So. It finally happened. I got my first DMCA complaint notice for a commercial on YouTube. I never thought it would actually happen but here we are. This is a warning to all ad bloggers who upload Public Service Clips or regular commercials to YouTube to discuss them on their blog: don’t. My account has now been suspended. I’m officially out of YouTube and I most likely will never go back.
Thank you, LyleBailie International. If I ever come across any other of your campaigns I’ll refuse to write about them. You guys genuinely suck. As far is I’m concerned, your agency doesn’t even exist anymore, despite the nice work you’ve delivered in the past. Didn’t even bother to send me a note? Tsss. And this after a year? You guys sure work fast. Not.
(check Google’s cache, the clip was added on August 27th, 2005).
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by LyleBailie International claiming that this material is infringing:Commercials – Drink & Drive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkBVvqFqE-g
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube’s copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:
DMCA Complaints
YouTube, Inc.
PO Box 2053
San Mateo, CA 94401Email: copyright@youtube.com
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 YouTube, Inc.
YouTube only did what they have to do in a case like this. But I’m not taking any chances anymore. From now on I’ll use other services with anonymous logins and IP spoofers to mask my location when I really want to upload something. Good luck tracing me.
So far for my 13 months of membership at YouTube.
Lesson learned: You can’t upload a public service ad to warn as many people as possible about the dangers of drinking and driving.
Houtlust
August 19, 2006 at 10:14 am
From the Lylebailie website:
“Specialists in attitude and behaviour change”
gives a different meaning now
Coolz0r
August 19, 2006 at 10:35 am
Indeed it does. ;)
PubADdict » Falta de Compreensão
August 19, 2006 at 5:57 pm
[...] O Coolz0r dá-nos conta da recepção de um aviso do Youtube devido ao facto de ter infringido as normas de copyright com o upload de um anúncio acerca de prevenção rodoviária. A queixa proveio da LyleBailie International, empresa responsável pelo anúncio. Quão estúpidos conseguem ser os responsáveis destas empresas? [...]
Alex
August 19, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I was thinking the other day about DMCA and YouTube and thought, well at least advertisements will never be banned!
But I can’t believe this. So let me get this straight. Companies spend millions of dollars not only producing but PAYING for these ads to be viewed on TV, and then someone like you uploads it to the internet so even MORE PEOPLE can see it for FREE and they spit the law book at you?
This is crazy. Because of YouTube, 205,000 extra people who wouldn’t have seen the Coke Grand Theft Auto commercial have now seen it. Please don’t tell me that they will take this down. Coke just got 1 5th of a million extra people watching their brand thinking how cool that ad is, and I bet you it will be taken down!
How stupid can Corporate America be?
Steve Hall
August 20, 2006 at 3:39 am
Yup..I had my three strikes with them a few months back as well.
Tim Raines
August 21, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I have to agree with the others here. Posting a copyrighted movie is sort of different than posting a copyrighted commercial. Afterall, you’re giving the company exactly what they SHOULD be after: more eyeballs for their ads.
Two things:
(1) have you attempted to contact YouTube to file a “counter notice”?
(2) I can’t see the ad, but I’m assuming it’s some sort of PSA. I would imagine even the AdCouncil has some sort of department that you could write to–even if for no other reason to let the emotions out.
What’s happened here is the height of corporate stupidity.
Doug Schumacher
August 30, 2006 at 12:39 am
Surreal indeed.
I’d put in a call or email to David Lyle and ask what the.
The response would intriguing at the least.
DelToro
August 30, 2006 at 6:09 am
It’s this sort fo a thing that gives advertising a bad name…unbelievable.
I work in ad land myself, and this is a clear cut example of an dodgy agency just looking after their own interest rather than the interest of the client in question. A public service ad is exactly that, something the community should benefit from. The added exposure via YouTube (free mind you, can’t beleieve the client didn’t post the ad there themselves…dickheads) would have benefited both the client and the broader community, except LyleBailie would not have made any cash out of it. Additional cash is the correct phrase, they would have charged the client a huge amount of dosh so they can kick back in opulent offices and bankroll their heavy coke habits.
F#@k the community and the client you can hear them saying, I have a jacuzzi to install in my penthouse apartment.
Arseholes. If the client had any idea they’d strike them off the roster immediately. For demonstrating lack of competency and foresight by failing to think of posting the ad on YouTube themselves if not for being complete wankers.
