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.
