin Gaye trial, a court had to decide whether or not Blurred Lines was just a recreation of Gaye's song Got to Give it Up. And even after the trial said it was, many people disagree saying they are two different songs. This situation does not only happen with songs, in 2014 Disney and Deadmau5 had a similar situation. Joel Zimmerman a.k.a Deadmau5 was filing for his trademark in the United States of his well known Deadmau5 symbol. A trademark is made to protect words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying  the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from others. Copyright only protects original works of authorship. The problem was Disney was preventing him from doing so, their argument being that it was too similar to the Mickey Mouse icon (similar to Blurred Lines vs. Marvin Gaye). Yes the two are both mouse icons, but the two are both greatly different from one another. Just because it is a mouse, doesn't mean that it is a copy of Mickey Mouse. This theory following many situations in the copyright infringement world, just because two things have similar qualities does not always mean one thing is copying another. Many copyright owners must understand that before filing against someone for copyright infringement, if it is a grey area situation (blurred lines vs. Marvin Gaye), that everything is inspired from something else. Even their creation was inspired from something else and for new ideas and creations to exist, old ones can not hold a grasp on advancement.

After-              The rights that come with being a copyright owner tells you all about what you can legally do with your product and what others can not do with it, but no where does it say how to determine whether or not someone is taking your idea/creation. So who really is to judge when someone's creation is not "original". With the Blurred Lines vs. Marvin Gaye trial, a court had to decide whether or not Blurred Lines was just a recreation of Gaye's song Got to Give it Up. And even after the trial ruled in the favor of Gaye, many people disagree saying they are two different songs. This situation does not only happen with copyrights, in 2014 Disney and Deadmau5 had a similar situation. Joel Zimmerman a.k.a Deadmau5 was filing for his trademark (A trademark is made to protect words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying  the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from others. Copyright only protects original works of authorship.) in the United States of his well known Deadmau5 symbol. The problem was Disney was preventing him from doing so, their argument being that it was too similar to the Mickey Mouse icon. Ziad Ramley, an associate editor for VICE news, writes on the topic saying, "The reason why Zimmerman wants to trademark his logo is not because he wants to profit off his resemblance to Mickey Mouse. It's because he wants to prevent other mau5 head-toting people from profiting off their resemblance to him."  [11]. Yes the two are both mouse icons, but the two are both greatly different from one another. Just because it is a mouse, doesn't mean that it is a copy of Mickey Mouse. Just because two things have similar qualities does not always mean one thing is copying another. Many copyright owners must understand that before filing against someone for copyright infringement that everything is inspired from something else. Even their creation was inspired from something else and for new ideas and creations to exist, old ones can not hold a grasp on advancement.

Paragraph 3

Before-         Each of these rights helps the owner make sure they have full custody over their product, and if any of these rights are broken by an outside person without the copyright owners consent than it then can file for copyright infringement. And that's what it all comes down to when it comes to copyright infringement, if there isn't consent then it is copyright infringement. But how can we tell when someone is breaking someone else copyright rights? Not all cases that involve copyright infringement are black and white, majority of these cases fall in the grey area where it is unsure if someone is taking from someone else's idea.

After-              Each of these rights helps the owner make sure they have full custody over their product, and if any of these rights are broken by an outside person without the copyright owners consent than it then can file for copyright infringement. And that's what it all comes down to when it comes to copyright infringement, if there isn't consent then it is copyright infringement. But how can we tell when someone is breaking someone else copyright rights? On Standford University Libraries in Copyright and Fair Use it says how there are four factors a judge takes in when judging a copyright infringement, "the purpose and character of your use, the nature and copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market." [12].  

