-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
1/20
Timothy VollmerSI 519 Final Paper
December 10, 2007
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
2/20
Warnings, Take Downs and Filters: Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted
Materials and What We Can Do About It
In recent years weve recognized ways in which citizens have been limited in using
copyrighted materials for legitimate purposes. Fair use rights have been misconstrued by some
copyright holders, thus curtailing legal uses of creativity and culture. Such rights have been
downplayed by overzealous rights holders in various waysthrough the use of misleading
copyright warnings, through a widespread and overreaching use of Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) takedown notices, through the capitulation of media hosting site to rights holders
demands, and through the introduction of automatic copyright filtering technologies. The
aforementioned practices miseducate the public, curtail lawful speech, and may chill future
lawful use of copyrighted creativity. There are several things we, as a community of content
producers and consumers, can do in order to support user rights to legal uses of copyrighted
content. The language of the fair use provision will guide our analysis:
Fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such ascriticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.1
Misleading Copyright Warnings
The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) distinguishes between
copyright notices (such as: 2007 Jack Bernard) and copyright warnings.2 The CCIA says that
copyright notices are useful tools that clearly signal to the consumer of the content some basic
information about the rights available therein. The CCIA defines copyright warnings as express
1 17 U.S.C. 1072 The CCIA is a nonprofit membership organization for the computer, Internet, information technology, and
telecommunications industries whose mission is to promote open, barrier-free competition in the offering of
computer and communications products and services worldwide. CCIA members include organizations such as
Google, The Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo!. More information
found at http://www.ccianet.org/about.html
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
3/20
statements and representations which describe and purport to limit permissible uses of the work
in questionand may make representations regarding civil and criminal penalties for copyright
infringement.3
Federal law does not require the warnings. While the CCIA recognizes the utility
of copyright notices, they question the motivation behind and effects of copyright warnings.
The CCIA filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in August 2007
that aimed to address misleading copyright warning on print materials, DVDs and in broadcast
programming. The complaint contends that the practice of attaching misleading copyright
warnings constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices and chills users from making fair uses
of copyrighted materials.
The complaint alleges a systematic misrepresentation of consumers rights to use legally
acquired content by certain copyright-holding corporations.4
Generally, the complaint states that
entities like book publishers say things in the copyright warnings they shouldnt be legally able
to sayrights-holder corporations employ copyright warnings that purport to limit the publics
right to engage in activities not explicitly authorized by the rights-holder corporation.5 The
CCIA says, these ubiquitous statements often include gross misrepresentations of federal law
and characterize as unlawful acts that are explicitly permitted by law.6
These warnings can
confuse and intimidate many potential users of copyrighted materials and hinder free
expression.7
We will explore two examples in our analysis.
Examples of Misleading Copyright Warnings
There are numerous examples of misleading copyright warnings in printed materials like
books. Almost all books contain a copyright notice within the first few pages of the book. This
3 CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.44 Ibid., 15
Ibid., 46
Defend Fair Use. Executive Summary of FTC Complaint, http://www.defendfairuse.org/ftc_complaint.html7
Ibid.
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
4/20
notice is usually on the informational page that also lists the publisher, ISBN classification
number, etc. Typically this page also contains some sort of copyright warning. Harcourts The
Republic of Pirates (Colin Woodward) lists following copyright warning:
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.8
(See Fig. 1)
This type of notice gives users a limited view of their rights in using the materials in
question, and misrepresents the fact that copying which the publisher has not authorized may
nevertheless be permitted by law, such as in using portions of copied passages for purposes of
critique, as in a book review.
