warnings, take downs and filters--curtailing users’ rights of copyrighted materials and what we...

8/14/2019 Warnings, Take Downs and Filters--Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted Materials and What We Can Do About It

1/20

Timothy VollmerSI 519 Final Paper

December 10, 2007


2/20

Warnings, Take Downs and Filters: Curtailing Users Rights of Copyrighted

Materials and What We Can Do About It

In recent years weve recognized ways in which citizens have been limited in using

copyrighted materials for legitimate purposes. Fair use rights have been misconstrued by some

copyright holders, thus curtailing legal uses of creativity and culture. Such rights have been

downplayed by overzealous rights holders in various waysthrough the use of misleading

copyright warnings, through a widespread and overreaching use of Digital Millennium Copyright

Act (DMCA) takedown notices, through the capitulation of media hosting site to rights holders

demands, and through the introduction of automatic copyright filtering technologies. The

aforementioned practices miseducate the public, curtail lawful speech, and may chill future

lawful use of copyrighted creativity. There are several things we, as a community of content

producers and consumers, can do in order to support user rights to legal uses of copyrighted

content. The language of the fair use provision will guide our analysis:

Fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or

phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such ascriticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom

use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.1

Misleading Copyright Warnings

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) distinguishes between

copyright notices (such as: 2007 Jack Bernard) and copyright warnings.2 The CCIA says that

copyright notices are useful tools that clearly signal to the consumer of the content some basic

information about the rights available therein. The CCIA defines copyright warnings as express

1 17 U.S.C. 1072 The CCIA is a nonprofit membership organization for the computer, Internet, information technology, and

telecommunications industries whose mission is to promote open, barrier-free competition in the offering of

computer and communications products and services worldwide. CCIA members include organizations such as

Google, The Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo!. More information

found at http://www.ccianet.org/about.html


3/20

statements and representations which describe and purport to limit permissible uses of the work

in questionand may make representations regarding civil and criminal penalties for copyright

infringement.3

Federal law does not require the warnings. While the CCIA recognizes the utility

of copyright notices, they question the motivation behind and effects of copyright warnings.

The CCIA filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in August 2007

that aimed to address misleading copyright warning on print materials, DVDs and in broadcast

programming. The complaint contends that the practice of attaching misleading copyright

warnings constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices and chills users from making fair uses

of copyrighted materials.

The complaint alleges a systematic misrepresentation of consumers rights to use legally

acquired content by certain copyright-holding corporations.4

Generally, the complaint states that

entities like book publishers say things in the copyright warnings they shouldnt be legally able

to sayrights-holder corporations employ copyright warnings that purport to limit the publics

right to engage in activities not explicitly authorized by the rights-holder corporation.5 The

CCIA says, these ubiquitous statements often include gross misrepresentations of federal law

and characterize as unlawful acts that are explicitly permitted by law.6

These warnings can

confuse and intimidate many potential users of copyrighted materials and hinder free

expression.7

We will explore two examples in our analysis.

Examples of Misleading Copyright Warnings

There are numerous examples of misleading copyright warnings in printed materials like

books. Almost all books contain a copyright notice within the first few pages of the book. This

3 CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.44 Ibid., 15

Ibid., 46

Defend Fair Use. Executive Summary of FTC Complaint, http://www.defendfairuse.org/ftc_complaint.html7

Ibid.


4/20

notice is usually on the informational page that also lists the publisher, ISBN classification

number, etc. Typically this page also contains some sort of copyright warning. Harcourts The

Republic of Pirates (Colin Woodward) lists following copyright warning:

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and

retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.8

(See Fig. 1)

This type of notice gives users a limited view of their rights in using the materials in

question, and misrepresents the fact that copying which the publisher has not authorized may

nevertheless be permitted by law, such as in using portions of copied passages for purposes of

critique, as in a book review.

