Copyrigh-ting AdoredTV

[piratemonkey]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Protecting your intellectual property is not something you do "maliciously". It's just a normal part of business and especially so when your business is creative works (videos

I haven't watched the video, and in situations like this I prefer not to take someone else's opinion about whether it was or wasn't fair use. If adored did do it in a way that wasn't fair use, it's their fault and they should take the consequence (lost ad revenue) or make an amendment to the video (removing the clip). 

Again, I do not have a specific opinion as I have not seen the video

[Tristerin]

5 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Protecting your intellectual property 

'nough said

 

IP is one of those rare things that you can create and it can make you a millionaire over night.  

 

Hell one of my business ventures ONLY sells Intellectual Property.  I sell Jiu Jitsu.  Even the Gracie family coprywrote the term "Gracie Jiu Jitsu" - even though I have lineage direct to Royler Gracie (Royler, my coach, me), I cannot ever use that term for making money with my gym in any sense, or those MF'ers will sue.  

 

EDIT - I should say, I can, if I pay $2000 a year membership to use that term.  No thanks, its just Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

[Spotty]

@LinusTech has posted some comments on Twitter addressing the matter.

 

 

[LogicalDrm]

4 minutes ago, Spotty said:

@LinusTech has posted some comments on Twitter addressing the matter.

 

Just waiting sh-talking video from Eli the computer guy. Like he did last time this was issue.

[Vishera]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

@LinusTech has posted some comments on Twitter addressing the matter.

-snip-

 

Well,as i said before Linus does have a case here about the claim,and Adored TV should have quoted Linus's words and reference to the source instead of bringing up 1 minute of unedited footage from LTT.

So I think that Adored TV is not only making a legal mistake,but a potential PR one as well,which both are hand in hand in this case.

[TheLibrarian]

I can totally stand with the point that rather than complain he should write an email and thus it's on him.

 

It just felt sad becase the footage that was used was only to show that Linus did not take Jensen marketing bait(as almost everyone else did) labeling 3090 as Titan-ish.

 

But right now I feel that I should not have created this thread.

[Vishera]

Just now, TheLibrarian said:

But right now I feel that I should not have created this thread.

If not you then someone else would have done that in your place,don't feel sorry.

 

[zbiggie]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

Fullscreen is the MCN (Multi Channel Network) that represents LTT. They handle the copyright claims and such on behalf of LMG.

Yeah that is what I figured it was. 

[TetraSky]

4 minutes ago, TheLibrarian said:

It just felt sad becase the footage that was used was only to show that Linus did not take Jensen marketing bait(as almost everyone else did) labeling 3090 as Titan-ish.

Regardless of the context, the fact they uploaded a whole segment without modifying it or adding any commentary on top of it, resulted in a portion of the video not being covered by "fair use", since it is not "transformative" to simply take a minute from another video and adding it to your own.

 

And from the sounds of it, they obviously did it for the drama as it could've been easily fixed had they just reached out to Linus instead of bitching about it.

[WkdPaul]

5 minutes ago, Vishera said:

So I think that Adored TV is not only making a legal mistake,but a potential PR one as well,which both are hand in hand in this case.

 

3 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Regardless of the context, the fact they uploaded a whole segment without modifying it or adding any commentary on top of it, resulted in a portion of the video not being covered by "fair use", since it is not "transformative" to simply take a minute from another video and adding it to your own.

 

And from the sounds of it, they obviously did it for the drama as it could've been easily fixed had they just reached out to Linus instead of bitching about it.

 

 

LMG has the right to strike his video, but IMO would be morally wrong, and I wouldn't defend LTT even for one second (abusing copyright claims is too easy on YT, and in this case it would be easy to make a fair use case, again IMO, as he's discussing something regarding the 3000 series and provided a segment of an LTT video as a confirmation and to add to the discussion).

 

So I don't think AdoredTV is making a legal mistake, but I 100% agree that he's doing a PR mistake, he's been a YTber for a while, he knows how this type of thing goes, and as Linus said on Twitter, contacting Linus would've cleared this up a lot quicker than what he's doing now, all he's doing now seems to be for drama / clickbait.

[TheLibrarian]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

And from the sounds of it, they obviously did it for the drama as it could've been easily fixed had they just reached out to Linus instead of bitching about it.

Yes, I am becoming more aware of my naivity that people are not a*holes.

 

I was a fan of ATV because of the zero-hype attitude towards HW releases.

 

Now, it just feels that he is a drama queen.

[Vishera]

Just now, TetraSky said:

resulted in a portion of the video not being covered by "fair use", since it is not "transformative" to simply take a minute from another video and adding it to your own.

As i said before that's debateable,it could be transformative since Adored TV used the video to prove something changing it's meaning/adding on top of the original,thus making it transformative.

I am not defending anyone,just brought a counter argument for the sake of a fruitful debate.

 

[Spotty]

LTT/Fullscreen has retracted the claim on AdoredTV's video.

