Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[31] [32] This prompted YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki to respond three months later with "Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening" in February 2016. [33] Videos continued to be removed and flagged on the site when copyright claims were made against uploaders for using the alleged use of protected material.
YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1] When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. [2] A copyright strike will expire after 90 days.
He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively police every uploaded video "would contravene the structure and operation of the D.M.C.A." [8] Stanton also noted that YouTube had successfully enacted a mass take-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007, indicating that this was a viable process for addressing infringement claims.
The country or countries to which your copyright applies; A description of the way in which the copyright material has been infringed; A description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on our services (including a URL and screen shot); Your address, telephone number, and email address so that we may get in contact with ...
[13] [14] [15] The concept of sludge content originates with methods used to subvert copyright detection tools, particularly on Family Guy compilations on YouTube. [16] [17] [18] Editing techniques such as frequent jump cuts, unrelated clips, and cropping have increased the longevity of copyright violating videos on YouTube. TikTok users have ...
If a YouTube user disagrees with a decision by Content ID, it is possible to fill in a form disputing the decision. [27] However, this claim is sent directly to the party that owns the supposed copyright, who has the final decision in the matter unless legal action is pursued. If the reporting party denies their claim, the channel receives a ...
On March 12, 2007, Viacom sued YouTube, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".
Section 512(f) deters false claims of infringement by imposing liability on anyone who makes such claims, for the damages suffered by other parties as a result of the OSP's reliance on the false claim, and for associated legal fees. This provision has been used in cases such as Online Policy Group v.