Paragraph 4

Before-            Now a days nothing is original. With the amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and works that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works now are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how can we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something else compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin Gaye vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to Give it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too much like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are somewhat similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up having to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. I personally feel that the two songs differ substantially, but this raises many questions with copyright infringement. Music inspires more music, authors inspire more authors, movies inspire more movies, and youtubers inspire more youtubers. So when does inspiration and an homage to a certain work cross the line of copyright infringement? What makes a certain work cross the line of having copy written work? And with this trial will this open the door to more lawsuits that aren't valid towards big hits, but will just end up being paid away. Then there is Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers, who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial videos without permission. But the problem isn't that Michelle Phan was using these EDM artist's songs, the problem is that many people who make YouTube videos use music all the time in videos without permission from artist or record label and it goes unnoticed. The only time it becomes noticed is when money and fame is involved. This goes for majority of all copyright infringement suits, people only seem to get involved when someone else is gaining money and/or fame for something that is "not theirs".

After-       Now a days nothing is original. With the amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and works that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works now are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how can we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something else compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin Gaye vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to Give it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too much like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are somewhat similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up having to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. Many people argue that the two songs differ greatly and that Gaye's family should not have won. Then there is Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers, who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial videos without permission. But the problem isn't that Michelle Phan was using these EDM artist's songs, the problem is that many people who make YouTube videos use music all the time in videos without permission from artist or record label and it goes unnoticed. Dylan Ruga who is a litigates partner who focuses on property infringement claims in courts all over the country that involve technology, music, photographs, furniture, and fabric designs wrote an essay called The Role Of Laches In Closing The Door On Copyright Infringement Claims. In it he brings up the idea of "what if the copyright owner, aware of the infringement, remains silent and waits to see how successful the infringer's work is before bringing his claim? Should the equitable doctrine of laches preclude such a claim in order to protect a prejudiced defendant, even if ultimately the claim is brought within the statutory period?" The only time copied works become noticed is when money and fame is involved. This goes for majority of all copyright infringement suits, people only seem to get involved when someone else is gaining money and/or fame for something that is "not theirs".

Assignment 16

Copyright Infringement

            Imagine you're a small time videographer that is trying to make it big on YouTube. You constantly put up original idea videos hoping people will end up seeing it and enjoying it. Now imagine that one or more of those video ideas someone saw and took, making it their own and getting the money that you should get from it. Sadly there isn't much you can do to prove they took your idea due to the copyright infringement laws. This is just one general scenario of what is wrong with YouTube and the governments current copyright infringement laws.

            Copyright is a form of protection that is grounded in the United States Constitution that is granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression that protects original works of authorship. It protects and covers both published and unpublished works the moment it is created. And with YouTube becoming more and more popular as time goes on and more people trying to become online entrepreneurs, one thing that must be adjusted is YouTube's current copyright policies. Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service, consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws in the United States, suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant. Ashlee Knuckey is an associate in Lock Lord's (an American law firm) Business Litigation and Arbitration practice group and represents client in state and federal court. Knuckey has focused her practices on complex litigation and arbitration and also handles matters that involve fraudulent business practices, state taxation issues, breach of commercial contracts, loss sensitive insurance programs, regulatory and government enforcement issues, and Medicare reimbursement issues. In the article YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? Knuckey talks about the copyright policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but  "even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2]. Meaning that even if someone was to register one of their works that was stolen in the past, they would be protected, but couldn't do anything about that incident since it was before the registration. And the United States Code Services on Title 17, Copyrights Chapter 4 on Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration it talks about  the fact that with registering content, there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money. And Knuckey says even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works." So what could be done to help protect YouTubers from theft of content? One thing that many people have talked about is that YouTube and Google (since Google now is a parent company that bought out YouTube) should look at is adjusting their privacy setting on their websites. From before I brought up that the direct proof courts need to decide whether the content was stolen and does indeed belong to the plaintiff, if YouTube and Google adjusted their privacy settings, making it easier to see who viewed your video and when they viewed it, the plaintiff would have a time frame of when the defendant saw their video in comparison to when the defendant made their content. This being solid evidence that could be used in the court room. And now with YouTube's new software called Content ID it makes it easier to find copyright materials in use. The system makes it so copyright holders can have choices on how their content is showed on YouTube. The copyright holder gives YouTube copies of their songs and/or videos they want YouTube to look for and YouTube puts it in their system as reference files. So every time a new video is being uploaded to YouTube, it goes through all of their reference files to make sure they don't have any copyright materials in their video. But ContentID does not always work 100% of the time. Youtube took down NASA's own footage from the Mars rover landing a few hours after it landed because of copyright claims from a private news service. NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Communications, Bob Jacobs, says, "The good thing about automation is that you don't have to involve real people to make decisions. The bad thing about automation is that you don't have to involve real people to make decisions." [7].

