DJ Meyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 47
- Points
- 48
They could just put it in a private YouTube channel like a normal person.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
“Blatant Censorship”
- Thread starter Misha Engel
- Start date
They could just put it in a private YouTube channel like a normal person.
- Thread starter
- #22
Misha Engel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,849
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
- Moderator
- #23
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Reaction score
- 796
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.phfx.com
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.
Justin McAleece
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
- Age
- 47
- Location
- Fresno, CA
- Website
- www.blaremedia.net
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.
- Thread starter
- #25
Misha Engel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,849
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
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.
Björn Benckert
Well-known member
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.
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.
- Moderator
- #27
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Reaction score
- 796
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.phfx.com
@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.
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.
Scot Yount
Well-known member
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...chael-moore-jeff-gibbs-censorship-1202942938/
Karim D. Ghantous
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #30
Misha Engel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,849
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
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.
Michael Tiemann
Well-known member
Since this thread was moved to off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to a logical error the Phil Holland repeats about copyright, fair-use, and censorship. He says:
The logical error of the above is that it presumes that any use of existing material covered by copyright provides EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE rights relative to the use of that material. Copyright provides LIMITED exclusivity, and there is (or was) a doctrine of fair use, not for the purposes of ripping somebody off by selling their work as your own, but by providing the opportunity to recontextualize the work, to transform it, to provide commentary, etc. We have seen attacks on such fair use, such as a warning before sporting events that all descriptions, images, scores, statistics, etc., are the sole property of the league and that nobody can even discuss their experiences of the game without express permission. Nobody takes that seriously, but legally that's where we are, and if somebody were to make JUNEBUG today, the NFL would likely strike down the movie on the grounds that one of the characters talks about the results of a football game. Which is obnoxious from a fair-use perspective--why should American filmmakers not be able to illustrate an aspect of one of their characters by showing their relationship to one of America's favorite sports?
But...and this is my real beef with the whole problem of over-zealous copyright--such over-expansive interpretations of EXCLUSIVITY vs. FAIR USE, is that disrupting the balance between private ownership (the grant of copyright) and the public good (the purpose of copyright, written into the US General Statutes) leads precisely to the point where OWNERS can assert COPYRIGHT as a MEANS OF CENSORSHIP.
And not just censorship of things happening in the here-and-now. The term of copyright was set by the founders set as 7+7 years, and then 14+14 years, but has since been expanded time and again until the present day, in which case it is virtually perpetual. Which means future generations will never be able to comment or critique such media as has become prevalent in society because all "use" of that media is presumed commercial and proprietary to the owners.
And so I take the side that copyright assertion can and has been used as a cynical tool of censorship. I don't have any opinion about the Michael Moore movie (which, frankly, I don't care to watch). But I have very strong opinions that bogus claims of copyright have been and will be asserted specifically to censor media that is well within normal fair use doctrine, before the takeover of the corporate kelptocracy.
The logical error of the above is that it presumes that any use of existing material covered by copyright provides EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE rights relative to the use of that material. Copyright provides LIMITED exclusivity, and there is (or was) a doctrine of fair use, not for the purposes of ripping somebody off by selling their work as your own, but by providing the opportunity to recontextualize the work, to transform it, to provide commentary, etc. We have seen attacks on such fair use, such as a warning before sporting events that all descriptions, images, scores, statistics, etc., are the sole property of the league and that nobody can even discuss their experiences of the game without express permission. Nobody takes that seriously, but legally that's where we are, and if somebody were to make JUNEBUG today, the NFL would likely strike down the movie on the grounds that one of the characters talks about the results of a football game. Which is obnoxious from a fair-use perspective--why should American filmmakers not be able to illustrate an aspect of one of their characters by showing their relationship to one of America's favorite sports?
But...and this is my real beef with the whole problem of over-zealous copyright--such over-expansive interpretations of EXCLUSIVITY vs. FAIR USE, is that disrupting the balance between private ownership (the grant of copyright) and the public good (the purpose of copyright, written into the US General Statutes) leads precisely to the point where OWNERS can assert COPYRIGHT as a MEANS OF CENSORSHIP.