Áëîã ïî áðåíäèíãó » Àðõèâ áëîãà » ßâëÿåòñÿ ëè âàø áðåíä «áåçîïàñíûì äëÿ áëîãîâ»?
September 4, 2006 at 10:44 pm
[...] À 19 àâãóñòà 2006 ã., ïî÷òè ÷åðåç ãîä, îí ïîëó÷èë èçâåùåíèå î òîì, ÷òî ðåêëàìó íåîáõîäèìî óáðàòü ñîãëàñíî Çàêîíó î çàùèòå àâòîðñêèõ ïðàâ â öèôðîâóþ ýïîõó, è YouTube àííóëèðîâàëè åãî ó÷åòíóþ çàïèñü. Ñòîèò ëè ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî ñ òåõ ïîð îí íå ïîïîëíèë ðÿäû ñòîðîííèêîâ LyleBalie. [...]
» Putting a Blog On Hold - Coolz0r - Marketing Thoughts
September 6, 2006 at 11:41 pm
[...] [Account Terminated in September 2006 - All YouTube links go nowhere] [...]
Dabitch
September 8, 2006 at 11:17 am
Tracing you? I’m sure they don’t really care about you, personally, all they have to do (not to be confused with “want” to do) is to protect their copyright. that is, right to copy. that is, upload to youtbe and whereever else.
They (as in the ad copyright owner) might give bloggers permission (hey I get it all the time!) but saying “Coolz0r at marketingthoughts may host a copy” doesn’t mean “youtube may host a copy!” Coolz0r and youtube are not the same thing.
They might have to prevent (or at least try to prevent even if we all know it is impossible) a mass-showing on the internet as they have not paid actors/crew/etc for the rights to “air” on the net. A bit like those C&D’s sent out just to show that you’re trying to protect your trademark – if you don’t do it your trademark is gone. If you don’t ask people to stop infringing, you’re guilty by assocation and actors etc will soon demand higher fees when working for you. the C&D is a defensive reflex these days, and often sent out just to scare people (who are not actually infringing).
Just because it is an ad doesn’t mean that there is no copyright involved or that people involved in the creation of it shouldn’t be getting paid for what amounts to extra airing. Sure, one can argue that it is it’s great for the brands (most of the time). But it’s not so great for the people who didn’t get paid for the internet airing.
Just to toss in two cents. ;)
Mack Simpson - Adverb
September 9, 2006 at 5:03 pm
I’ll toss in an additional two cents into Dabitch’s pile, agreeing with everything she says (listen to her; she’s been doing this for a while).
The first thing I thought, when I read your post, mirrors one of DB’s comments: the agency hadn’t secured the Internet rights for the actors’ performances and are, therefore, liable for additional payment– and penalties– should the agreement be violated.
You aren’t. They are.
Copyright is copyright, and should be respected– even if the reason behind the copyright isn’t fully appreciated or understood (protection of property, payment to participants, will of producers, whatever)– just as I note the © in the footer of your own blog.
Coolz0r
September 9, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Hmm. See, then those copyrights should also be extended to the ad images on which ‘actors’ are displayed, or as far as it goes: all ad images. Which would mean that no adblog can display, discuss or promote any ads anymore. Which would also mean almost every ad blog is violating copyrights.
Or am I wrong.
Even though there is a © in the footer of my blog, my content is reproduced thousands of times by people all over the world. Plus, the © is there because it’s cool. I didn’t pay to secure any rights at all, most likely just like a ton of other blogs. Perhaps someone could forbid me to use the © sign? I don’t know.
I agree the clip is copyrighted, and yes if there should be a problem, it must be taken down. But why not ‘just ask me’? Why not send me a message so that I could keep my account, and just remove the clip?
Mack Simpson - Adverb
September 9, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Good questions; certainly there is an option short of going “nuclear.”
I can’t speak to why your account was removed (possible TOS violations previously?) or why they went straight to the C&D email (short of time/resources?).
I also don’t know why digital rights weren’t negotiated for the ads up-front (costs?)– or even if they were and possibly they just didn’t want the spots re-broadcast on YouTube (message control?). We negotiate digital rights for every project I work on, but I insist on it and my clients have seen the worth of doing so.
In your case, there are too many variables, all of them unknown.