            Now a days nothing is original. With the amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and works that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works now are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how can we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something else compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin Gaye vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to Give it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too much like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are somewhat similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up having to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. I personally feel that the two songs differ substantially, but this raises many questions with copyright infringement. Music inspires more music, authors inspire more authors, movies inspire more movies, and youtubers inspire more youtubers. So when does inspiration and an homage to a certain work cross the line of copyright infringement? What makes a certain work cross the line of having copy written work? And with this trial will this open the door to more lawsuits that aren't valid towards big hits, but will just end up being paid away. Then there is Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers, who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial videos without permission. But the problem isn't that Michelle Phan was using these EDM artist's songs, the problem is that many people who make YouTube videos use music all the time in videos without permission from artist or record label and it goes unnoticed. The only time it becomes noticed is when money and fame is involved. This goes for majority of all copyright infringement suits, people only seem to get involved when someone else is gaining money and/or fame for something that is "not theirs". The one case that does not meet this expectation was an incident with YouTube and NyanCat. NyanCat was posted back in April 5, 2011 and at the time earned more that 89 million views. But one thing many people forget is YouTube took down NyanCat in late June 2011 for copyright infringement. Why? Because YouTube ran the video through their ContentID and cited a copyright claim saying the owner of the NyanCat video is not the owner of NyanCat, which was true. The real owner is Torres, the artist who originally created the pop-tart cat gif. The artist wrote on his blog saying he did not file the copyright complaint to try and stop the hate mail he was receiving for the video coming down. After Torres coming out saying this, YouTube realized it's mistake and put the video back up. Torres now has a partnership with Sara Reihani, the woman who owns the well know "NyaNyaNya" song in all the NyanCat videos and says "To me, it's less about cashing in and more about keeping it classy." [7]. If more copyright owners had the same thinking as Torres, many copyright infringement cases would be a lot less messy.

            In our current generation anything you see and hear whether you are looking at a logo in a store, looking at memes online, deciding what brand of cereal to get, or even listening to a song on the radio, somebody somewhere owns that. Everything is owned by someone now a days. Somebody owns the copyrights to the first "Hey Girl" Ryan Gosling meme other than Ryan Gosling, which does seem weird the idea of somebody having copyrights over a photo of you. With how big things can get on the internet now a days, it is important to file for copyright and trademark of your work. Torres, the owner of NyanCat, talks about how when he got around to trying to file for copyright and trademark of his icon he found out many other people have already try to file for copyright of his creation. This making the process way harder than it should be to prove he is the creator and owner of NyanCat. But it is important to have copyright ownership of your product so you do get all the rights that come along with it. With every person that has copyright over something (a logo, image, song, book, etc.) they have five different legal rights. The Right to Reproduce the Work makes it so the owner has the right to  reproduce, copy, duplicate, and/or transcribe their work in any form. The Right to Derivative Works gives the owner the right to modify their work to create something new, a new work that is based upon their existing work is a "derivative work". The Right to Distribution makes it so they have the right to distribute their work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. The Public Display Right gives them the right to show a copy of their work directly to the public by displaying it on a website, putting it in a film, hanging a copy in a public place, or and other way of transmitting it to the public. And last is the Public Performance Right, the right to recite, dance, act, show, or play their work at a public place or transmit it to the public. Each of these rights helps the owner make sure they have full custody over their product, and if any of these rights are broken by an outside person without the copyright owners consent than it then can file for copyright infringement. And that's what it all comes down to when it comes to copyright infringement, if there isn't consent then it is copyright infringement. But how can we tell when someone is breaking someone else copyright rights? Not all cases that involve copyright infringement are black and white, majority of these cases fall in the grey area where it is unsure if someone is taking from someone else's idea.

