Current Events > Nintendo cancels Nintendo Creator Program. Eases up on YouTube restrictions

(+) Yeah! (+)

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

That's about as far as your 'legal right' takes you. YouTube might use your video as an example for a specific case or takedown notice. It's up to them.

Youtube refusing liability in legally representing you in copyright disputes doesn't not mean you are no longer protected by fair use. I know you really love defending Nintendo no matter what dumb shit they do, but this is one are you just clearly aren't equipped to talk about.

How are you supposed to legally represent yourself for a video YouTube isn't obligated to host for you? That's the part you're not getting to.

As far as I know aren't going to the courts for this. They're issuing takedown notices on YouTube. YouTube obeys them. How is this going against your legal rights? You have a legal right to upload content on YouTube?

I'm not even defending them here. But I don't see what legal rights you could possibly have on YouTube as an individual uploading content taken from other sources.

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

Is there an example of a case where this has happened?

What, where someone has filed a counter claim without being legally represented by youtube? It's what happens in the vast majority of cases where someone on youtube files a counter claim

Counter claims filed in court?
---

Darmik posted...

How are you supposed to legally represent yourself for a video YouTube isn't obligated to host for you? That's the part you're not getting to.

Uhh YouTube isn't obligated to host anything or provide you with legal defense. You'd defend yourself the same way you would in any other litigation. Start with a consultation with an attorney.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Darmik posted...

How are you supposed to legally represent yourself for a video YouTube isn't obligated to host for you? That's the part you're not getting to.

Uhh YouTube isn't obligated to host anything or provide you with legal defense. You'd defend yourself the same way you would in any other litigation. Start with a consultation with an attorney.

That's what I'm asking.

YouTube takes down one of your videos due to a copyright notice or a third party claims monetization or whatever. You dispute it and claim fair use. They decline and your video remains muted or monetized or whatever.

So you go to your attorney and ask for what exactly? What happens from then on? What legal rights do you have at this point?

Like I get this perspective from YouTube themselves because obviously their stuff goes to the courts all the time and they're gonna be arguing for fair use and all sorts of things for their content. But as an individual? I haven't heard of a case where someone goes to courts over it or someone who gets an immediate litigation case because of YouTube content that doesn't involve YouTube.

I only hear these sorts of stories from website owners themselves.
---

Darmik posted...

How are you supposed to legally represent yourself for a video YouTube isn't obligated to host for you? That's the part you're not getting to.

Same way you represent yourself in any legal matter. Or you hire a lawyer.

Darmik posted...

As far as I know aren't going to the courts for this. They're issuing takedown notices on YouTube. YouTube obeys them. How is this going against your legal rights? You have a legal right to upload content on YouTube?

Ultimately you will have to take it court if your file a counter claim and the copyright holder rejects your claim, which is where you would have defend your right to Fair Use.

Darmik posted...

Counter claims filed in court?

You don't file counter claims within the court.
---

Darmik posted...

Like I get this perspective from YouTube themselves because obviously their stuff goes to the courts all the time and they're gonna be arguing for fair use and all sorts of things for their content. But as an individual? I haven't heard of a case where someone goes to courts over it or someone who gets an immediate litigation case because of YouTube content that doesn't involve YouTube.

H3H3 went to court over a strike and got a complete summary decision in their favor although the court case took a few months.
---

Frolex posted...

Ultimately you will have to take it court if your file a counter claim and the copyright holder rejects your claim, which is where you would have defend your right to Fair Use.

But I'm assuming at this point YouTube has already made the decision for you so what does this accomplish?

Frolex posted...

You don't file counter claims within the court.

So what are you referring to?
---

Darmik posted...

But I'm assuming at this point YouTube has already made the decision for you so what does this accomplish?

No, youtube is not the one who makes the decision whether to uphold the copyright claim.

Darmik posted...

So what are you referring to?

If you're asking me to outline the process of filing a counter claim on youtube, you can read google's guide on it

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

H3H3 went to court over a strike and got a complete summary decision in their favor although the court case took a few months.

Interesting. I'll look that up a bit later.

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

But I'm assuming at this point YouTube has already made the decision for you so what does this accomplish?

No, youtube is not the one who makes the decision whether to uphold the copyright claim.

Darmik posted...

So what are you referring to?

If you're asking me to outline the process of filing a counter claim on youtube, you can read google's guide on it

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en

Isn't that their internal dispute system? That's not what I was referring to when we're talking about legal rights.
---

Darmik posted...