The moral is, we’re living in a ©’ed society, and push it if you wish, but when the certified letter comes in the mail, be prepared to buckle. And it’s not always because some Big Brother is trying to control the message, but because some little sister would like to be paid for her small part in the production.
And deservedly so.
Coolz0r
September 10, 2006 at 12:04 am
I totally agree that the little sister deserves to get paid. However, I’ve never hidden behind fake nicknames or phony emails, I’ve always had my contact data available, out in the open. I’m still of the opinion that a small informative request would have been sufficient to have the ad pulled from YouTube (even though mine was one of the four or five versions available). And that’s what I’ve missed and why I’m pissed. Just that little request to ask if I could delete the file. I would have complied right away, without any doubt.
Dabitch
September 10, 2006 at 10:36 am
Well, I can understand how you feel about not being contacted directly. However, the ad agency probably found yours and the other four versions available on youtube and sent youtube the C&D. One stop shopping to get their copyrighted works away from one host – contacting the individual users who uploaded the ads there (probably just to receive a defiant “but maaan, I’m like givig you extra air time you ungrateful suits! you should be HAPPY!”) would be a huge waste of time when they can send one letter and be done with it. Time is money and the agency has no reason to go that extra mile to seek out each individual user just to be polite to people who are infringing on their copyright. But you really think they should have followed the username link from youtube (in every case they found) back to the users own site, be it a blog or a forum, and seek out said users email there – if they have it available – and then email said user a polite remove that file email? Times at least five? (who knows how many times their ad was posted on videosharing sites like youtube).
As for youtube shutting down your account, you violated the TOS and thats’s that. They usually do a three strikes = you’re out thing which I must say is very good of them.
“Even though there is a © in the footer of my blog, my content is reproduced thousands of times by people all over the world.” So, since people nick your stuff you can nick other people stuff ? Two wrongs don’t make a right but two Wrights can make an airplane.
It might look cool that little © – but you don’t need to pay anybody to own your own words written on this blog. You don’t even have to use that ©!
Ad blogs can discuss ad images and show the work they are discussing – remember there are quotation rights. Just plain old posting the ad and not talking about its merits the ads or at all is shady though. So yeah a crapload of ad blogs are infringing copyrights right and left (hehe) every day when they make a post, but nobody seems to care all that much.
Coolz0r
September 10, 2006 at 11:32 am
“So, since people nick your stuff you can nick other people stuff ? ” –> Most certainly not! I just thought that ‘ads’ in general were all the same, without making a difference between commercials and printed ones.
Seeing it the way you do, perhaps it’s indeed to much to ask from LyleBailie International to send me a kind notice. I should expected it, but it seemed ‘right’. I know I would’ve done it, but I guess not everyone is like me.
YouTube did what it had to do. I never was pissed on them for this. I do wonder though, why it is that when I follow the url of ‘my’ version of the clip, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkBVvqFqE-g) I get this message:
“This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner LyleBailie International because its content was used without permission”
While the same clip was uploaded by Marc from Houtlust, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb1hKvGK6Xw and when you follow that link you get:
“This video has been removed due to copyright infringement”
Weird.
“You don’t even have to use that ©” … but maaaaan it looks so really cool. :) thanks for the info though. I really thought I should’ve paid someone some yearly fee like in the case of a (TM).
Dabitch
September 10, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Drats, I return too late, when I click that second link Marc from Houtlust’s upload – I get “This video has been removed due to copyright infringement.” Bah, I guess I’ll never see the film that were talking about. ;9
Here’s Brad Templetons ‘ten myths about copyright’ page just for reference. Keep using that cute ©. ;)
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Coolz0r
September 10, 2006 at 3:56 pm
http://www.iapi.ie/adfx/cases/cases02/shame.pdf#search=%22never%20ever%20drink%20and%20drive%20could%20you%20live%20with%20the%20shame%3F%22 Here is a .pdf that describes the campaign
Houtlust
September 12, 2006 at 5:00 pm
If you want to see the vid, do a search to this file:
DontDriveAfterDrinking.avi
Andy Merrett
February 21, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“This is a warning to all ad bloggers who upload Public Service Clips or regular commercials to YouTube to discuss them on their blog: don’t”
Whatever happened to fair use, for the purpose of critique, etc.?
Falta de Compreensão at PubADdict
September 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm
[...] Coolz0r dá-nos conta da recepção de um aviso do Youtube devido ao facto de ter infringido as normas de [...]