The Suits are coming, Film Maker Sues Google!
 

This is going to get really interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/macworld/200...lmsuit20061127

What an idiot. Google Video simply hosts whatever people upload to it. Google itself does nothing. If you file a complaint, they will remove infringing content.
Good luck to him...

I guess though, you could have said the same thing about Napster! We'll see where it goes.

Mike

A friend of mine had a short film that had qualified for the Academy Awards by being exhibited in the requisite number of their qualifying festivals, which was then disqualified because one of those festivals hosted the film on their site (for Academy consideration a film must not have been shown on the internet).

In a situation like the one in this thread, a clip that was put up without the filmmaker's consent could have potentially damaging results of this type that are not immediately obvious, and a simple cease-and-desist would not resolve the precedent that had been established.

Charles points out just one of the elements that a lot of people don't know or care about. Paul Tauger, our resident IP attorney often chimes in at this point to offer professional legal point of view.

I happen to be married to an IP attorney, so I'm privy to a lot of the legal aspects that the average person, let alone average filmmaker gets to see or hear about.

Defending your copyright or trademark is an important part of defending your 'property'. IF you don't 'defend' it(That is to say, file suit to protect it) then it can fall into the public domain... and you lose the right to it. Defending your copyright is good not only for YOUR property, it's good for other 'property owners'.

People who complain about lawsuits filed to protect IP, would probably be the first to sue if someone 'commandeered' their front lawn, or cut a path through their yard without permission, simply because it was 'convenient and easy to do'.

I'm watching with interest how the law will develop with the advent of YouTube, Myspace, Google etc. And develop it will.

Richard is correct there. There are some things that need to be done in order to keep your work protected and keep YOU in control over it.

Having said that, my main concern is that good did in fact do nothing. A simple angry letter or complaint would never have worked. The implications of your film now being avaliable via the internet's largest cross roads is already damaging. And yes, it is very true that a film placed on the internet denies you any form of nominations into the Academy awards.

A lot of film festivals are also quite strict on where people show thier films. Last I checked, Sony Tropfest will give your film the boot if it was shows somewhere else. Imagine someone posted your film up in Google, and then you got the boot for it. Its Googles responsibility to respect IP.

I like this analogy better. You set up a homeless shelter, then somone comes in and starts directing people who have money to get free food from the shelter. Its moraly wrong.

Today's world is one in which restaurants are afraid to give leftover food to the homeless for fear of being sued if someone gets sick. And while copyrights and IP deserve to be protected up to a point, that can be carried to extremes in which the penalty for posting something on the internet might be more severe than the penalty for manslaughter. There needs to be a sense of balance here which is currently tilting toward excessive restrictions around copyrights and away from common sense.

Today's world is also one in which a person can invest incredible time money and effort into a product, and have it 'stolen' and spread around the globe in less than twenty four hours by people who don't think it's a 'big deal'... or think it cool to be a 'rengade'.

Research the 'broken window' effect. That's essentially what's happening right now to the IP world. "Hey, it's only a song... a movie... it's not like I'm hurting people..." If you don't fix the windows, or paint out the graffitti IMMEDIATELY in a neighborhood... serious crimes move in exponentially. That's what the prosecution for infringement is about. That's one reason why the cost is so high... because so few people ARE caught.

Let me ask you this. IF you put a lot of work into whatever you produce, a wedding video, or short film say. ANd then saw your work on someone else's website, saying it belonged to them, and they were making money from your labor... you'd be okay with that... right?

Very good points...watch out for your property. I allowed a friend to put a short up online on another website, but she asked me first (she was in the film). If I did a search and found my films online without my consent, I'd research who did it first, then figure out if it's damaging or not.

And if they were charging for it, I would have some major issues with that.

heath

We all know that their was bound to be companies suing Google but this is not the end of a company that has a market value of about 100 to 130 billion dollars. 1 million dollars should be a fair amount of money that Google should give to the Producer of the documentary. On Amazon the documentary is selling for 14.99 and because it’s of a higher quality, I know people are still buying it. You also have the same chances of the DVD being copied as the file that is already on the internet.

Google decision to buy YouTube wasn’t as bad as some may make it out to be. It’s like Sony adding Blu-Ray to the PS3. Blu-Ray was having a slow death before the PS3 came out and Sony knew that they were going to loose a lot of money if they included Blu-Ray. Google Video was never getting as much traffic as MySpace and Google knew that if Rupert Murdoch bought YouTube, their Video service would have died a slow death because theirs no possible way Google would catch up to a combination of MySpace and YouTube or you can just call it MyYouTubeSpace.

