What was this lawsuit about?
In March 2007, Viacom sued Youtube and Google, on the grounds that they should be responsible for copyright violations committed by Youtube users and creators. The lawsuit lasted 4 years, and sought over $1 billion in damages. Viacom targeted over 100,000 Youtube videos for takedowns, however, this was controversial, as some videos among the 100,000 were not actually owned by Viacom, and were just home movies that didn’t need to be taken down. Not long after the lawsuit was ratified,a number of class action lawsuits were filed by music producers and other entertainment producers against Youtube, based on the same theory created by Viacom in 2007.
What was the final outcome of the case ?
On June 23 2010, the judge decided that Google was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed in 1998 creating a “Safe Harbour” to shield them from liability. They were protected by the Act despite evidence of intentional copyright infringement. The judge held that while Google was aware of copyrighted material they could not specify or monitor if clips were uploaded with permission or illegally, and policing every upload would “contravene” the operation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
How does YouTube deal with copyright matter?
YouTube deals with copyright matter in various different ways as copyright is taken extremely seriously for YouTube. Videos which have copyrighted content are taken down.This is done through a Content ID robot. This robot detects if there has been any copyrighted material within a video, as soon as the video is uploaded. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This act was enacted in 1998 by the US government. This was made to balance the copyright owners and users and investigate any infringement within the online world. YouTube must take down any video in which a publication sees an infringement in the video. YouTube is not responsible for someone copyrighting someone else’s content. If a video has even a second of a song, the label will flag it, adding a tag at the bottom of the video as to who flagged it and what the song is called. For example, a lyric video made by a random user, rather than the actual artist or publication, there will be the song title and who it is owned by at the bottom of the description. This allows YouTube to protect the rightful owners of those who own the song. Allowing for the user to have that video demonetised as it breaches copyright law. This is all done through the Content ID mechanism, which is done automatically.
How does Youtube deal with fair use?
Many creators think that if they state clauses such as ‘credit to the owner’ or ‘no infringement intended’, fair use is automatically applied. Unfortunately, there is no term or phrase that once stated that will preclude or protect users from a copyright infringement. Each use is judged on an individual basis, however there are certain protections and tips that may prevent misuse or exploitation of original content resulting in copyright. This is where the legal doctrine of fair use applies.
Fair use protects a consumer’s right to use a portion of copyrighted material without notifying or getting permission from the original owner. This allows creators to use material and sources creatively, however there are still dangers and restrictions to how the material may be used. For creators on Youtube who have violated certain copyright restrictions, implications such as videos being taken down from the platform, accounts being banned, motitisation removed from videos and even legal implications have all been awarded to those who violate copyright restrictions.
However, if you do decide to use someone else’s material there are a few handy steps that can help you decide whether your use is appropriate and protected by the fair use doctrine.
Step one, look at what you are planning to do with the content. What is the purpose or character of the use? Courts may consider whether your use of the content is transformative, by way of adding new meaning or substance or if it is simply a copy of the original. This question may be answered by addressing this question – Is your use commercial or educational?
Step two. This step includes looking at what the nature of the copyrighted material is. Is the material you are using based on fact or fiction? In most cases, there is more protection around works of fiction, including film or tv compared to live footage or news coverage. This is also the case with published and unpublished works.
Step three, how much of the original material are you showing in your media? Although there is no recommended or restricted amount of usage you may broadcast, showing smaller snippets of the material is more likely to be protected under fair use. However, this may not be the case where the ‘smaller’ portions used are considered the main part of the original work. This is unlikely to be considered as fair use.
Step four, the final step is to ask yourself, does your video serve as a copy or substitute for the original one? If your content is likely to overshine the original work or receive a greater benefit based on the copied content, then your content will likely not be covered by fair use.
I also recommend checking out this video for some frequently asked questions about fairuse → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PvjRIkwIl8
In what ways did the different appeal stages of the cases change the outcome?
The first appeal occurred two years after the lawsuit was contested in court, where a Federal judge ruled that ‘Youtube was protected from any legal ramifications under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)’. This was where Viacom appealed the decision in an attainment to prove that the material that youtube had published was knowingly copyrighted. Following this, they were granted permission for the case to be reheard in front of a jury, as a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepting the appeal. However, Youtube again walked away ‘innocent of any copyright breach’, so in response, Viacom has expressed their intention to appeal this.
Mavro Productions 