9

Librarian Karen Coyle observes that these warnings have become the default for nearly all

printed books. In addition to the chilling effects these copyright warnings may have, Coyle

identifies what she calls a numbing effect on potential users of the material. She asserts that

the sheer ridiculousness of the claims means that we just ignore them all, and leads folks to see

copyright itself as ridiculous.10

The CCIA complaint also outlines several examples of misleading copyright warnings for

DVDs. These warnings usually appear immediately upon loading the disc in a DVD player. In

The Good Shepherd (2006, released by Morgan Creek/Universal), viewers see the following

copyright warning:

All material is protected by copyright laws of the United States and all countries throughoutthe world. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized exhibition, distribution, or copying of this

film or any part thereof (including soundtrack) is an infringement of the relevant copyrightand will subject the infringer to severe civil and criminal penalties.11 (See Fig. 2)

8 CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.89 Ibid., 810

Karen Coyle. Deceptive Copyright Notices, Coyles Information, August 1, 2007.

http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/08/deceptive-copyright-notices.html11

CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.6


5/20

As is the case in the print example, the DVD copyright warnings can misrepresent the law.

As weve seen, some uses of copyrighted works without the owners permission are allowed and

even encouraged by federal law under the fair use provision and within Section 110 of the

Copyright Act. Section 110 permits a performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils

in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a

classroom or similar place devoted to instruction.12 The CCIA points out that DVD copyright

warnings can be doubly misleading because the warning appear not only while viewing the film,

but also on the DVD packaging.

Effects of Misleading Copyright Warnings

If consumers are confused about their rights to use legally acquired media, they may

forego the use of legitimate products and services out of confusion or fear.13

Speaking to

interviewers about their experience in uploading online videos, some students at American

University said that theyve been inundated with messages suggesting that every use of

copyrighted material must be cleared with owners.14 For this reason one student had never posted

a video to a video-sharing site.

The cause of this confusion is not immediately clear, but misinformation and intimidation

from rights holding corporations in the form of misleading copyright notices can be seen as a

contributing factor. The study from the Center for Social Media concludes that there is a need

for better general understanding of the use rights of creators, in order to create a more stable and

useful framework within which new creation can flourish.15

12 17 U.S.C. 110(1)13 Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video Creators on Copyright,

April 2007. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusing/14

Ibid., 615

Ibid., 9


6/20

Overreaching DMCA Take Down Notices

In addition to misleading copyright warnings on print and DVD media, there are other

ways that users rights have been curtailed. As digital technologies have exploded and user-

generated content has increased in popularity, video hosting sites like YouTube represent a

powerful medium for sharing digital content. YouTube was created in 2005, and few predicted

that it would become the powerhouse video-sharing site it represents today. At the time of this

writing, YouTube holds over 58,000,000 user-uploaded videos.16

YouTube has been a site of

growing concern for content owners. Rights holding corporations fear that YouTube users are

pirating, in whole or in part, copyrighted works and then uploading these materials onto

YouTube.

Copyright owners wishing to eliminate copyright infringement on YouTube have

undertaken a massive search-and-destroy campaign to smother misuses of their materials.

Corporate owners of copyrighted content have engaged in active policing of YouTube, issuing

DMCA take down notices to YouTube, who is then responsible for removing the questionable

content.

Examples of Overreaching DMCA Take Down Notices

Overzealous content owners have come under fire from several YouTube users whove

claimed that their uploaded content was taken down in error. Several ambitious individuals and

group have challenged the ease at which content owners have asserted power over YouTubes

content by creating videos they believe incorporate fair uses of copyrighted materials.

In February 2007 Northeastern University Law Professor Wendy Seltzer posted a video

on YouTube that contained the copyright notice from the 2007 Super Bowl. The video was

16There are few statistics about the actual number of videos hosted on YouTube. This number comes from a simple

wildcard search on the site, accomplished by searching * (an asterisk). This search was done on December 7,

2007.


7/20

created as an educational resource for her students and a test case to see if the NFL would censor

it. The video is 33 seconds long. The first 10 seconds contains the spoken copyright notice that is

played over a collage of NFL video graphics. The copyright notice states as follows:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other useof this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the

NFLs consent, is prohibited.

Within five days, the NFL issued a DMCA take down notice, served by YouTube to

Seltzer. In addition to notifying Wendy that her video had been removed from YouTube, the

letter also urged her to delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from

uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others.

