Thread: “Blatant Censorship”

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21  
    Senior Member DJ Meyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post

    Seven year old children who are trying to play a piece of Chopin on a piano and upload the recording to youtube to show it to Grandma and Grandpa are banned from Youtube, Facebook, etc.. and not for the horrible performance, but for license infringment (Chopin died in 1849, so he is not complaining).
    They could just put it in a private YouTube channel like a normal person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Meyer View Post
    They could just put it in a private YouTube channel like a normal person.
    https://youtu.be/huJQN5OE-4w?t=755
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    When someone uses your content without explicit permission, you can contact them... or blatantly censor them.
    There are two paths you can take via the YouTube ecosystem. You can produce a 7 day take down notice or an immediate one. And yes you can reach out to production company as well. All of this however puts the effort towards the content creator and it's up to them how to figure out to handle it. I'm suspecting specifically one bit of content they attempted to reach out to the executive producer and probably couldn't even reach them, which is a common wall for this sort of activity.

    From there it's just a ticking clock before any of the content is taken down. One option allows you to still use the platform. The other nukes the channel or provides a stern warning.

    You refer to censorship, this truly isn't the case as the video is up in various other arenas until likely at this point legal entities get involved. Which will be good for the filmmakers effected because they are all owed money at this point. There are some specific documentary guidelines that help avoid this, however in this case, this is a pretty cut and dry rights and ownership issue.

    Even funnier because in a few cases all that was required was probably just asking to use the clips and crediting the filmmakers accordingly. But they didn't do either of those things either.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    Posts
    758
    Some of the things Michael Moore purportedly stands for are in line with my beliefs. I wish he wasn't so damn deceitful. It hurts the causes in my mind.
    Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
    - Theodore Roosevelt

    Justin McAleece
    Sigma Pro Primes and Video Production
    Justin at BLAREMedia dot net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Even funnier because in a few cases all that was required was probably just asking to use the clips and crediting the filmmakers accordingly. But they didn't do either of those things either.
    And the funniest thing is that Michael Moore cum suis got what they want, attention for their docu(including the message) and exposing Youtube for what they are, just another censoring commercial vehicle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    To me its clear that the video platforms needs to work on their routines for handing copyright issues. As an example I had a vimeo account where I uploaded something like +5000 plus productions we worked on. All with premission from the producers and clients we worked with to have them there.

    It was mostly commercials but also music videos and as we had so many of them there was a lot of people commentingting and clicking like etc so in my mail I had several emails a day comming from vimeo, most I just deleted and did not read. But still it was fun to see what people liked etc so I did not turn of those notifications.

    Any how, a few years ago a lot of record companies hired some lawyers to go hunt for copyright infringements on youtube and vimeo. So those guys found that I had, both Kylie Minogue, Beyonce and David Bowie videos on my vimeo feed. All that I worked on and had permission from the producer to have on my page / vimeo page. Apparently I had got 3 warning emails from vimeo, which I did not see as they look very much like the emails I got when people were commenting on these or other videos. So as I did not reply Vimeo decided not only to, lock those videos or my account but to delete all my content... That had taken quite some time and effort for me to upload, not to mention the hassle of linking all those films onto our webpage, news letters etc. Over night shit basically just went blank, file missing.


    When contacting vimeo, which was close to impossible, they gave me a few hours to download some of my content but they had then only smaller versions of the files, not the original uploads which was full HD or UHD qicktime prores files. All they left me with was some but not all files and small compressed mp4 files.

    And after that, even though I clearly explained it was a mistake they did not let me restart my account. So had to create another one under a different email and credit card.

    I dont know what kind of content Michael More used here that he did not have the rights for, but sometimes its not completely clear who has the right and the platforms rule of 3 strikes and your out is more than a bit harsh at times. I understand that they sometimes need to shut down files without noticing etc. But banning people completely that build their whole business ontop of their platform without even discussing it I find a bit to rough at times.

    Most of the musicvideos I had on my account was done long before record companies where making money on views, when there was only MTV, and we then hosted the files on our own server as there was no youtube or vimeo and the record companies where happy we did, then of course when they realize that the money was in the vivo streams they want to eradicate all other sources which I understand, but deleting my whole vimeo account in the process is simply not right.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,686
    @misha.

    I'll give you a slightly different example. Instead of Moore backed documentary, let's say Disney used 7 shots of your without permission in a trailer for Avengers XV. It was released and received much attention as it was a marketed effort for financial gain on a legitimate production.

    Describe the steps that you can take in attempting to contact Disney and get them to remove the trailer, potentially just seek out compensation because even with a new edit the damage has been done, and perhaps the effort to get them to not use the footage at all.

    Because people are publishing on a platform like YouTube which has extremely clear wording on copyright, you are playing by their guidelines. If they are doing it say on just their website it will then purely come down the copyright laws themselves.

    You think this is some weird censorship, but one creator has stepped out publicly and mentioned they were using their footage without asking or compensation. I also know of other footage in there that is "the same" who might have been able to reach out more directly. If he publishes the video and has a license to use all the content and the message doesn't go against their terms of service, things should be gravy. Things are getting weirder on this front, but clearly you have a myopic focus on this not being stolen content and rather making it about censorship.

    The true censorship you describe is if the content was licensed and removed from "everywhere". Which even with the unlicensed content, it is still available across the internet.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Scot Yount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Marblehead, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    We will never know the thruth about the why, youtube is part of the Alphabet family and they always give a strang twist on the thruth.
    Good to see it's still on Vimeo and many are uploading it on youtube with a slight different name, best marketing this docu can have (it doesn't matter if you agree with it, it just shouldn't be censored).
    We do know why...the answer is revealed in a Deadline article which is a link on the page you posted.
    https://deadline.com/2020/05/planet-...ip-1202942938/
    Forged CF Helium 8K 00107
    Scarlet X 02249 (The Gateway Drug)
    Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 Version 2
    RED Pro Zooms and Primes
    Director/DP at https://www.butcherbox.com

    Living life by the ocean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,912
    This really belongs in the Off Topic forum. As for cinematography, this production was poorly lit and shot. Having said that, none of it is news to me. I've been made aware of the futility of renewables for a long while now.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Meyer View Post
    They could just put it in a private YouTube channel like a normal person.
    Why should they? It's out of copyright. That's the end of the matter. You are doing a George Costanza - negotiating yourself a worse position.

    As for fair use, sorry guys, you must recognise that you can't always bill people by the second. I don't think anyone here, including me, really knows how fair use works. That's not an insult, BTW. Just saying.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram | 1961 (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Scot Yount View Post
    We do know why...the answer is revealed in a Deadline article which is a link on the page you posted.
    https://deadline.com/2020/05/planet-...ip-1202942938/
    Possible answer(s), just how the wind blows with answers from corp. business, as long as you handover your privacy, money and let the people in Hongkong suffer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts