If you are a copyright owner of a video that has been copied or pirated without your permission, Facebook is making it easier for you to police the social platform for unauthorized and pirated videos — and then either monitor or block them, or potentially make money from them.
Facebook’s Rights Manager allows copyright holders to identify unauthorized video sharing based on reference files. But using the system has largely been a manual process, unless rights owners developed hooks from their own automated systems into the Rights Manager’s API.
Facebook now is directly integrating Rights Manager with services from three third-party providers —Zefr, Friend MTS, and MarkMonitor — to provide new options to automate such tasks. Although Facebook doesn’t charge any fees to use Rights Manager, the third-party partners do.
Zefr: Zefr’s RightsID system was originally created for YouTube. Through Zefr’s access to Facebook’s video-search API, it can help rights holders find intellectual property via descriptive search; Zefr also will offer clients the capability to manage the queues of automated matches returned by Rights Manager.
Mark Monitor: MarkMonitor provides antipiracy-screening services for on-demand and live-streaming video.
Friends MTS: U.K.-based Friend MTS’s services for TV broadcasters let them find illegal live-streams of their channels
Facebook’s Rights Manager lets content owners create automated rules to determine what actions to take when it finds a copyright-infringing video. They can block the video from being viewed; leave the video up and monitor it for activity; or claim a share of any advertising revenue generated if an ad break runs during the video. In addition, rights holders can choose to manually review the videos that are flagged as a match.
Content owners must be approved to access to Facebook’s Rights Manager tool, via an application available at rightsmanager.fb.com.
NEW LAW ALERT –MISSION CRITICAL TO YOUR WEBSITE BUSINESS
IF YOU OWN A WEBSITE and you allow others to post reviews, comments, pictures, or any content, you may be liable for contributory copyright infringement if you do not comply with the DMCA. Even a single claim of copyright infringement could cost you thousands in attorneys’ fees, not including damages.
The DMCA has changed. YOU MUST ELECTRONICALLY FILE YOUR DESIGNATED AGENT (THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE DMCA NOTICES REGARDING YOUR WEBSITE) BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2017 OR YOU LOSE DMCA SAFE HARBOR PROTECTION. Even if you have filed an agent already, you must re-file using the new electronic filing system.
For existing and former clients, I will act as your designated agent (if you want me to) and/or will file your designated agent information electronically with the U.S. Copyright Office for a flat fee (including the filing costs) of $100.00 per URL/website. Please provide the following information: (1) the URL of your website; (2) the owner name of the website (your company name or individual name); (3) address (no P.O. Boxes); (4) telephone number; (5) email address, and remit $100.00 to me prior to December 27, 2017.
You must also post certain information on your Website to qualify for DMCA and this is a good time to evaluate your compliance with DMCA to maintain complete DMCA safe harbor protection.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Connie 602-277-8100.
“Reaction Videos” are videos that show the emotional reactions of people viewing television series episodes or film trailers and have grown in popularity on YouTube. These videos must necessarily use copyrighted content owned by others (such as the television show) as a part of the “reactions”. The United States Southern District Court of New York recently ruled that in at least one case, the use of the borrowed content was a “fair use” and could be used without the permission of the content owner.
The case concerned a video uploaded to YouTube by the h3h3Productions channel (Ethan and Hila Klein) in which the Kleins mock a video of another professional YouTuber, Matt Hosseinzadeh. The five-minute video by Mr. Hosseinzadeh is a fictional portrayal of a character played by the author chasing after a woman who challenges him to a parkour race. The Kleins’ video intercuts clips from Mr. Hosseinzadeh’s video with their commentary, as the couple criticize a range of aspects of the video including the production values of the segment, Mr. Hosseinzadeh’s fashion styling and the author’s portrayal of women.
Mr. Hosseinzadeh filed a DMCA Notice (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) with YouTube. YouTube responded by taking down the Kleins’ video, which led the Klein’s to submit a DMCA counter-notification challenging Mr Hosseinzadeh’s DMCA Notice and claiming that the video was fair use of the original work, and therefore did not infringe Mr Hossenzadeh’s copyright in the video.
Following this, the legal action in question was filed, with Mr. Hosseinzadeh alleging copyright infringement and misrepresentation.
The Court held on summary judgment that the Kleins’ use of Mr. Hosseinzadeh’s video was “fair use” after applying the 4 fair use factors.
For more information about the DMCA and fair use, see our webpages here.
Two (2) new bills have been introduced that affect protection and compensation regarding sound recordings. A sound recording includes CDs, vinyl, mp3 and digital formats.
Fair Play Fair Pay Act (HR 1836), was re-introduced in the House in March, 2017. Most people are surprised to learn that a radio station does is not required to pay the record label or the artist/band when it plays sound recordings. Only the songwriter gets paid. This Fair Play bill is intended to create a terrestrial performance royalty for sound recordings. Radio stations and broadcasters are opposed to the Bill as it would cost them additional money to play “records” arguing that artists and labels receive fair treatment based on the free promotion when the song is broadcast and resulting purchase of albums, merchandise and concert tickets.
The Classics Act (HR 3301) (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act), would provide federal copyright protection for sound recordings made prior to 1972. Any recordings made prior to 1972 only enjoyed state by state copyright protection if a state offered it by statute. Very few states did.
These bills are not new. They typically fail. I’ll keep you updated.