17

Wendys video was ultimately reinstated because it was recognized as a fair use of the

NFL broadcast. This case demonstrates how rights holding corporations, judging derivative

works with a blind eye towards the context of the use, can unwittingly curb speech. The case

took weeks to be resolved. We must recognize how difficult this process can be to users

unfamiliar with the law and protocols necessary to navigate this complicated process.

In August 2006, MoveOn.org posted a video to YouTube entitled Stop the Falsiness."

The video aimed to mimic Stephen Colberts ubiquitous Truthiness vignettes on his Comedy

Central show, The Colbert Report(See Fig. 3). MoveOns video was created as a tongue-in-

cheek commentary on Colbert's portrayal of the right-wing media and parodied MoveOn's own

reputation for online political activism. 18 The film contained clips from The Colbert Reportand

other original interviews about Colbert. In March 2007, Viacomthe parent company of

17 Wendy Seltzer. My First DMCA Takedown, Wendy.Seltzer.org:Legal Tags, The Blog.February 13, 2007.http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html18

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.

http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#005176


8/20

Comedy Centraldemanded that YouTube remove the video, claiming that it infringed on its

copyrights.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who petitioned a federal court to put the

removed video back onto YouTube, defended MoveOn. The EFF claimed that MoveOns video

makes fair uses ofColbert Reportclips. EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry ironically points

out that MoveOns use of the Colbert Reportclips is the same kind of fair use that The Colbert

Reportrely upon every night as they parody other channels news coverage.19

Like Seltzers

video, Stop the Falsiness was eventually put back onto YouTube.

The Role of YouTube

Some groups argue that YouTube has been too lax in supporting users rights to utilize

copyrighted content for fair uses. They claim that YouTube has blindly accepted the demands of

rights holding corporations by removing content without investigating the veracity of the DMCA

take down claims. Wishing to avoid costly copyright infringement litigation, YouTube regularly

removes content if a copyright owner complains of a suspected infringement. University of Iowa

Communications Studies Professor Kembrew McLeod says, The DMCA protects sites like

YouTube from copyright infringement claims if, and only if, they quickly comply with takedown

requests from copyright holders.20

This can chill speech, as explained below:

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a mere allegation of copyrightinfringement on the Internet can result in content removal, silencing a creator before any

misuse is proven. This "shoot first, ask questions later" system can silence online artists

and critics, creating unfair hurdles to free speech.21

19 Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.

http://www.eff.org/press/releases/2007/03#00517620 Kembrew McLeod, Uri Gellers YouTube Takedown, Los Angeles Times Online. September 18, 2007.http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mcleod18sep18,0,5284602.story?coll=la-news-comment21

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report, EFF. March 2007.



9/20

While YouTube typically submits to copyright holders demands, they also do a poor job

at explaining to users the concept of fair use. Their Copyright Tips section in the YouTube

documentation can be confusing and misleading:

To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or songqualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in

the U.S. copyright statute. Unfortunately, the weighing of these four factors is often quitesubjective and complex, and for this reason, it's often difficult to determine whether a

particular use is a "fair use." If the copyright owner disagrees with your interpretation offair use, the copyright owner may chose to resolve the dispute in court. If it turns out that

your use is not a fair use, then you are infringing the copyrights of the owner and youmay be liable for monetary damages.

22

Digital Filtering Technologies Within User-Generated Content Sites

Filtering technologies can be even more damaging to a users ability to view and utilize

copyrighted materials under the fair use provision because content can be censored before it has

the chance to be uploaded to a video-sharing site like YouTube.

Googles filtering system for YouTube does not preemptively block content, but the

systems devised by a copyright consortium consisting of corporations including CBS, Disney,

Fox, Microsoft, Myspace, NBC and Viacom agree to use technology to eliminate copyright-

infringing content uploaded by Web users and to block any pirated material before it is publicly

accessible.23

This type of video fingerprinting technology works by comparing prospective video

content with an existing of database of copyrighted content. Filtering technologies are efficient

because they can reliably capture all copyrighted content that is indexed in its database.