Isn't that their internal dispute system? That's not what I was referring to when we're talking about legal rights.

It's how the process of how you file counter claims youtube on the basis fair use. I'm sure it's not what you're talking about because you seemingly have no idea what rights people have in regards to copyright law.
---

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

Isn't that their internal dispute system? That's not what I was referring to when we're talking about legal rights.

It's how the process of how you file counter claims youtube on the basis fair use. I'm sure it's not what you're talking about because you seemingly have no idea what rights people have in regards to copyright law.

I'm talking about your legal rights as an individual uploading content on YouTube. Not about your rights as a user on YouTube dictated by Google.
---

Darmik posted...

I'm talking about your legal rights as an individual uploading content on YouTube. Not about your rights as a user on YouTube dictated by Google.

Once again, youtube is not the entity that defines Fair Use or any other form of copyright law
---

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

Isn't that their internal dispute system? That's not what I was referring to when we're talking about legal rights.

It's how the process of how you file counter claims youtube on the basis fair use. I'm sure it's not what you're talking about because you seemingly have no idea what rights people have in regards to copyright law.

I'm talking about your legal rights as an individual uploading content on YouTube. Not about your rights as a user on YouTube dictated by Google.

The whole point of the counter claim is to provide an opportunity to show YouTube that you do, in fact, have permission to host the copyrighted work on your channel, or that you own the copyright yourself.

You don't and can't claim "fair use" to Google. That's a matter for the courts.
---

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

I'm talking about your legal rights as an individual uploading content on YouTube. Not about your rights as a user on YouTube dictated by Google.

Once again, youtube is not the entity that defines Fair Use or any other form of copyright law

I never said they did.

But they do enforce rules, disputes, claims etc. on their own website so they aren't liable if their users break the law by uploading copyrighted content or whatever.

From what I understand that you're trying to claim that your legal rights are being infringed upon if your uploaded video is muted, deleted or monetized by a third party and YouTube still sides with them if you claim fair use. Which is what happened with Nintendo previously to this announcement. That's what I'm asking about. From what I understand at this point it is still within YouTube's ballpark. Not the courts or law.
---

Darmik posted...

From what I understand that you're trying to claim that your legal rights are being infringed upon if your uploaded video is muted, deleted or monetized by a third party and YouTube still sides with them if you claim fair use. Which is what happened with Nintendo previously to this announcement. That's what I'm asking about. From what I understand at this point it is still within YouTube's ballpark. Not the courts or law.

And your understanding is wrong, which you continually refuse to accept. Nintendo is the company that ultimately bears the legal responsibility for issuing fraudulent claims. Youtube is merely abiding by their claims, they are not the arbiters of the what constitutes fair use.
---

Frolex posted...

Nintendo is the company that ultimately bears the legal responsibility for issuing fraudulent claims.

Are you talking about Content ID claims?
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276

Or copyright strikes?
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000

or both?

Which Nintendo claims were fraudulent?

Was the company who sent a claim to me because of my song in my wedding video a fraudulent claim?
---

Darmik posted...

Are you talking about Content ID claims?
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276

Or copyright strikes?
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000

or both?

I believe the link i posted earlier referred to content ID claims, but ultimately both come about as response to a copyright holder filing a claim against a video

Darmik posted...

Which Nintendo claims were fraudulent?

Any claims against videos that fall under fair use protection

Darmik posted...

Was the company who sent a claim to me because of my song in my wedding video a fraudulent claim?

Depends on the circumstances. If it was just the entirety of the song overlaid over footage of your wedding, you probably don't have much of a leg to stand on with a Fair Use defense. If it was critical, ,educational or somehow otherwise transformative of the work in question, that's a different case.
---

Frolex posted...

I believe the link i posted earlier referred to content ID claims, but ultimately both come about as response to a copyright holder filing a claim against a video

Aren't Content claims automatically picked up thanks to YouTube algorithms? Meanwhile copyright strikes are legal requests sent to YouTube. Surely there would be a difference here? I don't know how you can say the companies are acting fraudulent if they haven't progressed far enough to be legal takedowns.

Frolex posted...

Depends on the circumstances. If it was just the entirety of the song overlaid over footage of your wedding, you probably don't have much of a leg to stand on with a Fair Use defense. If it was critical, ,educational or somehow otherwise transformative of the work in question, that's a different case.