One small thing, Sony's PS3 always intended to have a Blu-Ray player and a Blu-Ray player only came out 3-5 months ago. Not sure how you can say it was dying a slow death, but it's been out. And Toshiba loses around $200 or so on every HD DVD player they sell, as of right now.

heath

Of course Sony would make Blu-ray the heart of the PS3, no question there. As to which format will win in the HD DVD arena, if either, that is still a matter for the future to see.

Both formats provide substantial improvement over the current DVD format, and at this point, no one knows which will end up winning. Sony's format has more volume and a few more bells and whistles, but Toshiba’s is much cheaper and easier to get going, or implemented.

The big thing I see, is what is going to follow? I don't see either of these formats surviving more than a year or so, before something better is introduced. Maybe in the long run, the easy introduction required of the Toshiba format will be the best. Anyone remember Beta?

I, we, everyone I know wants a format that will handle the higher capacity needed for HD delivery, but they also want one that will not require hardware change every 6 months to a year. This we and the consumers simply can't afford. If this happens, both formats will "Die a Slow Death!"

Mike

No, of course not. I just think we need to be careful about how we interpret and enforce IP laws, so we don't end up with more nonsense like people getting sued for singing "Happy Birthday," or corporations getting copyrights extended for unreasonable durations.

As far as the 'broken window' effect is concerned, that's a useful concern...but imagine what life would be like if every law on the books was strictly enforced. Do you always drive under the posted speed limit?

I disagree with your argument, Kevin. If someone was making money off of something I poured my own money into, someone who did so illegally, I'd sue, as well. I'm not rich, I'm not a multi-national, horizontally- or vertically-intergrated company, I'm just an indie filmmaker trying to make films and earn a living. If someone takes that away from me illegally, I'll go after them.

And I hope to extend my copyrights for as long as I, or my estate, is around.

heath

My example was probably misinterpreted. A lot of people are saying that the worst choice that Sony have ever made was to include Blu-Ray into the PS3 just like people are saying that Google worst decision they ever made was to buy YouTube. I understand Sony was already going to use Blu-Ray in the PS3 no matter what just like Google originally intended to buy YouTube for a long time now.

I hope Google finds out who is the original uploader of that documentary because most of the blame should go to that individual. Google and YouTube are both very good video sources to have online and some people need to realize that abusing both services by uploading other people’s work can damage the services and people always complain why companies like Apple, Google and Sony spend a lot of money developing copy protection schemes such as DRMs, HDCP, AACS etc.

I was talking to a Google representative months ago about the reasons that they cannot allow just anybody to upload and charge for their programs and the main concern is that people may upload other people work and make money from it, for example someone can charge for work that’s not theirs and Google pays the crook 70% while Google gets 30%. Since Google is working as a distributor and making a lot of money that way, they can be sued even more. Once they have all of their problems solved, they will allow any independent Producer to make money using Google’s video service and they hope to do that by the end of next year if not earlier.

A friend of mine is already selling one of his TV shows on Google and although he probably only made about several dollars the potential is very big because lest say you make a documentary that Google has exclusive rights to distribute and you charge 20 dollars for each download. Not including taxes you will get 14 dollars for each download and if 100,000 people bought it the Producer will receive 1.4 million dollars from Google. Now if 1 million people bought the file, that would equal 14 million dollars for the producer. The sky’s the limit as long as your documentary is perfectly made.

I didn't say you shouldn't. I'm just saying the copyright laws themselves can be abused, and we need to be mindful of that.

That was not the original intent of the copyright laws, and eternal copyrights can be said to stifle innovation.

Copyrights and Patents are completely different animals, have different terms and are meant to protect different things. I don't see how my copyright on my novel or my documentary is 'stifling innovation'. Stealing it is not 'innovation'.

Patents protect practical ideas (inventions), copyrights do not. Trademarks protect names and specific images. Check out Spot's articles on Copyrights:

http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq1.php

It's about music, but covers a lot of stuff. Also, check this out:

http://www.copyright.gov/

heath

I'd add that yes copyrights only protect work that are mostly incoporeal, such as speeches, movies, scripts, writing etc.

However, I think I can understand Kevin's point of view. The problem with copyright is that, an estate can carry on the copyright (and companies who buy it) and make lots of money for things that are incoporeal, possibly outdated, and because of its worth and universality *should* be out in the public domain.

