Paramount Sends More Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Fans Filming Transformers 3 Shoot
from the who's-copyright? dept
Earlier this year, there was a reasonable bit of fuss over Paramount issuing a bogus DMCA takedown on someone who had videotaped a brief snippet of the filming of the next Transformers movie, which was going on in an alleyway right outside the guy’s office. It was difficult to see what sort of “copyright” violation there was here. The guy, Ben Brown, had filmed it himself, and it wasn’t like it was a private set or anything. Paramount never made any sort of statement, but the video did go back up a few days later. Apparently, the over aggressive lawyers at Paramount didn’t learn their lesson. Apparently, a bunch of videos that people shot themselves of filming of the movie going on in Chicago were all taken down from YouTube under DMCA claims. Again, it’s difficult to see how these claims are legit — and this is especially troubling, seeing as it comes from Paramount, which is owned by Viacom. Viacom, of course is involved in a bit of a legal battle with YouTube — but, more importantly, in a previous legal battle over bogus Viacom DMCA takedowns, Viacom had agreed to manually review all takedown notices to avoid bogus takedowns like this one.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, transformers, videos, youtube
Companies: paramount
Comments on “Paramount Sends More Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Fans Filming Transformers 3 Shoot”
Viacom 'promised'
but, more importantly, in a previous legal battle over bogus Viacom DMCA takedowns, Viacom had agreed to manually review all takedown notices to avoid bogus takedowns like this one.
Oh that’s a good one! My ribs are hurting over that. A big content company telling the truth? Oh stop, you’re killing me!
Re: Viacom 'promised'
I read that as they reviewed the takedowns, decided they might be bogus and then decided to see if they would stick anyway.
Re: Re: Cry Wolf Viacom Viacom 'promised'
Time for a 3 strikes law on bogus take down notices. If you issue too many bogus take down notices you are out.
Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
…When this is all just plainly effing stupid?
I can tell you this, as I live in the city and work about six blocks from where they’ve been filming, people are coming downtown SPECIFICALLY to catch glimpses of this stuff. They’re specifically trying to film snippets of the live action. They want specifically to share these with other fans.
….in other words, THESE PEOPLE ARE EFFING INTERESTED! Jesus, how tough is it to know that you don’t look at your greatest potential customers, who happen to be sitting in a spotlight, and take a fat dump on their heads? Promote, you morons! Create buzz. Excitement. Interest. These aren’t film prints, for Christ’s sake. They’re short snippets of the action, which are separately cool from the the actual movie specifically BECAUSE they’re in the backdrop of a non-CGI enhanced first class city/skyline like Chicago.
Is Viacom, like, COMPLETELY devoid of any common sense? What is the possible net benefit of taking down these videos? What is their fear?
I don’t get it….
Re: Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
Hey, I was within at least six blocks of you a week ago. I knew I felt a disturbance in the force…
Re: Re: Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
….And now you’re creepy.
Re: Re: Re: Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
Oops, overshot “funny” straight into “creepy”. Sorry about that!
Re: Re: Re:2 Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
I still believe Dark Helmet is the split personality of my coworker who lives and works downtown.
Re: Re: Re:3 Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
Well, in that case, the split personality of your friend is currently trying to come up with a innexpensive way to create a basic bookcover for a novel I’m going to release on Kickstarter.
If anyone knows of a website that has templates of this nature (or any artists that would like to promote themselves through this book), let me know 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
hmm i said i live six blocks from mcdonalds … you said you were six blocks from me … either you work at mcdonalds … or you are likely wrong … creepy? not really
Re: Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
people don’t like being successful. In their minds, they are successful enough – so stop making them more money!
It’s too bad nobody can afford to sue them over this. It would be interesting to see them prove ownership of the copyright on a video taken by someone with no connection to either Paramount or the film production company.
They’d pretty much have to show some grounds for claiming the copyright, otherwise there’s that whole ‘under penalty of perjury’ clause in the DMCA.
Re: Re:
@Chris-Mouse: “It’s too bad nobody can afford to sue them over this.”
I’ve been saying that for years. But the rate at which it happens (or the complete lack of any challenges) makes me wonder how much ignorance plays into it.
I might care about Transformers movies more if they were about…you know…Transformers. The G1 cartoon had dozens of transformers (with personality) and two or three humans. The last movie had some kid’s mom high on pot brownies. The first movie had lots of filler crap, too. I’m rather disappointed.
So when people are actually interested in this crappy new movie and get issued take-down notices, I say eff ’em. Boycott their sorry ass movie.
And remember…ONLY a Prime can kill a Prime…er…unless you are Megatron…I guess. :::eyeroll and groan:::
Let me start by saying that I agree with Dark Helmet that Paramount should use the fans’ interest as free promotional advertising for the T3 movie and ignore the copyright issues.
In defense of Paramount, I do see a copyright issue here. (Again, it’s worth stressing that I believe they are foolish to assert DMCA claims against their fans.) The staging of a movie set is performance art. Everything is planned in advance, from spoken parts, to the actions of the actors and inanimate objects (such as a car being tossed by an imaginary Transformer), to the background scenery. Since this is performance art, any video recording of the performance art is creating a derivative work of the art. If that video recording is done without permission, then the derivative work is unauthorized. When the fans post these unauthorized derivative works online, they are subject to DMCA takedown notices. But, because the movie set is performance art, and the derivative works unauthorized, the DMCA notices issued by Paramount are not bogus (even though I strongly disagree with Paramount’s use of the DMCA notices in this instance).
Re: Re:
Unauthorized and Copyright are not the same thing. The individual taking the photo still has a right to use it for personal uses. “I was taking a video of Wacker Drive and all these damn movie people kept getting in the way.”