            With everything humans have created so far and everything being a recreation of something else, how can we tell when someone is stealing something? The rights that come with being a copyright owner tells you all about what you can legally do with your product and what others can not do with it, but no where does it say how to determine whether or not someone is taking your idea/creation. With the Blurred Lines vs. Marvin Gaye trial, a court had to decide whether or not Blurred Lines was just a recreation of Gaye's song Got to Give it Up. And even after the trial said it was, many people disagree saying they are two different songs. This situation does not only happen with songs, in 2014 Disney and Deadmau5 had a similar situation. Joel Zimmerman a.k.a Deadmau5 was filing for his trademark in the United States of his well known Deadmau5 symbol. A trademark is made to protect words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying  the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from others. Copyright only protects original works of authorship. The problem was Disney was preventing him from doing so, their argument being that it was too similar to the Mickey Mouse icon (similar to Blurred Lines vs. Marvin Gaye). Yes the two are both mouse icons, but the two are both greatly different from one another. Just because it is a mouse, doesn't mean that it is a copy of Mickey Mouse. This theory following many situations in the copyright infringement world, just because two things have similar qualities does not always mean one thing is copying another. Many copyright owners must understand that before filing against someone for copyright infringement, if it is a grey area situation (blurred lines vs. Marvin Gaye), that everything is inspired from something else. Even their creation was inspired from something else and for new ideas and creations to exist, old ones can not hold a grasp on advancement.

Work Cited

1.         "§ 411. Registration and Civil Infringement Actions." UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

2.         Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

3.         "TITLE 17. COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 4. COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION." Http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/lnacui2api/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAARAAFAAJ&pubTreeWidth=325. UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

4.         K, Nicole. "Robin Thicke & Pharrell Sued For $7 Million Over Blurred Lines."SourceFed. N.p., 11 Mar. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

5.         "How Content ID Works." - YouTube Help. Google, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

6.         Welch, Chris. "YouTube Star Sued for Copyright Infringement over Music in Her Videos." The Verge. N.p., 21 July 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

7.         Considine, Austin. "Copycats, Takedowns, and Ass Rainbows: What Does Copyright Mean for Internet Memes?" Motherboard. Vice, 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 05 Apr. 2015. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/copycats-takedowns-and-ass-rainbows-what-does-copyright-mean-for-internet-memes0.

8.         "Copyright Law of the United States of America." U.S. Copyright Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

9.         Rosenbaum, Murray. "Deadmau5 vs. Disney." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.0

Assignment 12

            Imagine you're a small time videographer that is trying to make it big on YouTube. You constantly put up original idea videos hoping people will end up seeing it and enjoying it. Now imagine that one or more of those video ideas someone saw and took, making it their own and getting the money that you should get from it. Sadly there isn't much you can do to prove they took your idea due to the copyright infringement laws. This is just one general scenario of what is wrong with YouTube and the governments current copyright infringement laws.