Did you know:

Shakespeare is one of the few pieces of literature openly used as a theatre text for schools to read, write, perform and modify without fear of lawyers kicking them in the head.

The Song "Happy Birthday" would cost $14grand US to be placed in a film. (Achbar, M; Abbott, J; Bakan, J. (2003.) "The Corporation" Big Picture Media Corporation.)

Someone owns the colour blue

Shakespeare and many other others and musicians are in the free public domain, unless you try using a specific recording, etc. For instance, my composer can perform something by Bach for my film, but I can't use a recorded performance by the London Symphony Orchestra for the same film I produced and directed, without permission.

I can put on a play of Othello, but I can't use clips of the movie by Welles if I plan on selling tickets to the play, without permission.

These laws are here to protect us, the creators and artists, and I can say that many of us hope to make a good living by making movies, etc. We need to respect trademarks and copyrights, just as I hope others respect ours.

heath

This link is empty, anyone have the updated link?

Here's a new one.

MIke

http://news.yahoo.com/s/macworld/200...lmsuit20061127

Umm, ok. So where's my million for google leading people to my website? :}

I believe in creator rights but it is ridiculous(the happy birthday example) that the families of creators have rights to the cultural product beyond the creator's death. How can we be sure that a family member is doing what the creator would want with the property and not just doing something to make money off it?

Some cultural works actually benefit from being in the public domain--Shakespeare, Frankenstein, Dracula etc.
In fact, if the law had been followed with Bram Stoker's estate, Murnau's Nosferatu wouldnt exist anymore.

Those recent copyright extensions (Bono act )are just corporate abuse of the system.
Especially hypocritical when Disney and others are fighting for copyright protection and yet made money off public domain works themselves.

Is the colour blue really owned by someone? I know colour combinations can be.

"How can we be sure that a family member is doing what the creator would want with the property and not just doing something to make money off it?"

Not our concern is it? How do we know that ANY family is fullfilling the wishes of a dead relative? Running the business THEY created? Maintaining the farm the way THEY wanted, growing the plants THEY wanted planted? Who are YOU to tell them they can't have what grandpa worked so hard to create and left to them in his will???

Copyrights DO expire. People are bound to fight to hold onto what they or their parents created. Such is the nature of the 'free market'... that you get to pass on what you own - YOUR PROPERTY- to your decendents. (for a while)

Technology (and lifetimes) are changing rapidly, and the law evolves to suit that. Not just in Copyright, but Trademark, and Patent as well. Can it be abused? Sure. Are copyrights stolen everyday? You betcha. It's a constant strugle. Are YOU willing to give up the struggle to protect YOUR property that YOU work hard to create, because a big corporation sues to protect IT'S property? Heck, they're paying to have YOUR work protected in the courts too you know? When a judge makes a ruling, it applies to the copyright OWNER... big or small. Why not send them a donation?

Thanks for not addressing my point. I wasnt speaking about the internet-technology-copyright issue. Never said artists and creators shouldnt have rights--just reacting to the examples of abuse given by others. You may regard a cultural work as being like a farm or some merchandising commodity but I dont.

Rather have it pass into the public domain than be stuck in the hands of a greedy descendent.
At least with the former there is more chance for it to endure. More room for it to grow.

Now excuse me while I go watch Nosferatu(I know you must hate me for not destroying it like the Stoker estate ordered). :)

The Link Is Dead...But Whatever it is, unless GOOGLE themselves did it...he has no case. Not to mention ANY and ALL Video has to be uploaded Manually By a User...even the Video coming Straight or of MTV Comedy Central ect...

I did address your point. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent someone from giving their property away... 'for the cultural good'. People are free to do it now, and do so often. That is their RIGHT.

It is entirely within the bounds of a copyright holder to give their property to the public domain. Indeed, after a time, it WILL fall there. It is also within the legal right of their decendents to do so, OR to seek to have their rights exteneded, by any legal means at their disposal.

I think your point seems to be, that all rights to intellectual property should ONLY belong to the 'creator'... and should not be divisable, nor assignable, and should expire immediately upon their death? Or do I misunderstand where you think copyright law should end? (I assume you feel the same about ALL Intellectual property as well? Should the inventor die immediately after it is created, the patent expires?)

What I regard as a 'cultural work' an what YOU regard as a 'cultural work' is irrelevant. One man's art is another man's trash. What the law regards as an individuals property is what is at stake. One might argue that the market and the 'culture' will set it's value. I hardly think much of the music being downloaded or films being stolen have any value to me, and much less to the 'culture'... but stolen they are, and pockets picked nevertheless.

