On October 31, 2007, a number of progressive policy groups endorsed a set of Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content authored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In the world of Copyright and Fair Use, each step forward by content owners is typically followed by a step forward by fair use advocates seeking to secure content for public use. (Think: Spy vs. Spy.) The principles advocated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and other policy groups, like Public Knowledge) would interfere with YouTube’s recent attempts to filter out copyright-protected content from its online service.

Do these principles serve the public interest or do they go too far? Should content owners prove others are infringing instead of having persons posting content establish they have the right to do so (the Wikipedia model)? Should we adopt a model that burdens owners or users?

YouTube Model. Owners must spend time working with YouTube to ensure that thier content has been provided to YouTube so that it can filter out content. Otherwise, the owner must police YouTube and provide DMCA Takedown Notices in order to remove the content. Down side: some fair use materials will be screened out.

Wikipedia Model. Users must establish what right they have to upload material, whether they are the owner, licensee, or that material is public domain. Down Side: uploading material is more difficult under the Wikipedia Model.

The Fair Use Principles would increase the burden on YouTube (or its users), but would have little impact on Wikipedia, which removes any content not verified in a short period of time, while also providing a DMCA policy.

Policy groups (and YouTube) might do well to take a look at Wikipedia, which has a model that balances the public interest with the rights of authors and artists.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It

Following in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s footsteps, the Library of Congress is at last beta testing a new online filing system called the electronic Copyright Office (eCO). It’s too soon to tell what impact this will have on volume or speed of registrations, but the system will allow registrations for a slightly reduced fee ($35), provide same day receipt, and perhaps reduce the number of unregistered works in the United States.

Increasing the number of registered works in the United States could have an enormous impact on small-scale content producers, who generally do not register their works until after an infringement occurs. However, waiting until after an infringement occurs to register copyright robs many artists, programmers and authors of their best remedies against infringers–the ability to obtain statutory damages and attorneys fees.

Current U.S. law permits a plaintiff to file a copyright infringement suit only after a certificate of registration has been issued by the Copyright Office. So, an increase in registrations and the ease in obtaining them could provide some small benefit to the little guy.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It

YouTube unveils filtering tools - CNN.com

A new era in fair use, a new Google technique for driving ad sales, or both.

Since Viacom filed a complaint for copyright infringement against YouTube.com, Google has been developing a system for blocking copyrighted content from the wildly popular YouTube. However, instead of preventing all copyrighted content, the new filtering tools give copyright owners a few options. Owners of copyrighted video can block their material from appearing on YouTube or they may opt to sell ads around their material if they want the clips to remain available on YouTube.

Google puts the onus on content holders to upload their content to YouTube, so that YouTube can compare it to content uploaded by users, screening out unauthorized content. If you don’t play along with YouTube’s system, your only option is to police its site for your content and notify YouTube if you find infringing content.

Content owners aren’t happy.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It

In a blow to Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans, Fox decided to put a stake through the heart of the increasingly popular Buffy Sing-along.

“Lawyers for Twentieth Century Fox Television, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., told a licensing company (Criterion) that had given the green light for the sing-along events that it had gone beyond the limits of the show’s licensing agreements.”

While many of the fans of the cult show lay blame on Fox, digging a little deeper, we see that the Big Bad is none other than the Screen Actors Guild. Criterion had the right to grant only “non-theatrical displays.” Any showing that raises money–even not-for-profit shows where the ticket prices cover only the cost of materials and travel–is considered a “theatrical display.” Because the travelling show was self-sustaining, SAG wanted a cut, forcing Fox to reign the show’s producers back in line with the scope of their license.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It