            With YouTube becoming more and more popular as time goes on and more people trying to become online entrepreneurs, one thing that must be adjusted is YouTube's current copyright policies. Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant. In the article YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? by Ashlee Knuckey she talks about the copyright policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but  "even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2]. Meaning that even if someone was to register one of their works that was stolen in the past, they would be protected, but couldn't do anything about that incident since it was before the registration. Plus with registering content, there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money [3]. And even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works." [2]. What kind of direct proof does the government need to prove that someone's content is indeed theirs?  What could be done to help protect YouTubers from theft of content? One thing that many people have talked about is that YouTube and Google (since Google now is a parent company that bought out YouTube) should look at is adjusting their privacy setting on their websites. From before I brought up that the direct proof courts need to decide whether the content was stolen and does indeed belong to the plaintiff, if YouTube and Google adjusted their privacy settings, making it easier to see who viewed your video and when they viewed it, the plaintiff would have a time frame of when the defendant saw their video in comparison to when the defendant made their content. This being solid evidence that could be used in the court room. And now with YouTube's new software called Content ID it makes it easier to find copyright materials in use. The system makes it so copyright holders can have choices on how their content is showed on YouTube. The copyright holder gives YouTube copies of their songs and/or videos they want YouTube to look for and YouTube puts it in their system as reference files. So every time a new video is being uploaded to YouTube, it goes through all of their reference files to make sure they don't have any copyright materials in their video. But what happens when it comes to ideas being appropriated or videos and ideas that are borderline from being a copyright lawsuit?

                        Now a days nothing is original. With the amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and works that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works now are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how can we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something else compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin Gaye vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to Give it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too much like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are somewhat similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up having to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. I personally feel that the two songs differ substantially, but this raises many questions with copyright infringement. Music inspires more music, authors inspire more authors, movies inspire more movies, and youtubers inspire more youtubers. So when does inspiration and an homage to a certain work cross the line of copyright infringement? What makes a certain work cross the line of having copy written work? And with this trial will this open the door to more lawsuits that aren't valid towards big hits, but will just end up being paid away. Then there is Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers, who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial videos without permission. But the problem is many YouTubers use music without permission from artist or record label in their videos and it goes unnoticed. The only time it becomes noticed is when money and fame is involved.

           

Work Cited

1.         "§ 411. Registration and Civil Infringement Actions." UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

2.         Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

3.         "TITLE 17. COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 4. COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION." Http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/lnacui2api/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAARAAFAAJ&pubTreeWidth=325. UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

4.         K, Nicole. "Robin Thicke & Pharrell Sued For $7 Million Over Blurred Lines."SourceFed. N.p., 11 Mar. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

5.         "How Content ID Works." - YouTube Help. Google, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

6.         Welch, Chris. "YouTube Star Sued for Copyright Infringement over Music in Her Videos." The Verge. N.p., 21 July 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

Assignment 10

          Imagine you're a small time videographer that is trying to make it big on YouTube. You constantly put up original idea videos hoping people will end up seeing it and enjoying it. Now imagine that one or more of those video ideas someone saw and took, making it their own and getting the money that you should get from it. Sadly there isn't much you can do to prove they took your idea due to the copyright infringement laws. This is just one general scenario of what is wrong with YouTube and the governments current copyright infringement laws.

            With YouTube becoming more and more popular as time goes on and more people trying to become online entrepreneurs, one thing that must be adjusted is YouTube's current copyright policies. Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant. In the article YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? by Ashlee Knuckey she talks about the copyright policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but  "even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2]. Meaning that even if someone registers one of their works that someone did take in the past, they would be protected, but still couldn't do anything about that incident since it was before the registration. Plus with registering content, there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money [3]. And even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works." [2]. What kind of direct proof does the government need to prove that someone's content is indeed theirs?  What could be done to help protect YouTubers from theft of content?

            One thing that many people have talked about is that YouTube and Google (since Google now is a parent company that bought out YouTube) should look at is adjusting their privacy setting on their websites. From before I brought up that the direct proof courts need to decide whether the content was stolen and does indeed belong to the plaintiff, if YouTube and Google adjusted their privacy settings, making it easier to see who viewed your video and when they viewed it, the plaintiff would have a time frame of when the defendant saw their video in comparison to when the defendant made their content. This being solid evidence that could be used in the court room. 