 

Quote

The claim was retracted 10 mins after we brought it to our MCN's attention.

 

I'll delete these tweets in an hour or two. Not worth leaving up but at least people will know how this process works now.

 

Either 1 - avoid long chunks of footage

Or 2 - let us know so we can greenlight

 

 

[WkdPaul]

12 minutes ago, TheLibrarian said:

Now, it just feels that he is a drama queen.

As you can see from Linus' Tweet, it does seem to be the case.

[Vishera]

Just now, Spotty said:

LTT/Fullscreen has retracted the claim on AdoredTV's video.

 

That was very nice of Linus to do so,since Linus had no obligation to do so.

[Trinopoty]

Although it's good that LMG is quick to act and redact the claim, my personal opinion is that this claim should never have been made in the first place.

A 1 minute clip in a significantly longer commentary/discussion video should automatically be covered under fair use.

Imagine nVidia copyright claiming an LMG video every time someone shows an nVidia GPU or Intel claiming every time someone shows an Intel CPU; or Square Enix claiming the video every time Linux brings up Shadow of the Tomb Raider on screen.

I know that creating IP is a tough work and so is protecting it, but I draw the line at claiming a 1 minute clip in a 25 minute(?) video.

[WkdPaul]

@ColinLittley

 

I suggest you take some time to get the full story. I personally would NOT defend LMG if they in fact had decided to keep the claim on the video. But it's way more grey than just LMG claiming ATV's video. Seems like ATV is doing this for the views. Take some time to read the discussion and the Tweets Linus sent.

[TheLibrarian]

1 minute ago, Trinopoty said:

Although it's good that LMG is quick to act and redact the claim, my personal opinion is that this claim should never have been made in the first place.

A 1 minute clip in a significantly longer commentary/discussion video should automatically be covered under fair use.

Imagine nVidia copyright claiming an LMG video every time someone shows an nVidia GPU or Intel claiming every time someone shows an Intel CPU; or Square Enix claiming the video every time Linux brings up Shadow of the Tomb Raider on screen.

I know that creating IP is a tough work and so is protecting it, but I draw the line at claiming a 1 minute clip in a 25 minute(?) video.

LMG did not make the claim, MCN did. 

[Blademaster91]

I agree it was nice of Linus to have the claim retracted, having a minute of content taken without correctly asking, and giving credit of the footage taken in the video. Linus certainly had no reason to to retract the claim either because AdoredTV clearly did it for the drama.

[Vishera]

Just now, Trinopoty said:

A 1 minute clip in a significantly longer commentary/discussion video should automatically be covered under fair use.

The problem is that clip has no commentary,it's the same as the original and it's even unedited so there is a case here.

Is that covered by fair use? - That's debateable.

[Trinopoty]

3 minutes ago, Vishera said:

The problem is that clip has no commentary,it's the same as the original and it's even unedited so there is a case here.

Is that covered by fair use? - That's debateable.

Is showing an Intel CPU or an nVidia GPU or Tomb Raider gameplay unedited covered under fair use?

[Guest]

 

This....

This is what happened.

[3 Lions]

1 hour ago, TheLibrarian said:

Now, it just feels that he is a drama queen.

Sounds like this Jim is a nasty piece of work. Given he's done this before to people, it's a good assumption to believe he's doing this on purpose to cancel and destroy people he doesn't like or doesn't agree with.

[WkdPaul]

16 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

Although it's good that LMG is quick to act and redact the claim, my personal opinion is that this claim should never have been made in the first place.

A 1 minute clip in a significantly longer commentary/discussion video should automatically be covered under fair use.

No, fair use is debated on a case by case, it's not straight forward, and shouldn't be. Context matters. And here, IMO, there shouldn't have been a strike.

With that said, LMG didn't issue the strike, their MCN did. All this information is freely available in this thread.

 

Quote

Imagine nVidia copyright claiming an LMG video every time someone shows an nVidia GPU or Intel claiming every time someone shows an Intel CPU;

Showing a physical product is a very poor exemple. The copyright claim was made under the DMCA, the DMCA doesn't prohibit anyone showing a physical product (graphics card, CPU, RAM, etc...).

 

Quote

or Square Enix claiming the video every time Linux brings up Shadow of the Tomb Raider on screen.

That though is a good exemple, and Square Enix, or any other video game company (looks at Nintendo), has 100% the right to claim videos showing gameplay footage. They choose not to do so (except for Nintendo, and some smaller studios when it's a bad game review) and unfortunately, to prove them wrong means going to court and fighting them.

 

Quote

I know that creating IP is a tough work and so is protecting it, but I draw the line at claiming a 1 minute clip in a 25 minute(?) video.

Again, that's not straight forward as you make it.

[Vishera]

Just now, Trinopoty said:

Is showing an Intel CPU or an nVidia GPU or Tomb Raider gameplay unedited covered under fair use?

It depends on the case and it's details,in this case it's on the fence.