JUKIN MEDIA RAY WILLIAM JOHNSON PLUS

вЂњ Reason:В All non-original content is in the public domain The dispute of the Content ID monetization request claims the following (which is posted as a screen shot as well): (Never mind that this doesnвЂ™t involve a takedown, only monetization of the clip).вЂќ 9 You receive notification via your Content ID dashboard that the uploader has вЂњdisputedвЂќ your monetization claim. The matched content is not commentary or a review, only a mashup of scenes taken from your film. вЂњItвЂ™s a clip that lasts, only several minutes in length and youвЂ™ve set up Content ID to match and monetize clips of this length. Indie Filmmaker Ellen Seidler recounted this exchange over at the Vox Indie website: It is in no way, shape or form вЂњeducationalвЂќ in any sense of the word and is clearly not fair use. This is a promotional video for your band. Sorry guys, but unless you attend the вЂњSchool of RockвЂќ and this is a video of your recital, this is flat out wrong. вЂњThis presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. So lads, my hatвЂ™s off to you on the musicianship side, but what really struck me was this legend which accompanied the video: It popped up in my Facebook feed as I am a huge fan of the English progressive rock band вЂњGentle Giant.вЂќ 7 Even Wikipedia will tell you вЂњGentle GiantвЂ™s music was considered complex even by progressive rock standardsвЂ¦вЂќ 8 The song being performed here, Cogs In Cogs, is dauntingly complex, and if you watch the video, you will see it requires three vocalists who can sing in counterpoint.

This reflects a growing problem, namely that fair use is being manipulated from a fairly complex legal defense, to a Harry Potter style magical incantation that, in the minds of the content borrower, makes all copyright problems go away.Д«TW, despite the caption, this is not the real Gentle Giant. вЂWe just didnвЂ™t feel that the videos were transformative enough to count for fair use.вЂ™вЂќ 6

вЂњвЂ™The jury came back with a unanimous вЂnoвЂ™ on each count, no fair use,вЂ™ the juror said.

JUKIN MEDIA RAY WILLIAM JOHNSON PLUS

5ДЇor those keeping score at home, this would have meant a minimum of $36,000 in damages, plus attorneysвЂ™ fees. Each of the 48 videos at issue would have been declared not fair use, and therefore infringing.

The Hollywood Reporter contacted one of the jurors who said that the jury had in fact reached a verdict, and would have ruled against Equals Three, with a ruling that the videos were not вЂњfair use.вЂќ 4 How many? All of them. ItвЂ™s a good thing Equals Three settled the case. 2 After being on the receiving end of a few DMCA takedown notices, Johnson and Equals Three took the measure of suing Jukin Media, claiming вЂњJukin acted in bad faith by filing a takedown notice without first considering whether JohnsonвЂ™s videos were protected by fair use.вЂќ 3 1 At issue were videos to which Jukin Media owned the copyright which were being re-streamed by Ray William Johnson who made вЂњcomedic commentaryвЂќ on them. Last week saw a settlement in the closely watched fair use case of Equals Three v. The Growing Problem of Phony вЂњFair UseвЂќ Claims: From Michelle Shocked to Axanar

Jukin media ray william johnson