                                                                        Work Cited

1.         "§ 411. Registration and Civil Infringement Actions." UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

2.         Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

3.         "TITLE 17. COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 4. COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION." Http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/lnacui2api/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAARAAFAAJ&pubTreeWidth=325. UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Proposal and 2 New Sources

            For my research project I wish to focus on YouTube and their copyright infringement laws. Reason being why I chose this was because I myself am part of the YouTube community and wish to address YouTube's copyright infringement laws and whether they actually protect YouTubers.

            My main focus for this project will be whether or not YouTube copyright infringement laws help or hurt YouTubers. From my research findings so far I have found many problems coming from small screenwriters where big companies will take their creations and take them for themselves. From the article  YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? by Ashlee M. Knucky, she addresses how it's been a huge problem with the big companies taking from small YouTubers and majority of the time they get away with it because their "lawsuit would be thrown out on summary judgment almost immediately, because without direct proof of access, courts will rarely find works similar enough to present them to a jury." [1]. Since this has been a big problem for YouTubers, I chose this topic to address what has been done and/or what needs to be done to protect the current and future YouTubers.

            With YouTube becoming more and more popular as time goes on I feel this is a good and timely topic to chose. Youtube currently has 1 billion active users each month, and that is a lot of people to be viewing content. And out of those billion of people, how many are taking footage and ideas from YouTubers? Youtube is a business, it's some peoples main source of income, which is why I chose to focus on their copyright infringement laws and why this is going to be a good example of an academic research and writing. From my sources they focus on individual trials that break YouTube's copyright infringement laws or what is wrong with their copyright infringement laws. I want to take those sources a step further and look at what YouTube copyright infringement laws actually do, and what they can do or have done to change them so they do protect their creators. Instead of focusing in on individual cases or groups, I'd like to focus more on the YouTube community as a whole and research on what can be done to help protect them.

1. Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=285301&sr=TITLE(YouTube--The+Next+Generation+of+Infringing+on+Creative+Works%3A+What+Can+Be+Done+to+Protect+the+Screenwriters%3F)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2009

2 New Sources

Breen J. YouTube or YouLose: Can YouTube Survive a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit?. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal [serial online]. Fall2007 2007;16(1):151-182. Available from: OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson), Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 25, 2015.

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=502fd3ca-fe65-4deb-946a-e767e0bbdc98%40sessionmgr198&hid=110&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ofm&AN=502581557

Hassanabadi A. VIACOM V. YOUTUBE—ALL EYES BLIND: THE LIMITS OF THE DMCA IN A WEB 2.0 WORLD.Berkeley Technology Law Journal [serial online]. 2011 Annual Review 2011;26(1):405-439. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 25, 2015.

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=85aa2de1-c0a9-4da9-998e-9e0bb9643075%40sessionmgr110&hid=110&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=67089738

These two new sources that I found address YouTube's copyright infringement laws. I found both of these sources by searching for YouTube and copyright, YouTube and DMCA, and YouTube and copyright infringement. The first source being on lawsuits against YouTube due to their copyright infringement laws and whether or not YouTube could survive them if more come. The other source focuses more on an individual case (Viacom v. Youtube) and addresses the  U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may not be meeting issues that have been raised in the internet field. I feel both of these sources will help my research the first source does address how YouTube may not be able to keep taking hits from copyright lawsuits and the other source is an actual case involving the copyright act. 

Assignment 7

Jones, M. (2006). Will news find a home on YouTube? Nieman Reports, 60(4), 52-54. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/216754613?accountid=15078

            Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

            Will news find a home on YouTube? article talks about the success of Youtube and how anyone now a days can post onto it. We all have digital cameras and easily anyone can make an amateur video, but something that isn't popular on YouTube is high-quality amateur news. Many people will just repost clips or highlights from news shows like the Daily Show, but very little original creators on YouTube. Reasons for why there aren't more news channels on YouTube is that there are limitations. Not many YouTubers have proper management, so many online amateur videos do not become trendy. And with copyright laws and video length limits, it makes it hard for people to create videos.

