- Related Stories
-
DRM: Media companies' next flop?
January 30, 2006 -
New open-source license targets DRM, Hollywood
January 18, 2006 -
Pro-Hollywood bill aims to restrict digital tuners
December 19, 2005
Someone uploaded part of a video used to train flight attendants on YouTube and Google Video. The airline subpoenaed those companies on Feb. 21 under the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), according to airline spokesman Tim Wagner. Under the provisions of the DMCA, companies have the right to request information in the event that their copyright materials are infringed upon.
The video in question, titled "Flight Attendant, Upside Down," is under copyright, Wagner said.
Fatter bandwidth and the popularity of Apple Computer's video-playing iPods are driving a video-sharing craze on the Net. The trend has also rung alarms in the halls of movie and television studios. Entertainment companies have begun to aggressively use copyright law to protect their property. Stuck in the middle are Internet service providers and hosting sites that must walk the line between protecting their users' privacy and adhering to copyright law.
Responding to questions about the subpoena, Google said in an e-mail that the company "complies with valid and appropriate legal process, including subpoenas."
But the search engine giant informed American Airlines that it needs time to investigate the matter before giving up the name. Both Google and YouTube have asked American Airlines to file its request in court. Despite the requests, legal experts expect both companies to eventually comply with the subpoenas.
Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy advocate, supported the decision by the companies to look into the matter before handing over the information.
"Whoever put the video up should be allowed the right to give his or her side of the story," Cohn said.
Julie Supan, a YouTube spokeswoman, declined to comment directly on the American Airlines subpoena. She noted that YouTube's user agreement specifically prohibits posting copyrighted materials by anyone else other than the owner.
"In our privacy agreement, we say that we'll cooperate with U.S. state and federal law," Supan said.
See more CNET content tagged:
subpoena, copyright law, airline, YouTube, DMCA
Note that they said "Google Video" (http://video.google.com/) not just "Google." (http://www.google.com/). The only connection mentioned in the story between the two companies is that the same video was uploaded to both places. It could just as easily have been Google Video and Kazaa (or any other file sharing service).
The quality of service provided by the airlines in the US has dropped into the toilet since 9/11. While part of that is attributable to eking out a profit, more often than not, the airlines claim that reduced quality is due to higher security requirements.
The service is so customer unfriendly now I'm at the point where I may get my pilot credentials current again so I can fly myself where I need to go.
KM
KM
KM
This is a great article with links to video
- The difference between "Copyrighted" and "Claimed to be Copyrighted"
- by rarpsl March 10, 2006 1:50 PM PST
- "Julie Supan, a YouTube spokeswoman, declined to comment directly on the American Airlines subpoena. She noted that YouTube's user agreement specifically prohibits posting copyrighted materials by anyone else other than the owner."
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- USPTO
- by OneWithTech March 12, 2006 4:26 PM PST
- I was under the notion from the USPTO that copyright is invoked when presented on the media...ie:
-
-
(14 Comments)OK - I am in violation of the UA when I upload a video which I do not own the copyright to. Just because AA CLAIMS that they own the copyright that does not mean they do. The uploader must FIRST be informed of the claim and allowed to dispute it before any action should be taken. In fact, unless the UA specifically states that the CLAIM (by anyone) that uploaded content is copyrighted by that person is adequate to trigger a UA violation by the uploader, the UA can not be held to have been violated until the uploader is given a chance to dispute the claim.
In fact, I can see a situation where AA may own the copyright but the upload is still legal even if it was not done by AA or with their permission. This is based on who created the video and under what conditions. If it was created by an out-side service (as opposed to internally by AA) and was not done as a "Work-for-Hire" with a 100% copyright to the video being granted to AA (only an exclusive licence), than the maker may still retain a copyright and be allowed to display it (such as in their "work portfolio") or as in this case Upload it (assuming that the uploader WAS the maker). Note that I am not claiming that this is the case but only presenting it as a possible scenario. Even if it is true, this fact would only be evident IF/WHEN the uploader was given a change to dispute AA's claim before action was taken SOLELY based on AA's claim that a violation had occurred.
Copyright 2006 Justin Gund All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: I give CNET News.com specifics rights to this copy and any reprint of this copy.