Your Counter Notification Is Awaiting Review by Youtube

As I have previously discussed, and discussed, BR Enter Music, in the name of the High german National Library, has removed my documentary, You don't know Hitler (2006) from YouTube and I now accept a, "copyright strike," confronting me (two more inside xc days and my YouTube business relationship will be shut down). Yes, that's correct, I am beingness penalized because a 3rd party, acting for a fourth, imagines that they own the copyright to a audio recording of Nazi Propaganda; specifically the, "Horst Wessel Song," aka the Nazi Anthem, which you can listen to on whatsoever number of YouTube channels.

In gild to even admission my account and file a counter-notification I had to consummate, "copyright school."

Equally you can meet, the instructions tell yous to watch this video and answer four questions about information technology. I did not lookout the video, I simply answer the questions and, "Congratulations," I passed.

Once I finally got back into my account and clicked on the counter-notification options they tried to scare me off from going any further.

But later this did I reached the box where I could enter the details of my counter-notification.

Unfortunately, YouTube severely limits the number of characters they volition permit you to apply in making your merits, so I could not put in the lengthy rebuttal I had composed. This was literally every bit much as they would allow me to say:

"In my expert opinion, as a documentarian and a professor of film, with an MFA in my field, I am confident that my documentary should not have been removed. I have equanimous a lengthy argument i) Explicate why Nazi Propaganda is in the Public Domain, and 2) Why, even if it was not in the Public Domain, everything I take washed in this film meets the four criteria unremarkably used to define Fair Use in U.South. Courts. Unfortunately, YouTube'due south ridiculous organisation limits the number of characters I tin type here."

That's it. Non even i character more. Then I had to agree to their terms.

Finally, I was told, "Your counter notification is awaiting review by YouTube. If accepted, information technology will be forwarded to the claimant who removed your video. They will have x U.South. concern days to review and respond." So it's up to YouTube to decide if my incredibly truncated response is fifty-fifty sent to BR Enter Music, and and so it's unclear what BR Enter can or cannot do in their "response" or what rights I accept in this one sided process. What a load of crap! A big, stinky, corporate, bureaucratic dump. Permit'southward hope that somehow it all comes clean in the launder merely this entire feel isn't making me optimistic. Feel free to keep emailing YouTube (copyright@youtube.com), BR Enter Music (BRentermusic@gmail.com), and the German National Library (info-50@dnb.de and info-f@dnb.de) to tell them only how ridiculous you notice this unabridged affair. Who knows? Information technology might actually do some good.

If you want to see, You don't know Hitler, it is even so bachelor on vimeo, and I just added it to my pivotshare channel, where I've been sellingConspiracy Theorists Lie (2015) for the last year. If you would like to read the entire argument I had prepared for my counter-notification…

Counter-Notification for You lot don't know Hitler (2006):

I am writing in defense of my documentary, Yous don't know Hitler, which was inappropriately taken down from YouTube because BR Enter Music, on behalf of Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, claimed that the "audio recording" rights to, "Soldatenlieder – Die Fahne hoch – Horst Wessel Lied – Version xi," had not been canonical for apply in my video.

I am very disappointed in YouTube's process for settling disputes like this, considering no proof of the claimant's declared copyright was provided to me and I was forced to choose betwixt a public domain argument or a fair employ argument, with no opportunity to brand both in the initial entreatment process. I chose to focus on a public domain argument previously but I insist on making both arguments in full here. Before I do that, I feel it is important to note that I am a professor of film with an MFA that focused on nonfiction filmmaking. I would be considered an Adept Witness on the subject in a courtroom of law and I am not just someone who randomly posted something to YouTube.

PUBLIC DOMAIN ARGUMENT:

The 1 minute 6 second piece of my documentary in which the, "Horst Wessel Song," appears is a clip from Leni Riefenstahl's almost famous propaganda pic, Triumph of the Will (1935). This film in particular and a great bargain of other propaganda work created by the National Socialists (Nazis) was liberally used, without permission, by Hollywood director Frank Capra, working for the U.S. Authorities, during the Second Globe State of war. Clearly the U.Due south. Regime did non see this as a copyright violation at the time. Additionally, the government of the United Kingdom expressly abolished whatever recognition of Nazi copyrights during the war. This practice, of assuming Nazi copyrights to be zippo and void, was also followed by the first major, non-governmental documentary made nearly the Holocaust, the French produced, Night and Fog (1955), and information technology has connected to exist followed by many productions since then. I recollect talking to the Israeli documentarian and author, Alan Rosenthal, when I was in graduate school, and he told me that he expressly would never pay to use any Nazi material or seek any permissions, in whatever way, because cipher could be more in the Public Domain than Nazi propaganda.