They were songs played during the wedding in the recording. Currently still has 11 copyright claims on the video. It was an unlisted video. These labels all blocked monetization on the video (which was fine by me anyway).

One of them muted the song. Uptown Funk by Bruno Mars. I had to edit that out to get the sound back lol

I never really saw my rights being infringed upon here. Just a part of life using YouTube.
---

So when an EB Games somewhere breaks release date by a week, and then some innocent buyer posts a youtube video, the hammer comes crashing down on said video uploader? Yeah nah, nintendo still needs to loosen up a lot more
---

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

Irony posted...

Nintendo: "you can now do stuff that was already your legal right pat us on the back"

It's not their legal right though lol

Using gameplay or trailer footage for a video review is absolutely 100% within your legals rights, the fuck you talking about

Reviewers aren't allowed to put whatever gameplay footage they want generally. They have guidelines they agree to.

I don't think the issue was with video reviewers anyway.

Besides when it comes to being a YouTube uploader you have next to no legal rights lol

You are 100% wrong. There is no agreement i have to sign, no rules i have to follow if i purchase a game and make a review of it even using footage from the game. You are probably thinking of some handpicked reviewers getting early copies of the games for review purposes. Thats completely different.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

You are 100% wrong. There is no agreement i have to sign, no rules i have to follow if i purchase a game and make a review of it even using footage from the game. You are probably thinking of some handpicked reviewers getting early copies of the games for review purposes. Thats completely different.

Yeah I was speaking specifically about reviewers as a job and not a hobby there.
---

Darmik posted...

Aren't Content claims automatically picked up thanks to YouTube algorithms? Meanwhile copyright strikes are legal requests sent to YouTube. Surely there would be a difference here? I don't know how you can say the companies are acting fraudulent if they haven't progressed far enough to be legal takedowns.

No, both manual and automatic content ID claims are both subject to Fair Use guidelines. If a company drops it's automated claim once a user invokes their right to Fair Use, that's one issue. But Ninentdo didn't.

Darmik posted...

They were songs played during the wedding in the recording. Currently still has 11 copyright claims on the video. It was an unlisted video. These labels all blocked monetization on the video (which was fine by me anyway).

One of them muted the song. Uptown Funk by Bruno Mars. I had to edit that out to get the sound back lol

I never really saw my rights being infringed upon here. Just a part of life using YouTube.

Whether or not you feel your rights were infringed upon in a case where fair use may not have been a legitimate defense is totally irrelevant to the fact that Nintendo was issuing claims on videos that did clearly fall with in Fair Use guidelines. You're taking your argument nowhere
---

I dot think theres a legal distinction between reviewing as a job vs hobby, all that matter is that the content produced is a review
---

Frolex posted...

No, both manual and automatic content ID claims are both subject to Fair Use guidelines. If a company drops it's automated claim once a user invokes their right to Fair Use, that's one issue. But Ninentdo didn't.

Where does it say that on YouTube's website?

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

I don't see anything about it here.
---

Darmik posted...

Where does it say that on YouTube's website?

I really don't understand why you're having so much trouble understanding Youtube doesn't define copyright law. Or if you're just intentionally taking this argument in circles because you can't actually defend Nintendo's behavior
---

Metua posted...

We encourage you to create videos that include your creative input and commentary. Videos and images that contain mere copies of Nintendo Game Content without creative input or commentary are not permitted.

que

It's simple to understand. They don't like you posting music or cutscenes by themselves without any input from the uploader.
---

There's plenty on YouTube about your legal rights as both a user and copyright holder.

I don't see anything about content ID claims being potentially fraudulent due to fair use. I'm sure if that was a risk it would be stated on there. That would be a pretty big legal risk for any copyright holder using their content ID claim system.
---

Darmik posted...

There's plenty on YouTube about your legal rights as both a user and copyright holder.

I don't see anything about content ID claims being potentially fraudulent due to fair use. I'm sure if that was a risk it would be stated on there. That would be a pretty big legal risk for any copyright holder using their content ID claim system.

Youtube doesn't have to explain potential consequences of fraudulent copyright claims to claimants in abiding by their takedown requests. And yes, by issuing a fraudulent takedown notice, you do expose yourself to the legal risk associated with a counter claim, it's just a risk most corporations don't consider significant
---

Seems good
---

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

There's plenty on YouTube about your legal rights as both a user and copyright holder.