My point is that copyright to intellectual property IS property. You seem to disagree with this?

Like many of us here, I am getting close to the point of having poured six figures into the media products I create, counting equipment, travel and other expenses. I've done it all out of my own pocket with nothing handed to me. Working long days and many nights, maxing out credit cards, eating ramen noodles for weeks at a time, making sacrifice after sacrifice to make this business dream a reality. I've taken great risks and worked hard with my gear to get a return on this investment, and my hope for the future is that my work will retain its equity for my children and grandchildren. My intellectual property, that is, my work, is what pays the bills - pays off those maxed out cards - gets me from Ramen to steak dinners.

The notion that someday down the road, either me or my family will automatically have this property and its attendant equity literally snatched from our hands and thrust into the public domain in the name of 'innovation' is incredibly uncivilized, even savage to me. The work I create today, if by some stroke of blessing it continues to hold value 100 years or more from now, should financially benefit my family and no one else. Just like my house and the land I own, its age will never negate my rightful ownership of it nor the ownership of those I entrust it to in the future.

As for the "Happy Birthdays" of the world, the creators, their families and their descendants should enjoy the benefits of introducing something so popular and enduring for as long as it remains popular and enduring. I say more power to them.

Intellectual property is no different from physical property. If an IP is in demand, it still has value and that value should benefit whoever worked for it or had the brains to create it - for as long as the owner decides to keep it. If I build a successful business, my descendants should never be under any obligation to give up its fruits.

As for Google Video and YouTube, they have some serious work to do to get their ducks in a row. If they are forced to remove ALL of the copyrighted content right now, there won't be much left of either site.

Dan,

Amen to that. I didn't spend as much as you are, but I put a lot of money and also nearly 10 years of hard work, sacrifice and more. I hope that it all works out for all of us.

heath

No you didnt address it.

I am sure you feel we would be better off if Murnau's illegal film was destroyed-since Stoker's widow wanted it destroyed. Some criminal preserved it. But you havent come out and said it yet.

The Bono Extension act was just a giveaway to big corporations like Disney which lobbied for it, profiting off the works of artists (like Hans Christian Anderson among others).

If we followed your way of thinking(or rather the Disney company's way of thinking) there would be no creative work--because everything you come up with, and every work before yours, was in some way inspired by some work that was created before copyright law. Shakespeare would never have been able to write because some lawyer would have slapped him with a cease and desist. Homer--good grief--he shamelessly violated the rights of artists before him in composing the Illiad. Michaelangelo couldnt have painted the Sistine Chapel. Having copyrights extend way beyond the life of the artist, is just selfish and hypocritical in my opinion. On one hand you want the public to appreciate and think about the work--and yet you want to control their thinking of the subject long after you are dead.

In other words you see it strictly as a money issue--I see it as a cultural one. Whether someone sees the work as quality or trash has nothing to do with it.

But you know, good luck making millions for your heirs' heirs! Just dont do anything that might have been inspired by a Disney work!
:)

As an aside to this thread, how many of you put copyright notices on your films and videos? And what wording do you use?

Yes, Kelley I did address it, and you are avoiding my point.

Copyrights DO expire... just not as quickly as YOU wold personally like. Feel free to immediately place all your creative work into the public domain. What's stopping you? I am sure it has IMMENSE cultural value. (Worth at least the many millions you assume I will be making from mine.)

Whether or not I think something SHOULD be in the public domain, because it has some inherent 'cultural value' is irrelevant to the person who OWNS the copyright. I am sure there are people who think Nosferatu has NO cultural value... they are entitled to their opinion.

The law provides for derivitive works, sampling, educational and journalistic 'fair use'... though that CAN and HAS been abused.

You keep avoiding my point.

WHEN do you think copyright should expire? What in YOUR estimation as to the 'correct' and 'moral' length of term for the intellectual property known as copyright?


And why shouldnt' I be able to GIVE that property to my heirs, for as long as the law allows?

Richard-Kelly and all,

Ok, maybe I should not have started this one. Let's keep it civil.

We have different opinions on this and mostly it depends on what you do or how you are personally affected by these laws.

The copyrights laws are extreemly generous to the holders, while patents are not nearly so. Personally I feel there needs to be some softening of the copyright laws, but it will not happen soon and it will not set well with the owners.


Just keep it nice guys!

Mike

Did you know that Pat O'Reilly of the Miami Heat owns the rights to the words 'Three peat'. And when USC won their third national title, O'reilly threatened to sue USC if they put 'Three peat' on thier shirts/hats/etc.

