Comments on: My First YouTube: Super Bowl Highlights or Lowlights

By: Shawn Van Every

Shawn Van Every — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:32:08 +0000

Responding to Ralph, fair use is not limited to educational purposes. Wendy is using this clip to make a statement about the content, this is perfectly legitimate under most fair use guidelines.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:37:25 +0000

Now, come on TheNFL, tell us your feelings. Honest.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:49:28 +0000

Seems to me that a clip title Superbowl Highlights and posted on YouTube is being used for commercial purposes; YouTube is in the business of selling advertisements, not educating the public. Would the act of broadcasting the clip on network television constitute Fair Use?

By: Ralph Muehleisen

Ralph Muehleisen — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:08:34 +0000

Wendy,
Doesn’t the educational fair use claim required limited distribution of the material in question?
By posting to YouTube haven’t you lost control of distribution?

I ask because I’ve developed a number of web pages of audio demonstrations to which I have not given out the URL because of potential copyright problems. When I use these in class or at conferences (presentations or demo sessions) I clearly can invoke educational fair use, but I thought that if I put it out on a server without access control I would not be able to exercise educational fair use exemption.

What do you think?

Ralph

By: Matt Pavlovich

Matt Pavlovich — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:19:39 +0000

Wendy-

I applaud the exercise and I am eager to hear the outcome. The stifling of copyright will only have negative results in the long term.

I believe that the long term solution is to remove the media companies from the equation. Artists need an alternative to signing away their rights for pennies on the dollar. As long as the media companies control the content, they will have the most leverage.

By: TheNFL

TheNFL — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:47:00 +0000

YOU DONT FUCK WITH THE NFL. NOBODY ON THE INTERNET IS AS DIE HARD MOTHERFUCKING _INSANE_ AS US ABOUT ENFORCING COPYRIGHT. WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND BLUDGEON YOU IN THE STREET IF YOU FUCK WITH OUR CONTENT, _EOM_

PS, DONT EVEN SAY OUR NAME, OR WE WILL PUNCH YOUR GRANDMAS FACE IN.

By: Den

Den — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:14:30 +0000

Hello. I fall in love with your blog at first time I saw it! Thanks a lot.

By: D

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:10:26 +0000

“I think that your descriptions of your actions (and the “clear fair use”) statements are creating materially false impressions in the minds of your readers.”

Not at all. It is clearly fair use. While fair use involves a balancing test, a court would have to be insane to find this particular use not to fall within the intended scope of fair use. I’m sure if you went through and performed a legal analysis under the four factors previously mentioned, you would come to the same conclusion. You have done this right? Before “creating materially false impressions in the minds” of those reading your comments? In fact, the description of “Super Bowl Highlights” would lend more weight for the argument FOR fair use than against it. As for the 2/3 1/3 argument, it wouldn’t hold much weight. The notice itself is irrelevant without some kind of context which the football footage provides. Perhaps you have just been brainwashed by the controllers of today’s media into thinking their rights always supersede yours? Ask yourself this, a simple and crude layman fair use test: “Would the holder ever consent to the use in question, would they want to do it themselves or could it serve as a substitute?” If not, you may have a good situation for fair use. Because the ultimate effect of this clip is to be critical of the NFL and point out their exaggeration of their rights under Title 17, I’d say no to all three.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:53:08 +0000

I’ll be more clear - two thirds of the clip was game footage, as were all three of the thumbnials that you would see if you searched for it. The title was “Super Bowl Highlights”, and there was no indication that it was intended for educational use (e.g. reference to a course, username “professor something-or-other”).

While I understand that you were trying to upload something that would draw a DMCA counternotification and were successful in that, I think that your descriptions of your actions (and the “clear fair use”) statements are creating materially false impressions in the minds of your readers.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:17:27 +0000

Chris: I titled the post “Superbowl Highlights” to be ironic, and because I thought it would be interesting for others searching YouTube to come across the copyright warning. It shouldn’t be sufficient for a copyright claimant to look only at the title and one frame of video to make a good-faith claim of copyright infringement.