Think Paul might be wrong thinking that Nilay would have control over the actions of Vox’s legal team’s decisions, beyond changing decisions after the fact. Nilay should stop repeating the harassment campaign thing (even though the guy that made the video did get a lot of shit from randoms). Could all have been avoided if The Verge properly checked that video before it went out…
6 Likes
Damn, Twitter is so toxic.
Also, yeah Nilay probably had zero input on the initial actions of the legal team.
3 Likes
what you mean you pay the legal team to take appropriate actions? And sometimes legal teams dont give a fuck about whats correct? Your telling me they say things they know they shouldnt during a court case that are suppose to be forgotten by the jury but arent ?
1 Like
Opposite is a problem too. We get a lot of work where there was a shoot that was never cleared by legal and then we have to blur or scrub virtually everything in the image.
I think they’re paid so much, management wants to use as little of their time as possible, so communication is hampered.
2 Likes
dont worry bots are coming to reduce a bunch of the work for legal teams
2 Likes
When this was brought to my attention a few hours later, I told them that although I fully agreed with their legal argument, I did not think we should use copyright strikes against legitimate channels even if we thought the videos crossed the line. (And again, I fully agree with our legal team that these videos crossed the line of fair use.)
At my direction , the strikes were retracted.
1 Like
Can I get an ELI5 and a TLDR?
So you think its not fair use but dont want to use the tool for dealing with it?
Also I dont think it coordiated, just a bunch of angry fanboys
Kyle’s video got claimed by Vox Media (The Verge’s parent company). People got mad. Nilay (The Verge’s Editor in chief), retracted the claim. People are still mad that it was claimed in the first place.
The argument that it’s against fair use is sound (Nilay is a lawyer, so he knows), because it doesn’t really fall under fair use if you’re using the vast majority of the video like Kyle did. A good lawyer could make the comparison of using the majority of a movie in a video review, which would immediately be deemed against fair use.
1 Like
That explains so much.
How So? Satire is allowed It wasnt just him playing he entire thing then comments it was section comment section comment .
Did you read the rest of what Zavar said? As much as I hate The Verge, they had legal standing for this.
I am no lawyer, but its not really a substitute for their video so while it takes major sections there is not hard law on what % you are allowed to use so that point isnt really enforceable by a raw % of the video was used
Up to a judge to decide.
1 Like
yep I dont have an issue with it personally and it was boken up into sections not just voiceover / watch the entire then commentary.
1 Like
As much as I thought Kyle’s video was pretty trash, it’s a pretty scummy use of DMCA.
1 Like
This is why Fair Use is difficult.
I ran into an issue with copyright infringement and fair use before, and the lawyers we discussed it with said you’d basically need 20% difference, which he had, clearly.
Of course, we were talking about satire of a brand logo, and this is video content, so it may be different. @wolfleben might be able to shed some light here?
its 1000% in the hands of the judge as you said grey area
Who knows. I wound up just dropping the satire because it was pretty poor taste anyways, so we never saw a judge.
20% difference would mean that 20% of the video would have to be lyle
h3h3 recently won