9
Librarian Karen Coyle observes that these warnings have become the default for nearly all
printed books. In addition to the chilling effects these copyright warnings may have, Coyle
identifies what she calls a numbing effect on potential users of the material. She asserts that
the sheer ridiculousness of the claims means that we just ignore them all, and leads folks to see
copyright itself as ridiculous.10
The CCIA complaint also outlines several examples of misleading copyright warnings for
DVDs. These warnings usually appear immediately upon loading the disc in a DVD player. In
The Good Shepherd (2006, released by Morgan Creek/Universal), viewers see the following
copyright warning:
All material is protected by copyright laws of the United States and all countries throughoutthe world. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized exhibition, distribution, or copying of this
film or any part thereof (including soundtrack) is an infringement of the relevant copyrightand will subject the infringer to severe civil and criminal penalties.11 (See Fig. 2)
8 CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.89 Ibid., 810
Karen Coyle. Deceptive Copyright Notices, Coyles Information, August 1, 2007.
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/08/deceptive-copyright-notices.html11
CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.6
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
5/20
As is the case in the print example, the DVD copyright warnings can misrepresent the law.
As weve seen, some uses of copyrighted works without the owners permission are allowed and
even encouraged by federal law under the fair use provision and within Section 110 of the
Copyright Act. Section 110 permits a performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils
in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a
classroom or similar place devoted to instruction.12 The CCIA points out that DVD copyright
warnings can be doubly misleading because the warning appear not only while viewing the film,
but also on the DVD packaging.
Effects of Misleading Copyright Warnings
If consumers are confused about their rights to use legally acquired media, they may
forego the use of legitimate products and services out of confusion or fear.13
Speaking to
interviewers about their experience in uploading online videos, some students at American
University said that theyve been inundated with messages suggesting that every use of
copyrighted material must be cleared with owners.14 For this reason one student had never posted
a video to a video-sharing site.
The cause of this confusion is not immediately clear, but misinformation and intimidation
from rights holding corporations in the form of misleading copyright notices can be seen as a
contributing factor. The study from the Center for Social Media concludes that there is a need
for better general understanding of the use rights of creators, in order to create a more stable and
useful framework within which new creation can flourish.15
12 17 U.S.C. 110(1)13 Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video Creators on Copyright,
April 2007. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusing/14
Ibid., 615
Ibid., 9
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
6/20
Overreaching DMCA Take Down Notices
In addition to misleading copyright warnings on print and DVD media, there are other
ways that users rights have been curtailed. As digital technologies have exploded and user-
generated content has increased in popularity, video hosting sites like YouTube represent a
powerful medium for sharing digital content. YouTube was created in 2005, and few predicted
that it would become the powerhouse video-sharing site it represents today. At the time of this
writing, YouTube holds over 58,000,000 user-uploaded videos.16
YouTube has been a site of
growing concern for content owners. Rights holding corporations fear that YouTube users are
pirating, in whole or in part, copyrighted works and then uploading these materials onto
YouTube.
Copyright owners wishing to eliminate copyright infringement on YouTube have
undertaken a massive search-and-destroy campaign to smother misuses of their materials.
Corporate owners of copyrighted content have engaged in active policing of YouTube, issuing
DMCA take down notices to YouTube, who is then responsible for removing the questionable
content.
Examples of Overreaching DMCA Take Down Notices
Overzealous content owners have come under fire from several YouTube users whove
claimed that their uploaded content was taken down in error. Several ambitious individuals and
group have challenged the ease at which content owners have asserted power over YouTubes
content by creating videos they believe incorporate fair uses of copyrighted materials.
In February 2007 Northeastern University Law Professor Wendy Seltzer posted a video
on YouTube that contained the copyright notice from the 2007 Super Bowl. The video was
16There are few statistics about the actual number of videos hosted on YouTube. This number comes from a simple
wildcard search on the site, accomplished by searching * (an asterisk). This search was done on December 7,
2007.
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
7/20
created as an educational resource for her students and a test case to see if the NFL would censor
it. The video is 33 seconds long. The first 10 seconds contains the spoken copyright notice that is
played over a collage of NFL video graphics. The copyright notice states as follows:
This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other useof this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the
NFLs consent, is prohibited.
Within five days, the NFL issued a DMCA take down notice, served by YouTube to
Seltzer. In addition to notifying Wendy that her video had been removed from YouTube, the
letter also urged her to delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from
uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others.