Unfortunately, while fingerprinting technology may be able to flag copyrighted material, it can't

22 YouTube.com, Using Some Copyrighted Content in Your Videos, http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright23

Kenneth Li. Media Companies in Copyright Pact, Google Absent, Reuters News Service. October 18, 2007.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/10/18/media_cos_to_disclose_copyright_pact_today_rep

ort/


10/20

make judgments about how it's used.24 The problem with the filtering technologies is that they

can identify content, but cannot identify the particular use of the content. Under this type of

system, fair uses can be inadvertently weeded out. The concern in introducing filtering

technologies is that it creates a proactive identification system for infringing content, thus

shift[ing] the onus of copyright enforcement away from the rights holders and towards the sites

themselves.25

The EFF identifies another problem with a dummy system like thisvideo

identification technology may not be able to discern whether a "match" results from a verbatim

infringing copy, or whether it results from a short excerpt embedded in a longer piece that

includes other content.26

The EFF concedes that YouTube does in fact allow users to contest

videos blocked by a filter, but points out that many [users] may not be willing to put themselves

in the crosshairs of movie studio lawyers to determine whether a particular use is fair.27 This

passive intimidation technique may lead to more users censoring the content they upload to sites

like YouTube.

Policy Recommendations

We can identify several areas for improvement so that users rights, specifically fair use

rights, can be enabled and maintained. We need to continually work to support the original

vision of copyright in the United Statesto promote the progress of science and the useful

arts.28

Within the realm of commercial print publishers, companies like John Wiley & Sons have24 Eric Bangeman, Consortiums user-generated content principles extend beyond fair use, Ars Technica. October

18, 2007. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-consortiums-user-generated-content-principles-extend-far-

beyond-fair-use.html25 Ibid.26 Fred Von Lohmann, YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic Frontier Foundation.

October 15, 2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use27

Ibid.28

U.S. Const. Art. I, 8, cl. 8.


11/20

demonstrated that copyright warnings need not misrepresent users rights. For example, the 2007

publication ofHotel California: The True-Life Adventures of Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young,

Mitchell, Taylor, Browne, Ronstadt, Geffen, the Eagles, and Their Many Friends contains the

following statement:

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108

of the United States Copyright Act(emphasis added), without either the prior written

permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy

fee to the Copyright Clearance Center29 (See Fig. 4)

While statements like this may seem like a first step towards supporting users rights, they

do not necessarily do all that much to educate the public. Simply stating that users may exercise

their Section 107 and 108 rights does little for the common consumer if they are unaware what

those rights are. Similarly, YouTubes weak support for fair use is less than ideal if all they can

do is urge users to consult an attorney in order to sort out a potential fair use of copyrighted

content.

Some oppose the revisions suggested by the CCIA complaint. Patrick Ross, Executive

Director of the Copyright Alliance30, says that the message of copyright warnings is clear and

should remain intact. He also claims that a public inundated with confusing fair use information

could actually promote more unlawful uses of work. Ross says:

I don't think we want copyright warnings to become a fair use public service

announcement. No, these warnings do exactly what they're meant to donotify

consumers in a succinct fashion that infringement has legal consequences. Going furtherhas risks; for example, describing fair use merely as a "consumer right" can leadotherwise well-meaning individuals to infringe on content and face civil or criminal

29CCIA, In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights, August 2007. p.8

30The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright

as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth. More information available at http://www.copyrightalliance.org/aboutus


12/20

liabilities, because they only paid attention to the misleading disclaimer forced into thenotice and acted in a way that wasn't covered under "fair use" as legally defined.

31

Misstated copyright warnings and corporate copyright propaganda need to be immediately

redressed. At the same time, stating that users have an abstract right to fair use of the material

without explaining the concept will not be valuable. We need to be able to point to specific

examples of fair uses. In addition to generic copyright notices (such as 2007 Jack Bernard) we

should work to develop standardized language for an informative statement that can more clearly

balance the rights available to both copyright holders and users of the work.

