Making GIFS, Fair Use

RedStudios_TSBnick

RedStudios_TSBnick

Hey there, I'm wondering about something troubling me and I thought what other place to come than the geniuses at IT :)

My little studio-organization-thing uploads a quick reel of Behind the Scenes footage on YouTube whenever we have a production day.

You know those services on the web to make a GIF from a YouTube video? If someone has done that to one of our videos, shared it on his/her various social media outlets WITHOUT crediting (us, the video, or even the content in the GIF), does it violate the Fair Use Act? :huh:

Don't know if this will help or not but the video I'm talking about is Monetized, and we are YouTube partners.

Thanks so much in advance! :lol:
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Violation? Yes. To prove it in court you will have to show that they diverted money (income) that would have gone to you but ended up going elsewhere (usually, to them).

I do believe you can ask YouTube to pull the stolen material off the site. I believe someone here has a bit of expeirence with that.

Good luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually, you don't need to show loss of income. In fact, income only becomes relevant if it goes to court, in terms of assessing damages. This is simple copyright infringement. The DMCA is your friend here. Social media sites, YouTube et al will respond to DMCA take-down requests.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ZolaScope said:
Actually, you don't need to show loss of income. In fact, income only becomes relevant if it goes to court, in terms of assessing damages. This is simple copyright infringement. The DMCA is your friend here. Social media sites, YouTube et al will respond to DMCA take-down requests.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about winnable lawsuits. If you sue because you're just angry or want to make a point, you won't get anywhere without showing financial harm somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just get youtube to take it down.

Do you seriously want to go down the route of hiring an attorney (say $200 per hr) and suing... That's a huge expense your side. If you win, you're unlikely to see much given the context.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ok guys, you are all misunderstanding this dude.

he is not saying someone posting something on youtube.

he is saying they made an animated gif out of a video that WAS on youtube.. so they just posted a gif somewhere on Facebook or myspace or something.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IndiePaul said:
Just get youtube to take it down.

Do you seriously want to go down the route of hiring an attorney (say $200 per hr) and suing... That's a huge expense your side. If you win, you're unlikely to see much given the context.
Click to expand...

No, you see this is my video. The issue is that a section has been taken and turned into a GIF, which has been widespread on Tumblr.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ok guys, you are all misunderstanding this dude.

he is not saying someone posting something on youtube.

he is saying they made an animated gif out of a video that WAS on youtube.. so they just posted a gif somewhere on Facebook or myspace or something.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the clarification.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
I'm talking about winnable lawsuits. If you sue because you're just angry or want to make a point, you won't get anywhere without showing financial harm somewhere.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. And I speak as someone who (as a stills photographer) has done this more than once. The crucial thing is that copyright has been violated. There is no need to show actual financial harm in order to win a case in court. The 'financial harm' is implicit in the use of your copyrighted material without remuneration. The amount of damages you can win will depend on the jurisdiction. In most countries, you will win damages equal to what you would reasonably have been expected to be paid, plus costs. In the US, if you have registered the copyright with the US Copyright Office, you can also win extensive punitive damages.

But again, there is no need to show actual financial loss.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ZolaScope said:
This is simply not true. And I speak as someone who (as a stills photographer) has done this more than once. The crucial thing is that copyright has been violated. There is no need to show actual financial harm in order to win a case in court. The 'financial harm' is implicit in the use of your copyrighted material without remuneration. The amount of damages you can win will depend on the jurisdiction. In most countries, you will win damages equal to what you would reasonably have been expected to be paid, plus costs. In the US, if you have registered the copyright with the US Copyright Office, you can also win extensive punitive damages.

But again, there is no need to show actual financial loss.
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
We'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Actually, no we won't. The reason I feel strongly about this is that I think the impression you gave could be harmful to creators. Our work is ripped off too frequently to take this casually.

What you said could easily lead to someone not bothering to protect their intellectual property because they think that there is no chance of winning legal action unless they can prove some sort of financial damage. And that is categorically not true.

The fact (and I emphasise 'fact' because this is not a matter of opinion) is that you can pursue - and win - legal action simply because your copyright has been infringed. Any financial damage only becomes relevant when assessing the level of damages after you win. (This is why any correspondence you write should always be headed 'Without prejudice save as to costs').

Life as a creator is tough enough without giving people the idea that there is nothing they can do to protect themselves.

And it's worth underlining, too, that things don't have to get that far. I'm a member of a professional photographers forum in which pursuing infringements is one of the main topics of discussion. Most of the 'togs on the forum find that a Letter Before Action (LBA), a DMCA take-down notice, or - should you have to push it that far - court documents from a claim in the Small Claims Court, usually gets the miscreant to back down and pay up, without the case ever getting as far as a court hearing.

If your work is important to you, it's worth protecting - and it is possible to do that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top