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.
One thing I notice from your paper is that all the sources were used carefully and precisely. You even numbered them (something I certainly didn’t even think of). This made it easier for the readers/audience to relate and understand your arguments, much easier in fact. There’s always an example after each citation, which is a good thing, since it gives anyone an instant clear picture of what you’re trying to use to prove your point. Hell, you opened the essay with an example. Also, some of the sources were pretty recent and close to an average human’s life (Robin Thicke, that’s pretty new right..?). So anyway, good job with the sources (seems like I’m the only one who’s not).
ReplyDeleteUnlike the previous draft, this one gives me a much deeper and explicit look behind all the examples and definitions of your choice. I have trouble understanding a phrase here and there but overall I am now familiar with the subject and your purpose of argument. If anything, you should have an example after every single point you make, it makes my life much less miserable (because now I have something that I can read and actually understand it, partially).
You weren’t really summarizing the sources that much, maybe just some quotes from time to time but mostly stories and analysis were used as the base of your reasoning. So I guess you were revealing ideas behind all the stories, generating them into points of significance and then transforming those to arguments related to the topic. A good way to go at it I’m assuming. As I mention above, I would love to see more examples and stories about any of the rules or laws you have in the paper. I think they have potential of being strong evidences for the points that you’re trying to carry out.
Most of the arguments in your paper were generated from a quote from a source so I believe they’re all pretty credible (depends on how you define credible too…). The examples were also explained using what were stated in the citations so even though it’s bias in a way that you chose the examples, but the analysis was certainly an educated one.
Also, the draft gives off this pretty serious vibe to me. I guess it’s also because you’ve mentioned that this issue is something you’ve experienced yourself. So given the situation, most of the ideas in the paper were probably generated after hours of researching and reading. You can’t be unsure about something that frustrates you right..? (I don’t really know, I’m just guessing..)
I’m mentioning this again as a strong point of your paper, the visual aids. Good examples make good arguments. Good job and keep it up.
“Currently many people on YouTube have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online” The come up to this was good. just give us a quote or some information from a source where someone is being jipped of their ideas then when you come in with “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” And you start to talk about how we cant help these people we atleast have an image of who these people might be. It will be really helpful for your audience to feal for the people who are getting robbed of there ideas if you can built a relatable image of whom those people are. And if you bring in a quote there of a real life existence your sources will start playing off each other right off the bat which is a bonus.
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job with these quotes and sources in this section “"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” I would keep doing that kind of stuff you sound very credible when you further the explanation of the source.
“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.” This could be a touchy saying for you I definetly get what your saying and its applicable in the way you use it but try and edit the language to bettter defend your side. when i read it makes me want to protect youtubers less because even there ideas arnt orginal from what your saying here.
again here i am confused on what side your on “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.”
I think that the sources you have chosen all have good context. I will say that you seem to be following the issue, YouTube, more closely instead of weaving between more than one topic, copyright in general. Something that bothered me a little was right after the second time your quoted your second source, “What kind of direct proof does the government need to prove that someone's content is indeed theirs?”. You never really answer that question, not directly. After that you ask how we can help YouTubers. While those issues are related, you kind of leave the issue of the plaintiff needing to show direct proof dangling.
ReplyDeleteThe area that I felt could use a more scholarly tone was in your last paragraph. Particularly the passages, “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” and also “I personally feel that the two songs differ substantially, but this raises many questions with copyright infringement”, were a little less scholarly sounding than the first and second paragraphs. The second quote that I picked out is a good example of the point you are trying to illustrate, how/why do we define copyright infringement, but I do not really feel like it was presented in a way that was entirely scholarly. Also there were a few places where you ask a question and follow up with a question, “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?”, which comes off as a little argumentative. That’s really a terrible thing, at least not in the way that you are going about it, but incase that was not something that you were going for, I thought I would mention it. I know that I just ranted about your last paragraph I agree with Vu, that is actually something that I would like to see more of - the areas that are directly affected by copyrights and policies. Seeing those things does do a good job of framing the issue you are discussing. There was no place that I felt you were “unsure” of yourself.
Some of the strongest things about the paper so far is that you conduct it in a way that is professional and scholarly, except in a few parts of the last paragraph, and it is also something that you are clearly passionate about and personally involved in, being a YouTuber. The biggest weakness that I see is that you could just drop in quotes from various sources, private policy and legal code, without providing much context. You did not do much of that here, but the place that I outlined in your body paragraph came close, I felt, just because I did not feel you were explaining what was going on.