And not just censorship of things happening in the here-and-now. The term of copyright was set by the founders set as 7+7 years, and then 14+14 years, but has since been expanded time and again until the present day, in which case it is virtually perpetual. Which means future generations will never be able to comment or critique such media as has become prevalent in society because all "use" of that media is presumed commercial and proprietary to the owners.
And so I take the side that copyright assertion can and has been used as a cynical tool of censorship. I don't have any opinion about the Michael Moore movie (which, frankly, I don't care to watch). But I have very strong opinions that bogus claims of copyright have been and will be asserted specifically to censor media that is well within normal fair use doctrine, before the takeover of the corporate kelptocracy.
Simon Dunne
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 18
EXCLUSIVE, updated with new details, 11:42 AM: Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs’ controversial documentary Planet of the Humans has been removed from YouTube, where it was streaming for free— a move the pair calls a “blatant act of censorship.”
EP Moore and writer-producer Gibbs told Deadline they discovered today that their film, which has racked more than 8.3 million views in a month-plus, was taken down from YouTube after a copyright claim was lodged against the documentary over four seconds of footage it contains.
4+ weeks up with free distribution, plus you can still watch it elsewhere. I know a fair few movies that haven't even lasted in the cinema for a week! https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/54571/11-movies-made-less-400-us-box-office
Robert Hofmeyr
Well-known member
Wow. Do you know which four seconds? I wonder why don't they just black out that clip and re-upload?
- Thread starter
- #34
Misha Engel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,849
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Censorship by big corp which is published in the mainstream media is way better advertising than black those 4 seconds. Now it's not just one free stream from Moore and Gibbs', but thousends of streams from others on youtube(and other media outlets) with the same content(incl. the 4 seconds). "There is no such thing as bad publicity" for both Moore/Gibbs' and youtube.
- Moderator
- #35
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Reaction score
- 796
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.phfx.com
As more of this comes out, just playing a hunch here, there's more material in this thing that's not licensed. There's even a couple tracks in there not credited at the end of the film and it appears several music pieces used are also not licensed.
Yes, it's absurd that 4 seconds got this whole thing removed from YouTube. We are only being told about that 4 seconds for now. I fully suspect many more, probably around 20 entities, were not informed of their work being used in this film.
In terms of ethics of copyright and fair use, I certainly see where Michael is coming from. But do take note that this is a fully fledged and financed production, despite being offered for free viewing. People were paid to create this piece. Some material was licensed or permission was granted. It will be interesting in the next month to see who else discovers their work is in here.
We do live in an era where you can watch reaction videos on YouTube and that is often transformative enough, but I certainly know that is a hot, hot, hot topic behind the scenes as people receive revenue from views whether there is insight or just fishing for views. Gets much more interesting considering some of the contracts of ownership regarding some content, which is why you don't see many "film reactions", though certainly reviews w/ clips and what not. Meanwhile musicians are paid $30K+ for how some of the music was utilized in this project. I need to look up some of the current trend of what's allowed regarding 10-15 second segments of things. Most of the leeway provided in the world of YouTube regarding copywritten content being used is the benefit of free advertising. And that's usually by an individual, not a production company. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There's many ways to produce this in a less controversial manner, but at this point for many the goal is just to get eyeballs on something, no matter the repercussions.
*edit. I understand it's hard for many to grasp. But with traditional "anything" there are image releases, talent being paid to be in that content, etc. But when somebody or somebody's work ends up in something where no documentation and normal path of production goes down there are big concerns about consent at the end of the day over usage. Specifically in regards to an actual production. We aren't watching the "news" here. And even the news contacts people to get clearance or pays when they need a clip.
Yes, it's absurd that 4 seconds got this whole thing removed from YouTube. We are only being told about that 4 seconds for now. I fully suspect many more, probably around 20 entities, were not informed of their work being used in this film.
In terms of ethics of copyright and fair use, I certainly see where Michael is coming from. But do take note that this is a fully fledged and financed production, despite being offered for free viewing. People were paid to create this piece. Some material was licensed or permission was granted. It will be interesting in the next month to see who else discovers their work is in here.
