Youtube and copyright issues

[Amse]

Is a Youtube video which features a song (not on an artist's official Youtube channel) an infraction of copyright laws?

Firstly, what is the principle involved?

Intellectual property - If a person creates a value, he is entitled to the rights to it. These rights are defined and are protected by copyright law.

What's its application to this issue?

A song is a value a person creates. A record company owns the copyright to these songs, so is entitled to protection under the law.

The problem:

A Youtube video may or may not be a value a person creates:

(1) A video which simply plays a song without anything additional is not creating new value, he is using the value of someone else (and in turn violating the rights of a record company).

(2) A person who takes a song, and adds a video which adds something new may be considered a value, which in turn may be considered for copyright protection.

To concretize (1), here is an example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=j8ErMe1AiyU

Additionally, to concretize (2), here is an example : http://youtube.com/watch?v=yO_71ON_IFY&feature=user

(I apologize in advance to those who dislike rap - and the (2) video is garbage.)

Question : In this context, what is to be considered "additional value"? What is the principle involved?

Edited December 27, 2007 by Amse

[DavidOdden]

A Youtube video may or may not be a value a person creates:

(1) A video which simply plays a song without anything additional is not creating new value, he is using the value of someone else (and in turn violating the rights of a record company).

(2) A person who takes a song, and adds a video which adds something new may be considered a value, which in turn may be considered for copyright protection.

The principle is that the owner of the copyright (which is originally the writer of the song, but that right can be tranferred) has the sole right to authorize making copies. The concept of "added value" plays no role at all in determining the propriety of making a copy -- on the concept of "ownership" is relevant. If you don't have a right to a right to a thing but you take it and add something to it, that addition does not confer on you a right to that which is not yours.

[adrock3215]

The principle is that the owner of the copyright (which is originally the writer of the song, but that right can be tranferred) has the sole right to authorize making copies. The concept of "added value" plays no role at all in determining the propriety of making a copy -- on the concept of "ownership" is relevant. If you don't have a right to a right to a thing but you take it and add something to it, that addition does not confer on you a right to that which is not yours.

Except for such odd cases in which one compiles a large amount of data and/or selections. Such compilations can enjoy 'limited' protection under copyright law even if the compiler did not create all the data/selections within the compilation I believe.

I'll try to get a link...

[DavidOdden]

Except for such odd cases in which one compiles a large amount of data and/or selections. Such compilations can enjoy 'limited' protection under copyright law even if the compiler did not create all the data/selections within the compilation I believe.

Indeed, my journal is a case in point. The compiler's right is extremely limited. It does not include the individual original works, only e.g. the order of the works in the assembly or the fact of the assembly being composed of works X, Y, X and Q. In a compilation, you do not gain the property right to the original materials. (However, to put together an effective compilation made by gluing together other people's works, you must have secured permission to copy in this manner from the copyright owners).

[Amse]

The concept of "added value" plays no role at all in determining the propriety of making a copy -- on the concept of "ownership" is relevant. If you don't have a right to a right to a thing but you take it and add something to it, that addition does not confer on you a right to that which is not yours.

Interesting point. So, according to this principle, the only way video (2) would be legal is if the makers of the video received explicit authorization from the owners of the copyright to the song (presumably the record company)?

How does this principle apply to cars? For example, Henry Ford created the Model T, and then after, different kinds of cars began to appear. So, the difference is that a different car model isn't making a "copy" of the Model T, in the strictest sense, even if it had to have borrowed certain design features, or production features (to make their version marketable). How then can one distinguish between a "copy" of a good, and an "imitation"?

[Amse]

(However, to put together an effective compilation made by gluing together other people's works, you must have secured permission to copy in this manner from the copyright owners).

What protection does your compilation receive? We have established that it is not copyright infringement if you have gained permission from the owners of the copyrights of the songs. (To reproduce a song without permission is violating the rights of the owners of the copyright).

Additionally, what specifically are the rights given to copyright owners concerning their products?

[DavidOdden]

So, according to this principle, the only way video (2) would be legal is if the makers of the video received explicit authorization from the owners of the copyright to the song (presumably the record company)?

Yes, and presumably the copy is not legal, but the copyright owner has to squawk to get it taken down. Copyright basically doesn't apply to inventions, which is the domain of the patent. I imagine that the artwork of a car's body design is subject to copyright, to the extent that there is something "new" to the design, but I don't believe that would be the case with Ford's car.

How then can one distinguish between a "copy" of a good, and an "imitation"?

I'm not sure you need to: the law simply says "don't copy". The concept of "substantial similarity" is relevant, which basically says that some element of similarity could arise without there being any copying. For example, the text "A plant must feed..." could easily arise independently at the hands of multiple authors; but it is unreasonable to think that two authors could independently say "A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions". The text "A plant must feed itself to live; sunlight, water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions." is so substantially similar to the original that it had to arise by copying. The underlying problem for such cases, then, is judging whether the similarity is so small that it could arise by accident, or had to be due to copying.

What protection does your compilation receive?

Directly, nothing worth mentioning, at least I don't think (I may ask a suit, if I can get a free answer). The authors retain copyright, so they have the right to sue an infringer. If some punk decides to scan and post the journal, I'm not sure what I can do. It's a basic rule that you shouldn't bother to sue punks with no money, if you don't have a huge legal department. I actually think this is the basic problem with copyright infringement and the modern digital age, that *everybody does it!* and what are you gonna do, sue for $20? I am heartened to see that they are starting to make awards to victims of these non-profit IP thieves, e.g. the pirate twit in Duluth, though the case is being appealed and it won't really matter what the jury decision was if i gets overturned.

Additionally, what specifically are the rights given to copyright owners concerning their products?

Well, suppose Swipo Books decides to sell unauthorized copies of my book (they buy a copy then photocopy it and sell the copies). I can get an injunction to make them stop, the printed copies can be impounded and mulched, and I have the right to sue them for actual lost profits or "statutory damages" which is a court-determined just amount between $750 and $30,000, or up to $150,000 if the infringement is willful (etc.. you'd need to hire a guy for $150,000 to tell you how to get the $150,000 award). There are also criminal penalties attachable to infringement, but that doesn't help the copyright owner.

[Amse]

Thank you DavidOdden for your posts.

[softwareNerd]

CBS is reporting that Viacom is planning a lawsuit against YouTube. Hopefully, it will serve to lessen the abuse of copyright, at least to some extent.