The Nazi State and the Nazi Party were a criminal organisation, convicted of, "Crimes Against Humanity," in international court. Their remaining leaders were executed and the symbols of their illegitimate authorities were banned in Germany, yet BR Enter Music would take yous believe that they retained their copyrights, including the audio recording rights to their hateful anthem, which could be passed on to future generations of Germans to exclusively command? This is truly an cool position to take and it begs the question, "By what means did the German language National Library receive the sound recording rights to this rally cry for evil?" Was it bequeathed to them by Joseph Goebbels and the Ministry for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment? Was some retroactive decree made by the present German Authorities to declare that anything sitting their vaults was magically theirs under copyright law? The thought that Nazi Propaganda is anything other than Public Domain material is morally reprehensible and legally precarious.

FAIR Utilise Statement:

Regardless of the weak nature of BR Enter Music's copyright claim, my documentary is a textbook example of Fair Use. At that place are four factors typically used in U.Southward. Courts to determine Fair Utilise and you need not meet all of them to accept a court rule in your favor, simply in this case my work clearly does.

Gene 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use

You don't know Hitler is an educational and political documentary, which uses Nazi Propaganda to show how the Nazis presented themselves and what they really were. Information technology is a transformative piece, which does not simply play the footage but creatively arranges it, along with original narration, to brand thoughtful and important arguments. The film was also being offered on YouTube free of charge and free from ads.

Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

As noted higher up, the status of BR Enter Music's copyright claim is tenuous at best. Information technology should also be noted that they take not proven that the sound recording they claim to own is the same every bit the sound recording used by Leni Riefenstahl in her picture show. How tin can we exist certain that Riefenstahl did not make her own recording of the, "Horst Wessel Song," during the filming of Triumph of the Volition? Additionally, fifty-fifty if information technology can be established that Riefenstahl used the particular recording in question at the end of her film, information technology was conspicuously used with permission from the Office of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment at the time. To say that any copyright holder can step in after the fact and say, "Yes, yous had the right to use our material but no one has a correct to show how you used our material," is legal nonsense.

The near important point near the nature of this work is that it was fabricated by the Nazis to promote Nazi Ideology. Information technology is highly political, to the extreme, and very open to criticism and educational uses.

Factor 3: The Corporeality or Substantiality of the Portion Used

I used the entire 1 minute and 6 seconds of the vocal that appears at the cease of Triumph of the Will. I was showing the audio and visual messages that Riefenstahl's work was sending in their original context. This was absolutely appropriate to the arguments I made in the moving-picture show.

Gene 4: The Effect of the Use on the Potential Marketplace for or Value of the Work

Since YouTube does non allow certain types of, "not advertiser-friendly," videos to exist monetized (specifically, "Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to tearing extremism," and "Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to state of war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown") I was not making whatever coin from this video, nor would BR Enter Music be able to make whatever money from it on YouTube. Additionally, the auction of Nazi Propaganda cloth is extremely regulated, if not entirely forbidden, in Federal republic of germany, and the market is limited elsewhere by depression demand. Since, under my understanding of German police, BR Enter Music cannot sell copies of this song to the hateful extremists who may want information technology, nor would such people presumably exist content to but hear information technology in my film and never buy it from another source, if BR Enter Music was able to sell it to them, it is non reasonable to debate that my work has had any negative effect on the market value of the original work.

This thing should never have reached this absurd betoken. YouTube should not have given unquestioned deference to BR Enter Music's merits against me and my documentary should not have been taken downwardly from YouTube. I promise this counter claim will finally resolve this matter and restore the video to my channel because I am completely inside my rights to take made this motion picture and to publicly show it to others.

Thanks,
James M. Lambert

caldwellmancepoperes.blogspot.com

Source: https://jamesklambertblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/my-youtube-counter-notification/

Bagikan Artikel ini