For video content, Bucknell University Professor Eric Faden created a humorous short film

that pieces together clips from various Disney Films to poke fun of that corporations push for

increased copyright extensions. The copyright warning that rolls at the onset of the film

parodies the dire message we see at the beginning of nearly all films on DVD, but with a unique

twist urging for expanded user rights:

Warning. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions ofcopyrighted motion pictures, videotapes, or video discus under certain circumstances

without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is calledfair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching, andparody.

32(See Fig. 5)

While this parodied copyright warning is not likely to be adopted by any film studio, the

message can work to build solidarity and bring awareness to the issues of control around

copyrighted works.

31 Patrick Ross, Perspective: Fair Use is Not a Consumer Right, News.com. September 6, 2007.

http://www.news.com/Fair-use-is-not-a-consumer-right/2010-1030_3-6205977.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-

5&subj=news32

Eric Faden, A Fair(y) Use Tale, Stanford Center for Internet and Society. March 1, 2007.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale


13/20

To rebuff hasty DMCA take down notices, projects like the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse

work to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats.33

The

clearinghouse provides an online form where users can easily generate a counternotice. The

clearinghouse aims to make it easier for users to assert their rights, possibly without the need to

hire an attorney.

Groups like the EFF have worked to address problems with misapplied DMCA take down

notices. After the Stop the Falsiness incident, the EFF convinced Viacom to create a dedicated

email address to aggregate counter notifications. The EFF calls this the Dolphin Hotline. The

idea of the hotline is to give affected users an efficient way to informally request that incorrectly

removed content be reinstated. Creators of the YouTube mashup film 10 Things I Hate About

Commandments used the hotline after YouTube removed their video. The video used footage

from The Ten Commandments, the seminal Chaleton Heston film owned by Paramount

Picture (Viacom). The creators claimed a fair use to the material in their transformed version. To

the groups surprise, Viacom withdrew its takedown notice within four business days after the

creators sent an email message to the hotline address.34

In reaction to proposed filtering technologies, the EFF has offered several guidelines aimed

to balance copyright owners rights with fair uses of the materials. The EFF recognized that

many users are incorporating copyrighted materials in order to create new, transformative works.

These new derivative works may constitute a fair use of the original copyrighted content.

In a report entitled Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, a group of

organizations including the EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Social Media,

Public Knowledge, Harvards Berkman Center for Internet and Society and others proffer a

33Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, About Us. Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. http://www.chillingeffects.org/about

34Fred von Lohmann, Viacom Nets, Releases Another Fair Use Dolphin, Electronic Frontier Foundation. June 20,

2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/viacom-nets-releases-another-fair-use-dolphin


14/20

framework to navigate online user generated content. The consortium offers several

recommendations, including the following:

providing users a wide berth for transformative and creative uses of content incorporating filters only if they offer protections for fair usesrequiring that content owners properly file DMCA notices so that users alleging improper

take down have a structural and legal recourse for appeal

ensuring that users who are the subject of the DMCA take down be notified and explainedtheir rights thereafter

suggesting an informal dolphin hotline to be maintained by content owner organizationsso that users can more easily communicate with owners if they feel their content is adolphin mistakenly caught in the tuna nets

requiring that service providers abide by the counternotice-and-putback process set forthby the DMCA and be able to act within a judicious time period in responding to users

putback requests35

The guidelines suggest that various precautions if content filtering technologies are

implemented to prevent illegal posting of copyrighted content on sites like YouTube. The report

suggests that filtering technologies should ensure a match of both the video and audio tracks

before that material is automatically removed. Furthermore, the report suggests that a ratio test

might be implementedif nearly the entirety (e.g., 90% or more) of the challenged content is

comprised of a single copyrighted work, that work should be flagged.36 This would drastically cut

down on the videos improperly identified as infringementif the match is only 10% of the

entire video, that's a good indication that we're talking about transformative content, rather than

verbatim copying.37

35 Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, EFF, p. 1.

http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen36

Ibid., 237

Fred Von Lohmann, YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic Frontier Foundation.

