This is not the story you might first think it is. This is coming from a CAGW promoting site.~ctm
We created two YouTube channels for science. This was back in 2011, a time when the video platform was dominated by videos from climate change deniers, and only few Universities had a channel at all, let alone subscribers in the four digits. It was perplexing, you could find all these videos about Al Gore`s An Inconvenient Truth, and how all was a big deliberate hoax, but not the actual documentary. That’s when we uploaded his film (we tried to reach out to him and Paramount asking for permission, but got no answer). The YouTube AI did a great job in flagging this carbon copy within minutes, blocking it worldwide and resulted in our first copyright strike. But we thought it was worth trying.
Then we tried to upload content which was already out there, but only a few seconds, for instance to illustrate the Greenhouse Effect, though this took the AI a bit longer to block. We had videos by NASA Ad blocked, we had Copyright Strikes by climate deniers on videos which trended, and then we decided to focus on a second channel, focusing on content we created. This was around 2016, and around that time YouTube begun to seriously crack down on channels, they or others have been flagged in the the past, resulting in the termination of both our channels.
YouTube email: After review, we determined that activity in your account violated our Community Guidelines, which prohibit spam, scams or commercially deceptive content.
Following a petition with over 3000 signatures, without explaining, at least one of our channels came back. But YouTube didn’t stop there. They refused to let us contest a copyright strike. Continuously we receive false copyright claims on the same content, as if YouTube completely ignores public domain content, content we usually use these days. It shouldn’t be too hard to update the existing system with that content, but no.
Then came February 2019, a balmy morning a few days earlier YouTube updated their terms & conditions. This time they came for our ad revenue, demonetizing our channel. No more income for us. This time there was not even an email, just out of the blue, though a notice in our channel backend informed us, we were allowed to reapply within a month for monetization.
The video that even a court agreed used false claims?
Still:
A) You did not get permission and the film is copyrighted.
That little failure gives Al Gore the right to ask Youtube to block use of his videos! Until, you, pay Al Gore his fees.
I assume you are describing the faked experiment?
B) Posting even that small portion of Gore’s video is still a violation of Al Gore’s copyright!
C) By all rights, you owe Al Gore the missing fees for every visit to your Youtube page with his videos.
D) From your own statements, you appear to have used the work of others for your Youtube earnings. I can not find fault with their change in terms.
A) correct. they violated the copyright by uploading the entire film without permission. Shame on them
B) not correct. Small portions of a copyright work may be allowed under fair use provided all other provisions of fair usage are adhered to.
C) Certainly for every visit to view the movie that they illegally uploaded, not so for any small clip that meets fair use standards
D) exactly, they admit their guilt when they admitted they uploaded the film without getting permission to do so. (failure to get a reply does not equal getting permission).
B) That only works if it’s transformative in some way. Commentary or refutation makes it definitely allowed. That’s why “debunking” videos filled with clips are legal, but excepts are not. The commentary changes everything.
From the description, it appears that they did not change it, but just posted clips.
Yes, that’s why you can’t post episodes of your favoriate anime, but you can post a split-screen (camera on you, split screen showing the anime) reaction video of you watching your favorite anime. Unless it’s something nobody cares about anymore like Dougram: Fang of the Sun or Blue Gender.
B) That only works if it’s transformative in some way
Hence why I said “may be allowed under fair use provided …” and not “is allowed. (period)”
Alexa
Flagged by a politically left leaning progressive algorithm for being a scam, best case of AI learning by itself i’ve ever seen.
If I must not quote what I want to discuss or criticize, then copyright has made a final victory over freedom of speech as it is the case in the “EU”.
Ladies, Gentlemen and whatever you are, shut up. You are done. Feel free to buy a streamlined, MSM conformistic opinion online.
I don’t think enough people realise the scope of the latest EU clamp down of freedom of speech and the removal of the freedom to share legitimate content with others, over the internet.
At some point, when enough people are silenced completely, and not allowed to hold an opinion that differs from the prescribed state view, maybe at that point, the penny will drop. Totalitarian control is not a positive addition to personal freedom.
In Germany, under the cloak of copyright infringement, a report on Monsanto/Bayers “Roundup”, compiled by the federal Institute for Risk asessment (Bundesinstiut für Risikobewertung (BfR)) had to be taken down from a “Roundup”-critical website (https://fragdenstaat.de/) = ask the state. This report had to be handed over beforehand under the rules of the German FoIA. But when it came to publishing it on the internet, a cease and desist warrant was quickly issued and FragdenStaat had to take it down. Information collected with taxpayers money, officially handed over and finally banned from being made public because of “Copyright Infringement” . Congrats!