This article helps my paper to show that YouTube isn't as easy of a business but there is opportunity for it to grow more and to attract a wider audience. And if news was to become more popular on YouTube, the opportunities and job offers it could create for the future would be great.

            YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? Talks about how with YouTube becoming more of a popular website, how it should do a better job with protecting original creators and screenwriters. Very commonly screenwriters will try to put their pilot videos of their ideas for a movie or tv on YouTube in hope of some executive finding it. But what happens when someone takes their idea and they end up missing out on that kind of cash? This happens far too often on Youtube and the article goes in depth with the things YouTube should change so creators content will be prevented from being stolen. It talks about registering your work, so if someone was to steal it you can sue and win since their is proof that it would be your work. And it brings up ideas with how YouYube should have an achieve for who views videos to have a history for proof. But YouTube's copyright infringement laws are very flaky so if YouTube was to grow more in the future, that would be something that would have to change. This source will help my paper because it shows that with the attention YouTube is getting and will be getting more of in the future, there are flaws that can rise with YouTube becoming more popular in the future.

Current Research Project: Week 4

What is your research issue?

            My research issue is going to address the Youtube entertainment industry. I want to explore the future of Youtube and how it is a new 21st centenary career path people can go to and how it can benefit and affect upcoming generations.

What is your current research question?

            How is the Youtube Industry affecting the future of the entertainment business?

What do you believe are going to be some of the challenges of completing this research project for your class and why?

            I think one of the biggest challenges I face when doing this research project is being able to find enough scholarly sources that will support my issue. Not many people write on Youtube the way I want to address and it has been a challenge trying to be able to find some articles that relate to my issue in some way.

What do you believe are going to be some of your strengths as you approach this research project and why are they strengths?

            Some of my strengths that I will have when doing this research project will be the fact I took English 102 before so I know what to expect and what to look for. Plus I know what makes a good paper this time around. Another strength I have is that I am very passionate about my research topic so it will make the process of writing this paper a lot easier. I've always been into the Youtube industry and how it works, so this paper is not only for class but for my benefit as well.

What questions or concerns do you have for our class that you would like to address during conferences?

            A concern that I have is that I have been struggling trying to find some sources that will help and trying to get a good research question (I'm still in the air about it), would it be possible to meet during conference hours and try to brainstorm or get some extra help with whether I should use a certain source or not?

Beginning of the Term Writing Journal

Through out high school we are engraved with the idea of how to write an essay. Think of a thesis than write an essay that does not drift from your topic. In Let's End Thesis Tyranny by Bruce Ballenger he talks about how the thesis has always been the reason for why students write more encyclopedic reports, something colleges normally are not looking for. He suggest we should teach students what makes a good question, rather than a thesis.

            From my experiences in high school and college what Ballenger talks about with the struggle of a thesis is something I have always encountered. Back in high school whenever it came to essays, I despised them for the main reason I would always get stuck halfway through due to my thesis. The thesis always made it so I couldn't expand more my general topic since it would go off from what my thesis was. Which is why majority of my essays sounded like something you would grab out of an encyclopedia. It was all knowledge people already knew, there was no room for expanding the topic. It wasn't until college where I was able to start to expand my horizon. Once I came to college I went from writing dry, factual papers to actually writing beginner scholarly papers. Main reason why was I was taught to focus more on what makes a good question than just picking a thesis statement, because with a good question a thesis statement will be developed in time. As Ballenger addressed in his paper, "The essay in its original form may have a thesis, but it was often a delayed one, and even then, it wasn't really a thesis but a tentative judgment." [1].

