QuoteHer [Anita's] work focuses on deconstructing the stereotypes and tropes associated with women in popular culture as well as highlighting issues surrounding the targeted harassment of women in online and gaming spaces.This sounds more interesting than deterring to me. What's the consensus on feminism as perceived by media representation and the ideological premise here?From what I'm reading of her work she's very articulate.
Her [Anita's] work focuses on deconstructing the stereotypes and tropes associated with women in popular culture as well as highlighting issues surrounding the targeted harassment of women in online and gaming spaces.
Quote from: Arren on May 06, 2016, 09:37:49 PMQuoteHer [Anita's] work focuses on deconstructing the stereotypes and tropes associated with women in popular culture as well as highlighting issues surrounding the targeted harassment of women in online and gaming spaces.This sounds more interesting than deterring to me. What's the consensus on feminism as perceived by media representation and the ideological premise here?From what I'm reading of her work she's very articulate.Fourth wave feminism is considered a joke, and only taken seriously on places like tumblr
Shame she's back up because of her notoriety. If a smaller channel had been banned for stealing other peoples work and claiming it as their own they'd never have won their appeal.
Do you own the rights to each piece of media that you use in the documentary or online video?NoIf you don't own the content, do you have a license to use it?NoIs the media released under a Creative Commons license?NoIs the media you are reusing part of the public domain?NoIs the purpose of the use criticism, commentary, reporting, teaching, research or parody?YesDoes your reuse transform the material in some way?YesIs the use of the copyrighted media necessary to understand the meaning of your video?YesIs the project for profit?YesIs the content you reuse fact based or is it highly creative?FactualWas the content published?YesDid you use only as much copyrighted content as was needed to make your point?YesWhat percentage of the reused content was taken, and what percentage of the new work does it constitute?LowIs the content taken at the heart of the work?NoWill your work negatively affect the sales of the content you reuse?YesIs your video or product competing in the same market as the copyrighted content?No
Quote from: LC on May 07, 2016, 09:17:39 PMShame she's back up because of her notoriety. If a smaller channel had been banned for stealing other peoples work and claiming it as their own they'd never have won their appeal.Can someone actually talk about whether using others' clips is stealing? Content creators do not retain any rights to their clips as far as I'm aware, because all of that falls under whoever owns that intellectual property; in this case, it's the game's publisher. Content creators own the rights to their commentary and subsequent video, but I don't see how they could argue she stole their work unless she's copying other peoples' videos or arguments (which doesn't appear to be the case). And beyond that, if she's just using standalone clips, that would also fall under fair use because it's transformative and journalistic. http://newmediarights.org/fairuse/SpoilerQuoteDo you own the rights to each piece of media that you use in the documentary or online video?NoIf you don't own the content, do you have a license to use it?NoIs the media released under a Creative Commons license?NoIs the media you are reusing part of the public domain?NoIs the purpose of the use criticism, commentary, reporting, teaching, research or parody?YesDoes your reuse transform the material in some way?YesIs the use of the copyrighted media necessary to understand the meaning of your video?YesIs the project for profit?YesIs the content you reuse fact based or is it highly creative?FactualWas the content published?YesDid you use only as much copyrighted content as was needed to make your point?YesWhat percentage of the reused content was taken, and what percentage of the new work does it constitute?LowIs the content taken at the heart of the work?NoWill your work negatively affect the sales of the content you reuse?YesIs your video or product competing in the same market as the copyrighted content?No
Only upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations.
You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or other material that is contrary to the YouTube Community Guidelines, currently found at https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws and regulations.
It's a violation of their community guidelines which is stated to be against the terms of service.QuoteOnly upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations.
Quote from: LC on May 08, 2016, 01:07:15 PMIt's a violation of their community guidelines which is stated to be against the terms of service.QuoteOnly upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Clips from other videos are neither music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, nor videos made by others. They aren't even really clips of videos made by others, since that person doesn't retain any rights to those clips. There are tons of videos out there that use clips of other peoples' original content as well, such as reaction videos or videos about YouTube drama; the terms of use clearly prohibit uploading someone else's video, but not the use of someone's clips in a different, original video.