I don't see anything about content ID claims being potentially fraudulent due to fair use. I'm sure if that was a risk it would be stated on there. That would be a pretty big legal risk for any copyright holder using their content ID claim system.

Youtube doesn't have to explain potential consequences of fraudulent copyright claims to claimants in abiding by their takedown requests. And yes, by issuing a fraudulent takedown notice, you do expose yourself to the legal risk associated with a counter claim, it's just a risk most corporations don't consider significant

But these aren't legal takedown notices they're content claims made within YouTube.

I don't know if there's a legal counter claim risks to those and you haven't sourced anything that claims there is.
---

Darmik posted...

But these aren't legal takedown notices they're content claims made within YouTube.

Yes, they are. Just because they haven't been filed in a courthouse doesn't mean they don't legally constitute a copyright claim

Darmik posted...

I don't know if there's a legal counter claim risks to those and you haven't sourced anything that claims there is.

who do you think bears the legal risk of issuing a fradulent takedown notice? youtube?
---

Frolex posted...

Yes, they are. Just because they haven't been filed in a courthouse doesn't mean they don't legally constitute a copyright claim

It hasn't been filed in the courts or with an attorney. I'm curious how you would log a legal counter claim in this instance? How do you do a legal counter claim against a notice processed by the website you're hosting your content on?

Like where's a source? Where's the precedent? Where's anything?

Frolex posted...

who do you think bears the legal risk of issuing a fradulent takedown notice? youtube?

I'm not the one claiming there's a legal risk for content ID claims made by copyright holders on YouTube through their website.

Takedown notices issued by lawyers are a completely different matter unless you can prove otherwise.
---

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Yes, they are. Just because they haven't been filed in a courthouse doesn't mean they don't legally constitute a copyright claim

It hasn't been filed in the courts or with an attorney. I'm curious how you would log a legal counter claim in this instance? How do you do a legal counter claim against a notice processed by the website you're hosting your content on?

Like where's a source? Where's the precedent? Where's anything?

Frolex posted...

who do you think bears the legal risk of issuing a fradulent takedown notice? youtube?

I'm not the one claiming there's a legal risk for content ID claims made by copyright holders on YouTube through their website.

Takedown notices issued by lawyers are a completely different matter unless you can prove otherwise.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Here's the entire text of US law relating to DMCA and copyright claims . Go ahead and pour through that and tell me where it says claims can only be issued by a court or an attorney
---

I don't think YouTube content claims would be covered by the stuff detailed in
1202. Integrity of Copyright Management Information.

Section 512 under Title 2 seems to be covering YouTube's liability as well considering their process.

Section G on Page 24 seems to specifically cover content providers taking down copyright claims due to 'good faith' which I'm assuming covers YouTube. But it also seems to specifically apply to removing material.

Likewise Page 25 seems to require a significant amount of more information than what a content ID claim looks like.

I'm not a lawyer though. I'm just a curious dude. I'm happy to be educated further on this stuff.
---

Darmik posted...

Section 512 under Title 2 seems to be covering YouTube's liability as well considering their process.

Section G on Page 24 seems to specifically cover content providers taking down copyright claims due to 'good faith' which I'm assuming covers YouTube. But it also seems to specifically apply to removing material.

That covers youtube's reponsibility in responding to takedown notices made by claimaints

Darmik posted...

Likewise Page 25 seems to require a significant amount of more information than what a content ID claim looks like.

That section covers the content required for filing a counter claim against a claimant
---

Aren't those relevant to what you're claiming?

What section do you want me to look at?
---

Darmik posted...

Aren't those relevant to what you're claiming?

They are. Because again, it demonstrates the legal responsibility associated with responding to a copyright counter claim falls on the claimant, not anyone else.
---

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id

According to this link here you can claim a counter-notice after the DMCA Takedown Notice which backs up what I've been saying.

Content ID claims are earlier in the process.
---

Darmik posted...

Content ID claims are earlier in the process.

and both content ID and manual DMCA takedown counter claims lead the same place when an uploader invokes their right to fair use. why is this so hard for you?
---

Darmik posted...

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id

According to this link here you can claim a counter-notice after the DMCA Takedown Notice which backs up what I've been saying.

Content ID claims are earlier in the process.

This is a YouTube policy.

It's not law. You are confusing YouTube's disposition to take down legal content for a legal obligation when it's actually just something they do because they shoot first and ask questions later.
---