            From reading Let's End Thesis Tyranny, Ballenger was trying to get across the idea of teaching students and writers to not focus so hard on a thesis, but rather focus on the question. Ballenger didn't address we should get rid of the thesis all together, but instead allow the writer to "take on any topic, even when they don't know what they think about it." [1]. He gets to this point by making sure to set up his paper with first addressing what we have already engraved in students' heads about writing a thesis, then moving into how we can get students to step away from encyclopedic research papers to open ended research papers, and why that would be a good thing. Ballenger does get his argument across to the audience, which would be focused on teachers and writers, by addressing what the problem is and showing how we can improve it. Though it may have worked better in his favor if he did use more sources  and examples for why students should focus on a hypothesis and a question rather than a thesis so the support for his argument would be stronger. Ballenger does come off more opinionated than factual when he does address the thesis by many different derogatory names and meanings which some may argue helped get his point across or more lessoned his cause.

1. Ballenger, Bruce. "Let's End Thesis Tyranny." (2013): 1-17. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Web. 28 Jan. 2015.

From the readings what they are trying to get across is the beginning steps to writing a research paper. In the DK Handbook and Davis and Shadle's essay it talks about how writing does come from your ideas, thoughts and opinions but when you write you need to write for other people. The reader doesn't understand what is going on in your head, so you must make it clear to the reader if you want to get your opinion across to them. But when writing a research paper, you need to pick a topic that interest you, not one that may seem easy or interesting. Once you have a general idea of your research topic, gather and examine articles and resources that support your idea. After some time of researching you will start to develop a thesis, than a statement of purpose.

           My experiences with the research process has had it's ups and downs. I've always understood how the process goes, but my one struggle has always been finding a topic I can write multiple pages about and creating a good thesis statement. I've taken English 102 before and my problem before was I became stuck halfway through my research paper last time due to my thesis. I felt I wasn't able to broaden my view for my paper and I hit a dead end with my research. I'm hoping that this time around to pick a topic that does interest me and is a well known topic so I can do lots of research without hitting a dead end like last time.

For my research paper I am looking at researching the online entertainment business boom and whether this boom is going to effect the future for the good or for the bad.

            I my focus would specifically be on youtubers and streamers, focusing on how popular it has become over the past couple of years and how many people now make videos and stream online as a full time job. How working from home and online is now becoming more of a popular career choice now. One example of a successful youtuber who has made it big through this online entertainment business would be PewDiePie, one of the richest youtubers. With a total of 34.4 million subscribers (and rising), 7.8 billion views, Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg (PewDiePie) makes an estimated $825k-$8.47 million yearly (after Youtube's 45% cut).

            One of the topics I'd like to focus on is how this YouTube boom will effect the future. Will more television networks and shows start to go to YouTube due to the large audience? Will YouTube die down in the future or just grow bigger? Will it become harder for new Youtubers to get big due to the massive amount of users and videos?

  

            Null, C. (2012, 08). Let YouTube build your business. PC World, 30, 25-26. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1025766869?accountid=15078

            The future of YouTube stars. (2013). PR Newswire Europe Including UK Disclose, Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1496171951?accountid=15078

            When trying to find these two sources for my assignment the things I kept searching for was Youtube AND ________. The blank being filled in with many things such as business, entrepreneur, paid, and entertainment. It did take some time before I could find a scholarly source that did related to my topic. The two articles that I found, one being Let YouTube build your business, and the other being The future of YouTube stars. My paper is trying to focus on the entertainment part of Youtube and how it is going to change the future of the entertainment business.

            Let YouTube build your business talks about tips and tricks to making a good Youtube video and how small businesses can make a profit from Youtube if following basic tips to making a successful Youtube video. Reason why I chose this text was to show what all goes into making a Youtube video and how simple it can be and how complex it can be to the audience. 

            The future of YouTube talks about if these famous Youtubers can keep there die hard fan base over time and if this is a career that could last forever. It goes in deeper later in the article about how some Youtubers get talent managers to help keep this celebrity like status for longer, helping with branding, their career online and offline, getting sponsored, and keeping a friendly face to the public. Reason for choosing this article was to help support my argument of the work that goes into being a Youtuber and that this is a new career opportunity, how similar it is to real life celebrities and the amount of work that does go into it.