The defense of "well other people break the rules all the time" doesn't fly because those people should be getting suspended too, it's just impractical to catch everyone due to how absolutely massive youtube is.
Quote from: LC on May 08, 2016, 02:25:00 PMThe defense of "well other people break the rules all the time" doesn't fly because those people should be getting suspended too, it's just impractical to catch everyone due to how absolutely massive youtube is.it's also the #1 reason anyone uses youtube in the first placethey use it to watch stolen content--periodif they were to delete all copyrighted content off of youtube, guess how many people would use youtubeso not only would it be "impractical," it would be fucking retarded
I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing but even you have to realise these contrarian excuses are pretty pathetic.
Quote from: Mordo on May 08, 2016, 02:45:42 PMI know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing but even you have to realise these contrarian excuses are pretty pathetic.if all "stolen" content on youtube was gotten rid of, youtube would dieit's just a fact
Back in the early days of YouTube this was true. However these day the number one sector of the site is gaming. Let's Plays, competitive matches, industry talks, reviews, previews, editorials et cetera are what make up the lions share of profit now.
A video and clip can also be the same thing as a clip is just a short slice of a film or broadcast and a video is just a recording or broadcast of moving images and when taking YouTubes past actions into account it's clear that YouTube considers them to be synonymous as well.
They clearly aren't, though; that's why film critics can show clips of movies but can't upload the entire movie. YouTube seems to make a pretty explicit distinction between uploading someone's video as one's own and sampling clips in a journalistic role. Look at literally any media critic -- they're doing the exact same thing Anita has done. It doesn't matter if some vlogger uploaded the clip; even if that person did own the rights to that clip (and they don't), it would still be subject to fair use.
Media critics also give credit to the creator of the source material when they reference it.
Anita gives credit to the game's creator, but not the clip's creator. By not citing the clip's source, she's lying by omission
Quote from: LC on May 08, 2016, 02:50:55 PMBack in the early days of YouTube this was true. However these day the number one sector of the site is gaming. Let's Plays, competitive matches, industry talks, reviews, previews, editorials et cetera are what make up the lions share of profit now....all of which contain stolen content, by your definition
Using a third party tool to rip videos from youtube (something that is against the ToS) and then reuploading them inter the pretense that they were made by you is.
This isn't true at all, and doesn't factor into fair use policy or anywhere in YouTube's terms of use.
She doesn't need to give credit anywhere. Fair use doesn't require that, nor does YouTube's terms of use. Whenever someone uploads a video and writes something like, "I don't own this content, the source is linked below", etc, it means nothing. "Lying by omission" is irrelevant to the discussion, and she has no obligation to say where she got her clips because those content creators have no claim to the rights of the game.
Only not at all. If someone has uploaded footage of themselves playing a game that isn't stolen content. If someone is giving a talk on the industry or offering their opinions on the industry they are not stealing content. Reviews are also not stolen content. Using other people gameplay or videos with their authorization isn't stolen content. Using a third party tool to rip videos from youtube (something that is against the ToS) and then reuploading them inter the pretense that they were made by you is.
Fair use frees her from all obligation to obtain permission from anyone. She could take a clip of 100% original content and use it in a satire or journalistic video without saying a word to the content's creator.
So basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements. There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.
What film critic doesn't talk about the director, producer, publisher, etc?
Fair use does, in fact, require use to credit to owner of the property. That's why Nintendo can strong arm Let's Players for ad revenue. The reason why you can't just give Nintendo credit to keep them away is because their copyright (traditional) doesn't allow others to use their properties without permission and (more importantly) for making money off of it.
Whether a use is fair will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act.
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules.
Feminist Frequency Youtube channel banned