In the U.S., all government-published material is copyright-free.
God bless america.
I don’t understand this; please elaborate. If the report is freely available from the federal risk assessment bureau (BfR), exactly who is asserting copyright infringement — the BfR? Even so, if the report is available from the BfR just by asking, I don’t see this as a case of suppressing information.
In some cases US agencies will have access to privileged information (e.g., trade secrets), and while they can acquire and use that information to prepare a report, they can’t release the privileged information. In such a case those portions of the report are redacted, but anyone can post a copy of the redacted report.
The long-awaited Mueller Report being a current example.
Far too many of the articles on this site are nothing but cut-and-paste from other sites; which has got to be a copyright violation.
As I understand the “fair use” rules, the copied material has to be only a small part of your article. That is, quoting a section of another article and then writing more analysing what was written is fair use; just copying part of an article without comment is not.
Thus this article is violating ClimateState’s copyright, to make it fair use you need to add analysis explaining why is is rubbish.
In reality, whoever feels inclined or entitled will ask to take that article down. They will claim “their copyright” and will leave it to the courts to decide, which will require a helluva lot of time and money. Even if they will not succeed, they have won. The article will be no longer available. And what will happen to the Internet Archive? They will have to take it down as well.
You will be forced to comply. Period.
I don’t think I missed anything here. The point is that AlGorebullspit wants money anytime his idiot movie is run – as if he didn’t make enough cash from it already – and he wasn’t getting any, so he whined about it to YouTube.
Other similar blockages of cash flow have occurred elsewhere. If you plan to make a living or even just a little side cash from something you post on YouTube or the internet’s various other places, it appears now that your content must be as neutral as shoveling snow in the winter in Waukesha and complaining about it. Otherwise, your revenues will be yanked. Or am I missing something here? Is it maybe because YourTubes got served with a copyright infringement notice first? They have much more to lose than those who post on their channels.
Copyright infringement is rampant everywhere. Someone some time back tried to snag some of my images off a website that puts a screen on them to protect them from copyright infringement, and then complained to the web owner about it. I got copies of that back-and-forth stuff. It was a hoot. Under the Fair Use part, you can “borrow” the work, but have to acknowledge the source and you cannot make any money off of it.
It boils down to this: always follow the money. That’s the real issue. The rest is just window dressing.
Youtube has become notorious for allowing copyright claims that take the monitized content and give it to the person/company filing the claim, even though they have no real claim to it. Nor, from the videos I’ve seen about it, will Youtube assist the victims in reaching out to the claimer.
Having quickly reviewed the channel, there is a vast amount of junk science and completely dishonest nonsense on it.
No wonder, videos claiming the polar vortex is caused by human emissions of CO2, Earth’s fish are disappearing because of human emissions of CO2..
Just two of the many absolutely junk nonsense videos of many, misinformation at best, absolutely deranged lunacy at worst, why should youtube see this complete garbage as ad worthy?
Whomever is posting this nonsense content is not well mentally, if they believe in the utter bollox they are putting on youtube 😀
Even nonsense is copyrighted. See Monty Python or Benny Hill…but this is great nonsense.
Having quickly reviewed the channel, there is a vast amount of junk science and completely dishonest nonsense on it.
Be that as it may, copyright doesn’t care about whether something is honest or makes sense. You can have copyright on works that tell lies and/or Is nonsensical (see Al Gore’s movie for example).
Allan
Good review of an impossible situation.
However, taking away your reward introduces a new term:
Radical petulance.
The truly sad thing is history is replete with examples of horrible results from noble intentions. See the Great Leap Forward for a recent extreme case. Take one part human fallibility and add suppression of dissent and you have all the ingredients necessary to produce tragedy. Since human fallibility is a universal constant, outlawing dissent pretty much guarantees tragedy.
At some scale, tragedy becomes evil.
Google (or whatever) New Copyright Law. For example:
“EUROPE’S NEW COPYRIGHT LAW COULD CHANGE THE WEB WORLDWIDE”
https://www.wired.com/story/europes-copyright-law-could-change-the-web/
the “legal point” is largely irrelevant.
the more trenchant principle is that of “the biter, bit”, ie if you spend your time and energy building up a machine to compel other people to behave as you think they ought, you have no reasonable defense when that machine is used against you. Especially when control of the machine depends on a majority vote in parliament, and you thought this was just peachy keen while the votes were going your way …