18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Copyright Issue

by G K
15 replies
So, I wrote some software. This software collects content from a few online sources. Images, and text. From that content, a video is created using text-to-speech software for narration over a slide show of the images. The content is then uploaded to youtube.

The content that collected is licensed under creative commons by-sa-nc. The "nc" part means that the content cannot be used, even if modified, for commercial purposes. Which includes advertising revenue.

Now I have a unique scenario. There are only a handful of cases that I have been able to locate on copyright infringement similar to my scenario. All resulted in the final verdict of:

" A product that is created by software, is a separate copyrightable entity in itself, regardless of existing copyright status of the content that was used to create the final product, provided the final product is unique in purpose and genre"

Basically the software is the copyrightable ubmrella, for what it creates.

No copyright infringement verdicts for any of those very limited number of cases...

I'm confident I'm fine in that regard. The problem is this.....

That stance, is a defense. It can only be used AFTER I have had a copyright infringement case brought against me.

My software has created almost 7000 UNIQUE content videos since June (It be a hell of a lot more but the is an upload limit per day youtube imposes after you hit 5000 uploads...lol.)

My channel is now getting 14,000 vies per day. It is monetized. Which would be the only thing that this source could potential try to bring suit for. I believe I would win should they choose to bring suit, based on existing case law, as well as the fact that they have not created any videos for this content.
I would rather have a discussion with the source and offer a percentage of the ad revenue. not much, but something...

Should they choose to claim copyright infringement on youtube, they could unjustly (in my opinion ) cause my channel to get terminated as Youtube does not adjudicate on copyright infringement cases, they simply opt to stay out of it, and ban you.

That would leave me with the last remaining option of filing suit against them for slander, and lost earnings.
(well thats not my last option... I could have some fun wreaking havoc on their user content submission system, and make sure that they have too many articles to manually edit to watch anymore youtube videos for a while.... but that won't get my youtube account back if that happens. so, probably wont go that route..)

I put a lot of time effort and energy into the software, which is creating a unique, product for an untapped outlet in regards to this source. my position here is that Its kinda shit that I only have any leverage if acting in defense, and even then, only after the fact...

Ok... Hit me... advice, input, shaming...do your worst....
#ad revenue #copyright #issue #youtube
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    I read this twice and it doesn't make sense.

    Which would be the only thing that this source could potential try to bring suit for. I believe I would win should they choose to bring suit, based on existing case law, as well as the fact that they have not created any videos for this content.

    What 'source' - you seem to go from explaining your opinion of copyright law to talking about what 'they' will do. Is someone claiming copyright infringement?

    I would rather have a discussion with the source and offer a percentage of the ad revenue. not much, but something...
    Again - what 'source'? You may or may not be able to have a discussion - they may not be willing take a percentage .

    Here's the biggie - reality. It doesn't matter how you interpret copyright law - what matter is how the court interprets it. You are right in that you won't know until you get to court - and the best advice is so avoid having that happen at all costs.

    Unless you are a lawyer don't ry to interpret the law or argue the law - common sense seldom works when it comes to 'legalese'.

    If someone is claiming a major copyright problem -get an attorney to negotiate for you. If it is a minor problem - negotiate a fee for use of the image/etc - remove the image from future use.

    I put a lot of time effort and energy into the software
    I cannot tell if you have a copyright problem or if you are anticipating problems...either way, the comment above is irrelevant.

    IF your software scrapes images, etc that are under copyright - it will be a problem if someone notices and pursues it. If worried that you might have problems in the future, test your software to make certain you are NOT using anything that might be copyrighted.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author G K
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      I read this twice and it doesn't make sense.


      Again - what 'source'? You may or may not be able to have a discussion - they may not be willing take a percentage .

      Here's the biggie - reality. It doesn't matter how you interpret copyright law - what matter is how the court interprets it. You are right in that you won't know until you get to court - and the best advice is so avoid having that happen at all costs.