17
Wendys video was ultimately reinstated because it was recognized as a fair use of the
NFL broadcast. This case demonstrates how rights holding corporations, judging derivative
works with a blind eye towards the context of the use, can unwittingly curb speech. The case
took weeks to be resolved. We must recognize how difficult this process can be to users
unfamiliar with the law and protocols necessary to navigate this complicated process.
In August 2006, MoveOn.org posted a video to YouTube entitled Stop the Falsiness."
The video aimed to mimic Stephen Colberts ubiquitous Truthiness vignettes on his Comedy
Central show, The Colbert Report(See Fig. 3). MoveOns video was created as a tongue-in-
cheek commentary on Colbert's portrayal of the right-wing media and parodied MoveOn's own
reputation for online political activism. 18 The film contained clips from The Colbert Reportand
other original interviews about Colbert. In March 2007, Viacomthe parent company of
17 Wendy Seltzer. My First DMCA Takedown, Wendy.Seltzer.org:Legal Tags, The Blog.February 13, 2007.http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html18
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.
http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#005176
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
8/20
Comedy Centraldemanded that YouTube remove the video, claiming that it infringed on its
copyrights.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who petitioned a federal court to put the
removed video back onto YouTube, defended MoveOn. The EFF claimed that MoveOns video
makes fair uses ofColbert Reportclips. EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry ironically points
out that MoveOns use of the Colbert Reportclips is the same kind of fair use that The Colbert
Reportrely upon every night as they parody other channels news coverage.19
Like Seltzers
video, Stop the Falsiness was eventually put back onto YouTube.
The Role of YouTube
Some groups argue that YouTube has been too lax in supporting users rights to utilize
copyrighted content for fair uses. They claim that YouTube has blindly accepted the demands of
rights holding corporations by removing content without investigating the veracity of the DMCA
take down claims. Wishing to avoid costly copyright infringement litigation, YouTube regularly
removes content if a copyright owner complains of a suspected infringement. University of Iowa
Communications Studies Professor Kembrew McLeod says, The DMCA protects sites like
YouTube from copyright infringement claims if, and only if, they quickly comply with takedown
requests from copyright holders.20
This can chill speech, as explained below:
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a mere allegation of copyrightinfringement on the Internet can result in content removal, silencing a creator before any
misuse is proven. This "shoot first, ask questions later" system can silence online artists
and critics, creating unfair hurdles to free speech.21
19 Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.
http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#00517620 Kembrew McLeod, Uri Gellers YouTube Takedown, Los Angeles Times Online. September 18, 2007.http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mcleod18sep18,0,5284602.story?coll=la-news-comment21
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.
http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#005176
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
9/20
While YouTube typically submits to copyright holders demands, they also do a poor job
at explaining to users the concept of fair use. Their Copyright Tips section in the YouTube
documentation can be confusing and misleading:
To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or songqualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in
the U.S. copyright statute. Unfortunately, the weighing of these four factors is often quitesubjective and complex, and for this reason, it's often difficult to determine whether a
particular use is a "fair use." If the copyright owner disagrees with your interpretation offair use, the copyright owner may chose to resolve the dispute in court. If it turns out that
your use is not a fair use, then you are infringing the copyrights of the owner and youmay be liable for monetary damages.
22
Digital Filtering Technologies Within User-Generated Content Sites
Filtering technologies can be even more damaging to a users ability to view and utilize
copyrighted materials under the fair use provision because content can be censored before it has
the chance to be uploaded to a video-sharing site like YouTube.
Googles filtering system for YouTube does not preemptively block content, but the
systems devised by a copyright consortium consisting of corporations including CBS, Disney,
Fox, Microsoft, Myspace, NBC and Viacom agree to use technology to eliminate copyright-
infringing content uploaded by Web users and to block any pirated material before it is publicly
accessible.23
This type of video fingerprinting technology works by comparing prospective video
content with an existing of database of copyrighted content. Filtering technologies are efficient
because they can reliably capture all copyrighted content that is indexed in its database.
