›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

EFF vs.....Uri Gellar?

belarmbelarm
edited May 2007 in Politics
This just came across slashdot, and I thought I'd post it here so no one missed it:
EFF suing Uri Gellar for baseless copyright claims
Basically, Gellar is claiming he owns the copyright to any segment of any show he appears in. This has, of course, already been decided by a court; he doesn't. Anyway, go EFF!

Comments

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Next he'll claim he owns copyright on himself. A claim which his parents will quickly shoot down as they created him and thusly own the copyright on him.
  • AprecheApreche
    This is actually a pretty big deal because it crosses two separate geek peeves. One the one hand, you've got the skepticism peeve. The skeptic in me wants to get rid of all the flim-flam and woo-woo that Randi always complains about. Psychics, acupunture, homeopathy, dowsers, healing magnets, etc. are just some of the lies people use to make money. Uri Geller is one of those fraudsters. He pretends to have magic powers when he is no different than your average birthday-party magician.

    On the other hand, you've got the copyright peeve. This case is actually a pretty big deal as far as DMCA take down notices go. Uri Geller sent a notice to YouTube for hosting a video he claimed to own the copyright for. What's interesting is that he doesn't own the copyright. ABC or NBC, or whatever network made that TV show, is clearly the copyright holder. Regardless, the video was copyrighted, and I doubt the poster or YouTube had permission from the real copyright holders to post the video.

    So now you've got the EFF suing Gellar. You've got an organization I like fighting against two things I hate at the same time. What can beat that? Not much. YouTube probably doesn't care who the notice is from. They check the video out, notice that it shouldn't be there, and they take it down. Gellar was clearly out of line sending a notice to take down a work which did not belong to him. Whatever happens in this case is going to be very interesting, and possibly will clarify a lot of the meaning of the DMCA. The EFF only deals with cases if they think it is a case that can have a big effect, so I can't wait to see where this goes.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited May 2007
    Didn't YouTube make an error here by taking the video down?

    They were not contacted by the actual copyright owner of the video. The poster may have had permission to post the video. We do not know.

    This opens a window for all sorts of people to send emails to YouTube claiming to own copyright on videos that they do not own copyright on.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited May 2007
    Didn't YouTube make an error here by taking the video down?

    They were not contacted by the actual copyright owner of the video. The postermayhave had permission to post the video. We do not know.

    This opens a window for all sorts of people to send emails to YouTube claiming to own copyright on videos that they do not own copyright on.
    I don't think YouTube is in error. Let's say I post a video of the Super Bowl to YouTube without express written consent of the NFL. Let's say the NFL doesn't notice, and they don't send any notice to YouTube. Now let's say YouTube finds out that I have the Super Bowl up there. It doesn't matter if they found out on their own. It doesn't matter if some non-NFL party tipped them off.

    Can they take it down? Should they take it down? I say yes and yes. Not only is anything on YouTube YouTube's responsibility, but YouTube can do whatever they want on YouTube. YouTube, if they wanted, could delete everybody's videos and replace them with goatse if they wanted to. Also, posting the Super Bowl is clearly a violation of YouTube's terms of service. YouTube can delete my account if they want. Heck, they can delete my account whether I violate the TOS or not. Their site, their rules.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    This argument assumes permission was not given to post the video.
  • navelfluffnavelfluff
    YouTube, if they wanted, could delete everybody's videos and replace them with goatse if they wanted to.
    YouTube could do some fantastic April fools day pranks if they dared... ;-)
  • belarmbelarm
    This argument assumes permission was not given to post the video.
    ...
    This opens a window for all sorts of people to send emails to YouTube claiming to own copyright on videos that they do not own copyright on.
    Actually, YouTube is (AFAIK) supposed to take the video down if they get a DMCA takedown notice; in any event, they should be safe in doing so. On the other hand, Gellar, by sending a takedown notice for something he doesn't have the copyright, is, at the least, in violation of the DMCA himself: it provides penalties for sending takedowns for material one does not own the copyright on.

    In any event, as Scott pointed out, YouTube can take down any video they want to; it is their site.
Sign In or Register to comment.