      Unless you are a lawyer don't ry to interpret the law or argue the law - common sense seldom works when it comes to 'legalese'.

      If someone is claiming a major copyright problem -get an attorney to negotiate for you. If it is a minor problem - negotiate a fee for use of the image/etc - remove the image from future use.


      I cannot tell if you have a copyright problem or if you are anticipating problems...either way, the comment above is irrelevant.

      IF your software scrapes images, etc that are under copyright - it will be a problem if someone notices and pursues it. If worried that you might have problems in the future, test your software to make certain you are NOT using anything that might be copyrighted.
      .
      Ok... regarding the part you believe does not make sense... It does, I just did not go to in depth.. Creative commons copyright, and specifically CC-BY-SA-NC = Share Alike / Non-Commercial

      What this means...

      Share Alike = Any one, for any reason, may use the content provided they follow the attributions guidelines set by the owner.

      Non-Commercial = The content can be used commercially. Meaning money can not be earned by anyone using the content.

      So I am going to have to jump around to respond.

      Your input regarding Interpretation being the only thing that matters... Wrong.. Existing Case law, and previous determinations outweigh a judges opinion.
      I will give you that proving that existing case law and/or previous determination is relevant may be difficult with stubborn judges... but in my scenario, until i can find a decision in opposition, its very clear cut. by all means ... please... find one for me... seriously lol.. no taunt, or challenge, I would love some contrast.

      So the only grounds that the source of my video content could bring suit on is that I infringed on copyright, by earning money on the videos.

      For which my defense would be presentation of existing copyright case law.

      Regarding putting in time and effort.... It is quite relevant, in that "their" content accounts for a very small percentage of the final product "I" have created. Why is that relevant? It is a major factor that is considered in infringement cases that have no preexisting determination to base a decision on. I did not state that in the initial post so I can see how it would come across as useless.... I just did not want to get too wordy with the post, and should have redacted that....

      Yes, I have a lawyer.... He concur's with my stance, however, wont get involved.. He's not an Intellectual Property Attorney. So I understand... So, I tried to lawyer up IP style. And..No dice, No one has filed a case against me yet, nor has anyone infringed upon copyright of my intellectual property, so the only 3 IP attorneys close, don't want in and recommend I reach out to the source if I am concerned.

      No.. I am not anticipating a lawsuit from the source, I am anticipating that they will cause the demise of this revenue stream unjustly. Sorry by the way, not name dropping the source... They are not a huge corporation lets call it 40-ish employees, and I have no idea what their yearly revenue is, but its primarily earned by way of ad revenues, just not on youtube. I would hazard a guess that they would not have the resources to have a team of lawyers actually do the research into what I state, and would sooner just report to youtube, again... i believe, unjustly.

      Your final statement... if my software scrapes images and content.... That is no problem, they are fine with it. Their copyright is fine with it. That does not infringe on this type of copyright even if i repost it everywhere, provided i pay them proper attribution by listing them as the source of the content.... which I do.

      If i did not have have a copyrightable entity (again I confident i do) then earning money utilizing their content would be infringement.
      The revenue is already decent enough for me to be concerned especially, considering there is many thousands more videos that my software can create from this source.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487445].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    Well, that cleared that up...I guess... Legal issues are above my pay grade
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487460].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    Forget what side of the "Law" you think you are on.. even IF you are right.. here is the cold hard truth... YOU couldn't AFFORD to make a defense. For giggles.. why not just go out and put a Copyright Attorney on retainer just in case. Your wallet will shrivel up into a little ball and hide in some dark corner. How do I know? I have one.. well 2 on retainer.. and to just have access to them is not cheap.. its not even reasonable.. its flippin expensive.