We do live in an era where you can watch reaction videos on YouTube and that is often transformative enough, but I certainly know that is a hot, hot, hot topic behind the scenes as people receive revenue from views whether there is insight or just fishing for views. Gets much more interesting considering some of the contracts of ownership regarding some content, which is why you don't see many "film reactions", though certainly reviews w/ clips and what not. Meanwhile musicians are paid $30K+ for how some of the music was utilized in this project. I need to look up some of the current trend of what's allowed regarding 10-15 second segments of things. Most of the leeway provided in the world of YouTube regarding copywritten content being used is the benefit of free advertising. And that's usually by an individual, not a production company. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There's many ways to produce this in a less controversial manner, but at this point for many the goal is just to get eyeballs on something, no matter the repercussions.
*edit. I understand it's hard for many to grasp. But with traditional "anything" there are image releases, talent being paid to be in that content, etc. But when somebody or somebody's work ends up in something where no documentation and normal path of production goes down there are big concerns about consent at the end of the day over usage. Specifically in regards to an actual production. We aren't watching the "news" here. And even the news contacts people to get clearance or pays when they need a clip.
Jiri Vrozina
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Thread starter
- #37
Misha Engel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,849
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Now the socialmedia picked the wrong opponent:
Trump signs social media executive order challenging platforms' liability protections
Trump threatened to “close down” - or at least “strongly regulate” - social media platforms that engage in ideologically-motivated censorship earlier this week after Twitter slapped a “fact-check” notice on a tweet he’d posted about mail-in voting.
Before signing the executive order, he doubled down on his criticism of the platform, declaring that decisions about what content gets fact-checked and what gets ignored are “editorial positions” and the equivalent of political activism. Merely the act of making such choices is “inappropriate” for a platform under Section 230 protection, he told reporters.
Meanwhile the russians stopped watching comedy and changed to watch the US.
https://www.rt.com/usa/490055-trump-signs-executive-order-twitter/
and
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html
The Green guy is powerful the Orange guy has nukes and uses them, what a world we live in...
Trump signs social media executive order challenging platforms' liability protections
Trump threatened to “close down” - or at least “strongly regulate” - social media platforms that engage in ideologically-motivated censorship earlier this week after Twitter slapped a “fact-check” notice on a tweet he’d posted about mail-in voting.
Before signing the executive order, he doubled down on his criticism of the platform, declaring that decisions about what content gets fact-checked and what gets ignored are “editorial positions” and the equivalent of political activism. Merely the act of making such choices is “inappropriate” for a platform under Section 230 protection, he told reporters.
Meanwhile the russians stopped watching comedy and changed to watch the US.
https://www.rt.com/usa/490055-trump-signs-executive-order-twitter/
and
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html
The Green guy is powerful the Orange guy has nukes and uses them, what a world we live in...
DJ Meyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 47
- Points
- 48
It's almost as if the cries of censorship are disingenuous from someone who should know better than to use clips without permission.
No that couldn't be it.
Jacek Zakowicz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 3,537
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
It was pretty clear from the get go that the "green movement giants" depicted will do everything they can to take it down since the documentary exposed them. The easiest thing to do was file copyright infringement complaint with Youtube. I think Moore was counting on it for free advertising campaign. It worked brilliantly....for both parties- speaking of win-win ;-)
Remington Chase
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,081
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 38
Just want to point out as someone who spends over $1mil per month on bandwidth that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth.
We are constantly getting hit with copyright notice claims for footage we shot and allowed the use of in companies that we have ownership in. As we are not making the claim against ourselves where is it coming from? AI?
We are about to see a massive roll back on the copyright. The absurd concept that things in public view (like a building or Hollywood sign) can be copyrighted is already gone and now that Micky Mouse, Superman and Batman are in public domain after changing the law through bribery for decades I think we will see it back to 10 or 15 years soon.
We are constantly getting hit with copyright notice claims for footage we shot and allowed the use of in companies that we have ownership in. As we are not making the claim against ourselves where is it coming from? AI?
We are about to see a massive roll back on the copyright. The absurd concept that things in public view (like a building or Hollywood sign) can be copyrighted is already gone and now that Micky Mouse, Superman and Batman are in public domain after changing the law through bribery for decades I think we will see it back to 10 or 15 years soon.