Unfortunately, while fingerprinting technology may be able to flag copyrighted material, it can't
22 YouTube.com, Using Some Copyrighted Content in Your Videos, http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright23
Kenneth Li. Media Companies in Copyright Pact, Google Absent, Reuters News Service. October 18, 2007.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/10/18/media_cos_to_disclose_copyright_pact_today_rep
ort/
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
10/20
make judgments about how it's used.24 The problem with the filtering technologies is that they
can identify content, but cannot identify the particular use of the content. Under this type of
system, fair uses can be inadvertently weeded out. The concern in introducing filtering
technologies is that it creates a proactive identification system for infringing content, thus
shift[ing] the onus of copyright enforcement away from the rights holders and towards the sites
themselves.25
The EFF identifies another problem with a dummy system like thisvideo
identification technology may not be able to discern whether a "match" results from a verbatim
infringing copy, or whether it results from a short excerpt embedded in a longer piece that
includes other content.26
The EFF concedes that YouTube does in fact allow users to contest
videos blocked by a filter, but points out that many [users] may not be willing to put themselves
in the crosshairs of movie studio lawyers to determine whether a particular use is fair.27 This
passive intimidation technique may lead to more users censoring the content they upload to sites
like YouTube.
Policy Recommendations
We can identify several areas for improvement so that users rights, specifically fair use
rights, can be enabled and maintained. We need to continually work to support the original
vision of copyright in the United Statesto promote the progress of science and the useful
arts.28
Within the realm of commercial print publishers, companies like John Wiley & Sons have24 Eric Bangeman, Consortiums user-generated content principles extend beyond fair use, Ars Technica. October
18, 2007. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-consortiums-user-generated-content-principles-extend-far-
beyond-fair-use.html25 Ibid.26 Fred Von Lohmann, YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic Frontier Foundation.
October 15, 2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use27
Ibid.28
U.S. Const. Art. I, 8, cl. 8.
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
11/20
demonstrated that copyright warnings need not misrepresent users rights. For example, the 2007
publication ofHotel California: The True-Life Adventures of Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young,
Mitchell, Taylor, Browne, Ronstadt, Geffen, the Eagles, and Their Many Friends contains the
following statement:
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108
of the United States Copyright Act(emphasis added), without either the prior written
permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy
fee to the Copyright Clearance Center29 (See Fig. 4)
While statements like this may seem like a first step towards supporting users rights, they
do not necessarily do all that much to educate the public. Simply stating that users may exercise
their Section 107 and 108 rights does little for the common consumer if they are unaware what
those rights are. Similarly, YouTubes weak support for fair use is less than ideal if all they can
do is urge users to consult an attorney in order to sort out a potential fair use of copyrighted
content.
Some oppose the revisions suggested by the CCIA complaint. Patrick Ross, Executive
Director of the Copyright Alliance30, says that the message of copyright warnings is clear and
should remain intact. He also claims that a public inundated with confusing fair use information
could actually promote more unlawful uses of work. Ross says:
I don't think we want copyright warnings to become a fair use public service
announcement. No, these warnings do exactly what they're meant to donotify
consumers in a succinct fashion that infringement has legal consequences. Going furtherhas risks; for example, describing fair use merely as a "consumer right" can leadotherwise well-meaning individuals to infringe on content and face civil or criminal
29CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.8
30The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright
as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth. More information available at http://www.copyrightalliance.org/aboutus
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
12/20
liabilities, because they only paid attention to the misleading disclaimer forced into thenotice and acted in a way that wasn't covered under "fair use" as legally defined.
31
Misstated copyright warnings and corporate copyright propaganda need to be immediately
redressed. At the same time, stating that users have an abstract right to fair use of the material
without explaining the concept will not be valuable. We need to be able to point to specific
examples of fair uses. In addition to generic copyright notices (such as 2007 Jack Bernard) we
should work to develop standardized language for an informative statement that can more clearly
balance the rights available to both copyright holders and users of the work.