    So my suggestion.. just play your little game, and the moment you get a letter or a DMCA notice, just remove the video in question. Because in the end, right or wrong.. you WILL be on the loosing end financially.
    Signature
    Success is an ACT not an idea
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487463].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author G K
      Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

      Forget what side of the "Law" you think you are on.. even IF you are right.. here is the cold hard truth... YOU couldn't AFFORD to make a defense. For giggles.. why not just go out and put a Copyright Attorney on retainer just in case. Your wallet will shrivel up[ into a little ball and hide in some dark corner. How do I know? I have one.. well 2 on retainer.. and to just have access to them is not cheap.. its not even reasonable.. its flippin expensive.

      So my suggestion.. just play your little game, and the moment you get a letter or a DMCA notice, just remove the video in question. Because in the end, right or wrong.. you WILL be on the loosing end financially.
      YOU should reel back on all caps, as it comes across condescending, especially when addressing a new acquaintance who does not know YOU. Also, YOU should fire those two attorneys YOU have on retainer, and replace them with Intellectual Property attorneys. Congrats you got 2 DUI attorneys of the IP world.

      What, by the way, what do you need 2 copyright attorneys for? Is your copy written property stolen so frequently that you need 2 attorneys to file infringement suits? How is the return on that dual legal retainer investment? I am assuming of course that your sicking your hounds on financially sound corporate targets for infringing on your copy-written property. Or wait.. you must have 3 accountants on staff to manage your AP/AR and financials... what with all of those payments on judgments you are receiving from people like myself who can not afford the services of a single attorney, let alone 2. And, to get those lowdown infringing wrong doers to pay up on your judgement winnings despite not showing up to court due to the "wallet shriveling" and all. I mean... WOW! Just WOW! Your settlement demand letters must be equal parts literary masterpiece and influential empathetic magic. It sounds to me like we all need to lean in a little closer when your speaking, we could all learn so much from the platinum embossed diamonds of mythical wisdom that flow forth from your mouth like a herd of unicorns galloping over the sunset drenched horizon.

      Well, I guess I'm done. I hate it when I get all starstruck and ramble on like that. A creator of property so frequently infringed upon like yourself must get tired of people always drenching you in compliments. I couldn't imagine how amazing a feeling it must be to receive a compliment from someone knowing that odds are your legal team will be filing court docs with their name on it tomorrow.

      Thank you so much, your words changed my meager "little game" filled life!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487540].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author savidge4
        Originally Posted by G K View Post

        What, by the way, what do you need 2 copyright attorneys for? Is your copy written property stolen so frequently that you need 2 attorneys to file infringement suits?
        Just a quick run down on why 2.. I have a company that is my primary © holder. I lease use to other business' I operate, that in turn can and does lease said © material. If a major issue were to arise ( never has ) there would be a conflict of interest between my internal agreement and the current structure alleviates those issues.

        There is this little fact about © one needs to understand. You have to defend ©. meaning you can actually lose © if non permitted use extends over an amount of time.

        I personally do not need an IP lawyer on retainer, because I do not deal much with patens and trademarks. My primary concerns deal with Copyright. Its not that I am bringing a knife to a gun fight.. I am simply bringing a bigger knife to a knife fight.

        In the instance you speak of.. "Fair Use" falls under copyright law.. there is no reason for an IP attorney, UNLESS you are attempting to use Trademark as fair use.. that would be a bit sticky. And even THEN.. say a company like "Velcro®" if you were to use said name say on eBay or Amazon as an example, you are hit with a DMCA stop use notice, and that would be a Copyright infringement vs a Trademark Infringement.

        So the reason I get heated over the subject... I have legit Copyright's. I went through the process, I have works that I can place a © on, and there is actually a piece of paper backing it up. There is a difference between claiming © and actually having ©.