Kinda crazy.

Odd you'd comment on those two persons. Shakespeare is a well-documented supporter of protecting works, and did everything he could to protect and keep his works to himself. Same with Michelangelo. Shakespeare lobbied to have the quarto become part of the printers manifest.

As far as the term "ThreePeat" being copyrighted, that is incorrect. It is trademarked, but not copyrighted. Slogans, cheers, common phrases, titles, mantras cannot be copyrighted, but rather trademarked.

Just for another point of view (from someone that has well over 800 copyrighted works) that might at least put it in a different light, as I don't expect to change opinions...
Uncle George is from a very small farming town.
Uncle George wanted one thing in his life; a bright red Ferrari...
Uncle George worked very hard to earn enough money to buy his dream car. He spent his entire life supporting that car, building a nice garage for it, washing it regularly, looking after it with all the love, care, and passion one can give to a red Ferrari.
Uncle George got to enjoy his car for most of his adult life; he became known for it, a symbol in the community. People loved seeing uncle George driving that car around town and it somewhat became a symbol in their own lives.
About the time he turned 60, Uncle George died.
He wanted his car to go to his children and grandchildren, but the town came and took it away from them, saying "This red Ferrari is a symbol of our town, our lives, and we don't believe anyone can own it any longer, because it has become so much more to the world than just being your Uncle George's car.
The family was obviously devastated. They loved Uncle George and knew Uncle George wanted them to have the car because not only would they lovingly take care of it, but they'd also been part of his ownership of that car.

Is this a fair scenario? Of course not, but claiming that heirs don't have rights to copyright for at least one generation is silly, IMO. I want my daughter to enjoy my hard works, and to be able to know that my work is being compensated regardless of my life or death. Just because I've died doesn't mean it's still not mine.

All that said, I surely hope this thread calms down very quickly, or it's destined to be banished to cyberspace.
Chill out guys, you're arguing about whether someone should be allowed to possess a physical idea. Nothing more.

Spot,

Thanks for the great example; and I agree, let's calm down. This thread is getting a bit heated.

heath

Hey I am being nice--I just gave my opinion to the comments about colours being owned and lazy heirs of heirs charging ridiculous amounts of money for a 4 line song with a simplistic tune and I was accused of being against artist rights(which I most definitely support).
Did Shakespeare believe that his descendents living today should have control of his works?


I just dont view cultural works as being the same as a farm or commercial product, or that creator rights and heir rights are the same. An heir isnt the creator of the work and can never be. No matter what "the law" says.


I think the US law was fine up to the Bono Extension act.
Leaving money to immediate heirs is fine--but the extension was designed to keep pushing off expiration dates so that corporations(a non person no matter what the supreme court decided) and lazy heirs of heirs can keep milking money out of something they didnt create.
I dont care that Happy Birthday costs $14000 a shot, I am happy that a Bach work doesnt cost that--because you might see them as subjectively identical, I dont.

The extensions are selfish because unlike a farm, which doesnt change much-only so many things you can grow--a creative work can and does change all the time, and was created from pre existing work that was public domain. If we tried to use your farm example, it is sort of like someone creating a farm--losing it because there is no protection, then you coming along and taking the farm after proections are in place and very aggressively claiming that you created it from the ground up--while ignoring the contribution of the pre existing owner.

As you state there is room for parody in the law so its not about the integrity of the work--its really just about money.
Not money for the creator--but some remote descendent or corporation that never dies.


I see excessive copyright law as stifling to creative expression.
Imagine if the body of classical music was under copyright protection and you would lose a lot of cultural creation.There are many other examples.


Maybe in a sense its irrelevant because the works that were the foundation of all modern ones are in the public domain--but with Disney and other corporations they may well come along and claim they own public domain works next.

In fact--there are examples of them doing that. And not just heirs and corporations--you could level the same charge against indigenous groups complaining about the use of artistic imagery from their culture made hundreds or thousands of years before--but I digress.

I think you completely missed the point Spot was making. It was something the farmer owned and everyone in the community enjoyed seeing him in, much like Spot's music and the fact that hundreds of thousands have enjoyed it (as have his peers--he has a Grammy for his contributions to Native American music). But if he passed away down the road, he hopes his daughter and eventual grandkids will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

heath

Yes! But, perhaps not in virtual perpetuity!

Second, what rights do you think patent holders should have---------? The fruits of their labors are discontinued quickly. Screw the heirs there.

Mike