For video content, Bucknell University Professor Eric Faden created a humorous short film
that pieces together clips from various Disney Films to poke fun of that corporations push for
increased copyright extensions. The copyright warning that rolls at the onset of the film
parodies the dire message we see at the beginning of nearly all films on DVD, but with a unique
twist urging for expanded user rights:
Warning. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions ofcopyrighted motion pictures, videotapes, or video discus under certain circumstances
without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is calledfair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching, andparody.
32(See Fig. 5)
While this parodied copyright warning is not likely to be adopted by any film studio, the
message can work to build solidarity and bring awareness to the issues of control around
copyrighted works.
31 Patrick Ross, Perspective: Fair Use is Not a Consumer Right, News.com. September 6, 2007.
http://www.news.com/Fair-use-is-not-a-consumer-right/2010-1030_3-6205977.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-
5&subj=news32
Eric Faden, A Fair(y) Use Tale, Stanford Center for Internet and Society. March 1, 2007.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
13/20
To rebuff hasty DMCA take down notices, projects like the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
work to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats.33
The
clearinghouse provides an online form where users can easily generate a counternotice. The
clearinghouse aims to make it easier for users to assert their rights, possibly without the need to
hire an attorney.
Groups like the EFF have worked to address problems with misapplied DMCA take down
notices. After the Stop the Falsiness incident, the EFF convinced Viacom to create a dedicated
email address to aggregate counter notifications. The EFF calls this the Dolphin Hotline. The
idea of the hotline is to give affected users an efficient way to informally request that incorrectly
removed content be reinstated. Creators of the YouTube mashup film 10 Things I Hate About
Commandments used the hotline after YouTube removed their video. The video used footage
from The Ten Commandments, the seminal Chaleton Heston film owned by Paramount
Picture (Viacom). The creators claimed a fair use to the material in their transformed version. To
the groups surprise, Viacom withdrew its takedown notice within four business days after the
creators sent an email message to the hotline address.34
In reaction to proposed filtering technologies, the EFF has offered several guidelines aimed
to balance copyright owners rights with fair uses of the materials. The EFF recognized that
many users are incorporating copyrighted materials in order to create new, transformative works.
These new derivative works may constitute a fair use of the original copyrighted content.
In a report entitled Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, a group of
organizations including the EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Social Media,
Public Knowledge, Harvards Berkman Center for Internet and Society and others proffer a
33Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, About Us. Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. http://www.chillingeffects.org/about
34Fred von Lohmann, Viacom Nets, Releases Another Fair Use Dolphin, Electronic Frontier Foundation. June 20,
2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/viacom-nets-releases-another-fair-use-dolphin
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
14/20
framework to navigate online user generated content. The consortium offers several
recommendations, including the following:
providing users a wide berth for transformative and creative uses of content incorporating filters only if they offer protections for fair usesrequiring that content owners properly file DMCA notices so that users alleging improper
take down have a structural and legal recourse for appeal
ensuring that users who are the subject of the DMCA take down be notified and explainedtheir rights thereafter
suggesting an informal dolphin hotline to be maintained by content owner organizationsso that users can more easily communicate with owners if they feel their content is adolphin mistakenly caught in the tuna nets
requiring that service providers abide by the counternotice-and-putback process set forthby the DMCA and be able to act within a judicious time period in responding to users
putback requests35
The guidelines suggest that various precautions if content filtering technologies are
implemented to prevent illegal posting of copyrighted content on sites like YouTube. The report
suggests that filtering technologies should ensure a match of both the video and audio tracks
before that material is automatically removed. Furthermore, the report suggests that a ratio test
might be implementedif nearly the entirety (e.g., 90% or more) of the challenged content is
comprised of a single copyrighted work, that work should be flagged.36 This would drastically cut
down on the videos improperly identified as infringementif the match is only 10% of the
entire video, that's a good indication that we're talking about transformative content, rather than
verbatim copying.37
35 Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, EFF, p. 1.
http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen36
Ibid., 237
Fred Von Lohmann, YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic Frontier Foundation.