October 15, 2007. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use


15/20

Central to a fair use analysis, especially with the introduction of automatic filtering

technologies, is the ability for human review. The report offers the principle that humans trump

machineshuman creators should be afforded the opportunity to dispute the conclusions of

automated filters.38 Human review is crucial in order to understand the diverse range of cases

bound to arise. Human-mediated interpretation of the materials surrounding context is key.

Rights-holding corporations have long been worried about piracy, which has prompted

misleading copyright statements, aggressive and overreaching DMCA take down notices, and the

exploration of automatic filtering technologies. Many of these practices have harmed content

users by curbing otherwise legal uses of copyrighted materials. We should support the rights

already granted to us under fair use, and continually work to rebuff miseducation campaigns and

technological impediments to using copyrighted content in ways that promote science, art and

human creativity. This Center for Social Media report argues that progress on this topic is

especially important now: For those interested in the public health of the body politic and

social, this is a critical moment, when new speech habits are being established.39

38 Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content, EFF, p. 2.

http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen39

Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video Creators on Copyright,

April 2007. p. 2. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusing/


16/20

EXHIBITS

Fig. 1

Fig. 2


17/20

Fig. 3

Fig. 4


18/20

Fig. 5


19/20

Works Cited

Bangeman, Eric. Consortiums user-generated content principles extend beyond fair use, ArsTechnica. October 18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-consortiums-user-generated-content-

principles-extend-far-beyond-fair-use.html

Center for Social Media, The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User Generated Video

Creators on Copyright, April 2007.http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/the_good_bad_and_confusin

g/

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. About Us, Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. AccessedDecember 7, 2007. http://www.chillingeffects.org/about

Computer and Communications Industry Association. In the Matter of Misrepresentation of

Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights By National Football League, NFL Properties,Inc., NFL Enteprises LLC and Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball

Properties, Inc., Major League Baseball Advanced Media, LP and NBC Universal, Inc.,Universal Studios, Inc., and Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. and DreamWorks

Animation SKG, Inc., DreamWorks LLC, a Viacom property and Harcourt Inc. andPenguin Group (USA), Inc. August 1, 2007.

http://www.defendfairuse.org/include/complaint.html

Coyle, Karen. Deceptive Copyright Notices, Coyles Information. August 1, 2007. AccessedDecember 7, 2007. http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/08/deceptive-copyright-notices.html

Defend Fair Use. Executive Summary of FTC Complaint, Defendfairuse.org. Accessed

December 7, 2007. http://www.defendfairuse.org/ftc_complaint.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of Colbert Report,Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 22, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.


Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content,http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-use-principles-usergen

Faden, Eric. A Fair(y) Use Tale, Stanford Center for Internet and Society. March 1, 2007.

Accessed December 7, 2007. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale

Li, Kenneth. Media Companies in Copyright Pact, Google Absent, Reuters News Service.

October 18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/10/18/media_cos_to_disclose_

copyright_pact_today_report/


20/20

McLeod, Kembrew. Uri Gellers YouTube Takedown, Los Angeles Times Online. September18, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mcleod18sep18,0,5284602.story?coll=la-news-comment

Ross, Patrick. Perspective: Fair Use is Not a Consumer Right, News.com. September 6, 2007.Accessed December 7, 2007. http://www.news.com/Fair-use-is-not-a-consumer-right/2010-1030_3-6205977.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

Seltzer, Wendy. My First DMCA Takedown, Wendy.Seltzer.org:Legal Tags, The Blog.

February 13, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html

Von Lohmann, Fred. Viacom Nets, Releases Another Fair Use Dolphin, Electronic Frontier

Foundation. June 20, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/viacom-nets-releases-another-fair-use-dolphin

Von Lohmann, Fred. YouTubes Copyright Filter: New Hurdle for Fair Use? Electronic

Frontier Foundation. October 15, 2007. Accessed December 7, 2007.http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/youtubes-copyright-filter-new-hurdle-fair-use

YouTube.com. Copyright Tips: Using Some Copyrighted Content in Your Videos. Accessed

December 7, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright

warnings, take downs and filters--curtailing users’ rights of copyrighted materials and what we...

Documents