        So when someone posts all this riga ma roll about how they think they are skating ©... yeah I get a bit heated.
        Signature
        Success is an ACT not an idea
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11489214].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KinneyJ2014
    Photo Sharing on Social Media & Copyright Infringement: What You Need to Know

    Wondering if you're violating copyright laws? With some education, you can learn to protect yourself and your business from a copyright infringement lawsuit.

    https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/1...ment/id=91022/



    Signature
    Set S.M.A.R.T. goals
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author agmccall
    Originally Posted by G K View Post


    " A product that is created by software, is a separate copyrightable entity in itself, regardless of existing copyright status of the content that was used to create the final product, provided the final product is unique in purpose and genre"

    Basically the software is the copyrightable ubmrella, for what it creates.

    No copyright infringement verdicts for any of those very limited number of cases...
    I am not an attorney but, in my opinion, it could be argued that, The software in question does not "create" it compiles. So, like others have said an attorney might be in order

    al
    Signature

    "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11487666].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    Why ask questions if you know all the answers?


    It's not condescending when someone who KNOWS what they are talking about takes the time to answer your questions.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11489386].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author G K
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      Why ask questions if you know all the answers?


      It's not condescending when someone who KNOWS what they are talking about takes the time to answer your questions.
      I have all of the answers for a single scenario that is likely a "no-win" for me... I was hoping for some creative input and or suggestions. As well, I am open to criticism provided it's constructive like the response from @agmccall .
      Regarding my opinion of the other response seeming quite condescending.... The author, opted to use all caps on two words... YOU and AFFORD. If the author had used verbiage like "most people" or "not everyone" instead of "YOU" I probably would not have made the assumption that he was commenting on my financial status with "AFFORD" and likely would consider his reply to have been a constructive opinion.. However, he chose to emphasize "YOU" implying specifically, me. You chose to caps "KNOWS", which, which implies that YOU are confident the author of that reply has experience in the matters he spoke of. As it came from YOU.... I believe it. : )
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11495266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DIABL0
    I don't understand why you are even posting such here.

    No one's opinion really matters.

    You need to talk to an attorney.
    Signature
    How to Build LARGE EMAIL LISTS on a Budget and MONETIZE Like a PRO
    Free Proven Blueprint: http://emailmonetize.com/blueprint/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11495369].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IGotMine
    Build a battleship to cross a mud puddle?

    Youtube will just disable your video completely or partially and tell you why. If you think there is a reason you should be able to use it, you can take that up with the complainant.



    No copyright commandos crashing through your door with guns...sorry.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11495371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
    Seems to me that your software doesn't do anything a whole lot different than what every search engine does. They scrape text and images and display them.

    That said, it doesn't mean that you won't be sued anyway. If you can't afford the legal representation, you can't afford to be in business with that software. Google knows that better than anyone - just do a search for "authors guild v google". That case went on for 10 years. That's a whole lot of attorney expense!
    Signature
    BizSellers.com - The #1 place to buy & sell websites!
    We help sellers get the MAXIMUM amount for their websites and all buyers know that these sites are 100% vetted.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11496110].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author techwizard
      Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

      Seems to me that your software doesn't do anything a whole lot different than what every search engine does. They scrape text and images and display them.

      That said, it doesn't mean that you won't be sued anyway. If you can't afford the legal representation, you can't afford to be in business with that software. Google knows that better than anyone - just do a search for "authors guild v google". That case went on for 10 years. That's a whole lot of attorney expense!



      This^


      I really don't see this as a copyright infringement. It can even fall under the transformative work thing and WILL be strong help for your case in a court.
      Signature
      [Done for You] Your OWN 6 Figures e-Commerce Apparels Brand selling your OWN products (Shirts, Hoodies, Crewnecks and more)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11496147].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
        Originally Posted by techwizard View Post

        This^


        I really don't see this as a copyright infringement. It can even fall under the transformative work thing and WILL be strong help for your case in a court.
        While I agree, it still comes down to the words "in court". Few people have the money that Google does to pay for a lawyer for cases that could drag out for many, many years through the appeals process.
        Signature
        BizSellers.com - The #1 place to buy & sell websites!
        We help sellers get the MAXIMUM amount for their websites and all buyers know that these sites are 100% vetted.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11496474].message }}

Trending Topics