October 15, 2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
15/20
Central to a fair use analysis, especially with the introduction of automatic filtering
technologies, is the ability for human review. The report offers the principle that humans trump
machineshuman creators should be afforded the opportunity to dispute the conclusions of
automated filters.38 Human review is crucial in order to understand the diverse range of cases
bound to arise. Human-mediated interpretation of the materials surrounding context is key.
Rights-holding corporations have long been worried about piracy, which has prompted
misleading copyright statements, aggressive and overreaching DMCA take down notices, and the
exploration of automatic filtering technologies. Many of these practices have harmed content
users by curbing otherwise legal uses of copyrighted materials. We should support the rights
already granted to us under fair use, and continually work to rebuff miseducation campaigns and
technological impediments to using copyrighted content in ways that promote science, art and
human creativity. This Center for Social Media report argues that progress on this topic is
especially important now: For those interested in the public health of the body politic and
social, this is a critical moment, when new speech habits are being established.39
38 Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, EFF, p. 2.
http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen39
Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video Creators on Copyright,
April 2007. p. 2. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusing/
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
16/20
EXHIBITS
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
17/20
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
18/20
Fig. 5
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
19/20
Works Cited
Bangeman, Eric. Consortiums user-generated content principles extend beyond fair use, ArsTechnica. October 18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-consortiums-user-generated-content-
principles-extend-far-beyond-fair-use.html
Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video
Creators on Copyright, April 2007.http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusin
g/
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. About Us, Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. AccessedDecember 7, 2007. http://www.chillingeffects.org/about
Computer and Communications Industry Association. In the Matter of Misrepresentation of
Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights By National Football League, NFL Properties,Inc., NFL Enteprises LLC and Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball
Properties, Inc., Major League Baseball Advanced Media, LP and NBC Universal, Inc.,Universal Studios, Inc., and Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. and DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc., DreamWorks LLC, a Viacom property and Harcourt Inc. andPenguin Group (USA), Inc. August 1, 2007.
http://www.defendfairuse.org/include/complaint.html
Coyle, Karen. Deceptive Copyright Notices, Coyles Information. August 1, 2007. AccessedDecember 7, 2007. http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/08/deceptive-copyright-notices.html
Defend Fair Use. Executive Summary of FTC Complaint, Defendfairuse.org. Accessed
December 7, 2007. http://www.defendfairuse.org/ftc_complaint.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report,Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 22, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.
http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#005176
Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content,http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen
Faden, Eric. A Fair(y) Use Tale, Stanford Center for Internet and Society. March 1, 2007.
Accessed December 7, 2007. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale
Li, Kenneth. Media Companies in Copyright Pact, Google Absent, Reuters News Service.
October 18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/10/18/media_cos_to_disclose_
copyright_pact_today_report/
-
8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It
20/20
McLeod, Kembrew. Uri Gellers YouTube Takedown, Los Angeles Times Online. September18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mcleod18sep18,0,5284602.story?coll=la-news-comment
Ross, Patrick. Perspective: Fair Use is Not a Consumer Right, News.com. September 6, 2007.Accessed December 7, 2007. http://www.news.com/Fair-use-is-not-a-consumer-right/2010-1030_3-6205977.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
Seltzer, Wendy. My First DMCA Takedown, Wendy.Seltzer.org:Legal Tags, The Blog.
February 13, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html
Von Lohmann, Fred. Viacom Nets, Releases Another Fair Use Dolphin, Electronic Frontier
Foundation. June 20, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/viacom-nets-releases-another-fair-use-dolphin
Von Lohmann, Fred. YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic
Frontier Foundation. October 15, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use
YouTube.com. Copyright Tips: Using Some Copyrighted Content in Your Videos. Accessed
December 7, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright