When is your work not your work?

[Robert Hart]

An indie film-making colleague, actually a
professional stills shooter moving into DoP of motion work and way beyond my
meagre skill set - received a copyright violation notice on his own original
work on the basis that it infringed another work which had actually ripped off
and reprocessed his stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qn2aH-WI0M - Copied work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMsTBA2So4 - The original.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

That should be pretty easy to document and revoke

 

[Freya]

Don't understand where the copyright infringement claim is. The bit that seemed most similar was when the blood hit the screen. It seemed like similar pattern in the same place. Other than that the two seemed completely different. Keep in mind that texts can be copyright but ideas are not, at least in theory.

I don't see how the two works are actually similar enough for there to be a copyright claim.

If I make a pseudo martial arts film in which the world isn't really real and everyone is actually networked into a computer in a desolate distopia then I'm not breaching copyright, although people may say it's not very original.

It's not clear to me which bit was supposed to be a breach of copyright. Certainly both works are different in many ways.

love

Freya

 

[Robert Hart]

The copyright violation alleged against the originators apparently is in the visual content. The Spanish derivation has some extra content of its own and altered colours in the copied material. The originators have related the event in a fairly lighthearted manner. They can however well prove their origination in vision and files with date, time etc., plus enough witnesses as to who shot it, where and who acted in it. The alleged violation may have been generated by an automated process.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I just spooled through it, but to me it looked like some of the footy was grabbed from youtube and then regraded to look even worse with new audio applied.

If your friend has the master with original clips, the other movie should be closed down rather quickly...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Don't understand where the copyright infringement claim is. The bit that seemed most similar was when the blood hit the screen. It seemed like similar pattern in the same place. Other than that the two seemed completely different. Keep in mind that texts can be copyright but ideas are not, at least in theory.

I don't see how the two works are actually similar enough for there to be a copyright claim.

If I make a pseudo martial arts film in which the world isn't really real and everyone is actually networked into a computer in a desolate distopia then I'm not breaching copyright, although people may say it's not very original.

It's not clear to me which bit was supposed to be a breach of copyright. Certainly both works are different in many ways.

love

Freya

Are you kidding? Unless I am crazy, the exact same footage appears in both clips. Someone had to have stolen it.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

they are virtually the same. just follow a paper trail to prove which came first.

 

[Patrick OMara]

There's a lot of people that rip video and music and repost, then they post a link to mediafire and/or megaupload(when it was around), to make money from the ads. Happens to my music all the time, although they at least credit me in the info so I don't mind

 

[David W. Jones]

youtube is a cesspool of copyright violation! I would never post any work on their site.

 

[Andy White]

Sort of pointing out the obvious - but the original clip is posted from 2011 and the copy (with the silly music and awful 'regrade') is from 2012.

Should that not, in itself, be enough to disprove a copyright violation notice? I presume this is some type of notice from Youtube?