Re: Re:
Since this is performance art, any video recording of the performance art is creating a derivative work of the art.
Either you’re wrong or Wikipedia is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#When_does_derivative-work_liability_exist.3F
Do you know of some other theory under which this could be copyright infringement?
“Even if a work is found to be an unauthorized derivative work, an alleged infringer can escape liability via the defense of fair use.” Non-commercial, small portion of the final product, doesn’t affect the market for the original… yeah I think this would be fair use anyway.
Re: Performance Copyright??
DMM claimed:
But copyright doesn’t exist until the work has been “fixed in a tangible form”. As I understand it, that means there is no copyright in the performance itself, only in recordings of the performance.
Re: Re: Performance Copyright??
A+
Re: Re: Performance Copyright??
“But copyright doesn’t exist until the work has been “fixed in a tangible form”.”
But the script counts for this purpose – however if this was a sporting event there would definitely be no copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Performance Copyright??
But the script counts for this purpose – however if this was a sporting event there would definitely be no copyright.
But they didn’t put a copy of the script (which is probably in dead tree format) out there. They put videos that they took out there. The written script is protected by copyright, but the spoken lines are gray area at best.
Re: Re:
Been on a movie set? Even as an extra?
If that chaos is performance art I’m the uncle of quite a few monkeys.
A tranformer tossing an inanimate object will be done in a studio complete with green screen and not outdoors, for one thing.
Outdoors are used for a number of purposes, not the least backgrounds, weather and the fact that the action itself is too big to be contained on an indoor set. (See above about transformer and green screen.)
Also, it’s easier to do explosions outdoors and there’s
less chance of wiping out a studio that way!
So I’m failing to see where the copyright on the finished movie is infringed by taking a quick video of some outdoor chaos (planned or not and most of it isn’t) and tossing it on YouTube.
As for the idiocy of issuing take down notices; we are in complete agreement. 🙂
“Since this is performance art, any video recording of the performance art is creating a derivative work of the art. If that video recording is done without permission, then the derivative work is unauthorized.”
– Hey, me too. When ever I walk down a street in public, I consider it to be a performance. I plan the route in advance, I know where I’m going and I say hi to people who are not creepy. This is all planned in advance.
“When the fans post these unauthorized derivative works online, they are subject to DMCA takedown notices.”
– Warning to all you out there … including the government, I will issue a DMCA take down notice of my performances if you post them. You have been warned.
Re: Re:
“Hey, me too. When ever I walk down a street in public, I consider it to be a performance.”
Man, I’d hate to tell you what I consider a performance….
Re: Re: Re:
First trip to the “loo” in the morning perhaps?
Re: Re:
A photograph, or video of a performance, art, painting, or sculpture displayed in a public setting, is a derivative work. Only the owner of the photograph can own the copyright for the photo or video. Yes the original owner of the art or performance that was photographed can attempt to sue the photo owner, but will probably lose in a court of law, due to the issue of displaying in a public setting.
But what the heck, go ahead and sue, that is what copyright is for, civil suits, not criminal. Try and sue me for doing something like that, and I’ll counter-sue for falsely claiming copyright on my copyright!
Props on a set are almost certainly copyrightable as sculptural works. There is also a composition copyright in the movie set as a whole including both created set props and the street and buildings.
I don’t know why people think that something has to be “private” to retain a copyright. As the owner of a work, I can choose to publicly display without giving up rights to the underlying creative work. Just because you can take a photograph without someone stopping you doesn’t mean that photograph is legal.
Re: Re:
A photograph, or video of a performance, art, painting, or sculpture displayed in a public setting, is a derivative work. Only the owner of the photograph can own the copyright for the photo or video. Yes the original owner of the art or performance that was photographed can attempt to sue the photo owner, but will probably lose in a court of law, due to the issue of displaying in a public setting.
But what the heck, go ahead and sue, that is what copyright is for, civil suits, not criminal. Try and sue me for doing something like that, and I’ll counter-sue for falsely claiming copyright on my copyright!
Re: Re:
No, sculptural works in a public setting are definitely not not something protected from filming by copyright. See this document (warning: pdf) for more guidance.
Now, the area around the performance is certainly more grey. My guess-and, yes, it is an opinion-would be that an infringement claim would hinge around your usage of such a recording. Posting a limited amount of the footage on YouTube or used with journalistic intent should be exempt. But if you were selling that footage for direct profit you might find a jury to be sympathetic with the plaintiff.
Re: Re:
The streets and buildings are public places, so you’re displaying the sets in a public place easily visible by anyone around it.
The copyright on the resulting composition which will be seen when the movie is released doesn’t exist until the composition exists. (Yes, movie companies routinely copyright rushes but that’s another story.) If the pictures or videos aren’t treading anywhere near the composition just how can anyone be infringing anything? Particularly as it’s happening in public place?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Re: Re: Re:
exactly! counselor might even suggest, “asked and answered” as the article explains filming on a public street … sooner or later folks, we are all going to realize that if the *copyright owner* had wanted to protect the value of that copyright, they would have filmed on a green/blue/chartreuse screen in a lot that was owned/leased/bartered for in private. since we, the people, own the street … and we, the people have a right to photo stuff on the street … and the supremes say that there is no expectation of privacy on the street … copyright infringement due to photos/videos/elaborate origami of said street are baseless
your in public filming a movie, don’t you lose certain expectations when in PUBLIC doing things
Transparent
Obvious attempts to garner press for the franchise they very nearly murdered in RotF. Nothing to see here, except more justification for needed penalties of spurious DMCA takedown attempts.