Thread: “Blatant Censorship”

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47
  1. #31  
    Since this thread was moved to off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to a logical error the Phil Holland repeats about copyright, fair-use, and censorship. He says:

    I'll give you a slightly different example. Instead of Moore backed documentary, let's say Disney used 7 shots of your without permission in a trailer for Avengers XV. It was released and received much attention as it was a marketed effort for financial gain on a legitimate production.

    Describe the steps that you can take in attempting to contact Disney and get them to remove the trailer, potentially just seek out compensation because even with a new edit the damage has been done, and perhaps the effort to get them to not use the footage at all.
    The logical error of the above is that it presumes that any use of existing material covered by copyright provides EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE rights relative to the use of that material. Copyright provides LIMITED exclusivity, and there is (or was) a doctrine of fair use, not for the purposes of ripping somebody off by selling their work as your own, but by providing the opportunity to recontextualize the work, to transform it, to provide commentary, etc. We have seen attacks on such fair use, such as a warning before sporting events that all descriptions, images, scores, statistics, etc., are the sole property of the league and that nobody can even discuss their experiences of the game without express permission. Nobody takes that seriously, but legally that's where we are, and if somebody were to make JUNEBUG today, the NFL would likely strike down the movie on the grounds that one of the characters talks about the results of a football game. Which is obnoxious from a fair-use perspective--why should American filmmakers not be able to illustrate an aspect of one of their characters by showing their relationship to one of America's favorite sports?

    But...and this is my real beef with the whole problem of over-zealous copyright--such over-expansive interpretations of EXCLUSIVITY vs. FAIR USE, is that disrupting the balance between private ownership (the grant of copyright) and the public good (the purpose of copyright, written into the US General Statutes) leads precisely to the point where OWNERS can assert COPYRIGHT as a MEANS OF CENSORSHIP.

    And not just censorship of things happening in the here-and-now. The term of copyright was set by the founders set as 7+7 years, and then 14+14 years, but has since been expanded time and again until the present day, in which case it is virtually perpetual. Which means future generations will never be able to comment or critique such media as has become prevalent in society because all "use" of that media is presumed commercial and proprietary to the owners.

    And so I take the side that copyright assertion can and has been used as a cynical tool of censorship. I don't have any opinion about the Michael Moore movie (which, frankly, I don't care to watch). But I have very strong opinions that bogus claims of copyright have been and will be asserted specifically to censor media that is well within normal fair use doctrine, before the takeover of the corporate kelptocracy.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Simon Dunne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by Scot Yount View Post
    We do know why...the answer is revealed in a Deadline article which is a link on the page you posted.
    https://deadline.com/2020/05/planet-...ip-1202942938/
    EXCLUSIVE, updated with new details, 11:42 AM: Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs’ controversial documentary Planet of the Humans has been removed from YouTube, where it was streaming for free— a move the pair calls a “blatant act of censorship.”

    EP Moore and writer-producer Gibbs told Deadline they discovered today that their film, which has racked more than 8.3 million views in a month-plus, was taken down from YouTube after a copyright claim was lodged against the documentary over four seconds of footage it contains.

    4+ weeks up with free distribution, plus you can still watch it elsewhere. I know a fair few movies that haven't even lasted in the cinema for a week! https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...-us-box-office
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Robert Hofmeyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Dunne View Post
    EXCLUSIVE, updated with new details, 11:42 AM: Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs’ controversial documentary Planet of the Humans has been removed from YouTube, where it was streaming for free— a move the pair calls a “blatant act of censorship.”

    EP Moore and writer-producer Gibbs told Deadline they discovered today that their film, which has racked more than 8.3 million views in a month-plus, was taken down from YouTube after a copyright claim was lodged against the documentary over four seconds of footage it contains.

    4+ weeks up with free distribution, plus you can still watch it elsewhere. I know a fair few movies that haven't even lasted in the cinema for a week! https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...-us-box-office
    Wow. Do you know which four seconds? I wonder why don't they just black out that clip and re-upload?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hofmeyr View Post
    Wow. Do you know which four seconds? I wonder why don't they just black out that clip and re-upload?
    Censorship by big corp which is published in the mainstream media is way better advertising than black those 4 seconds. Now it's not just one free stream from Moore and Gibbs', but thousends of streams from others on youtube(and other media outlets) with the same content(incl. the 4 seconds). "There is no such thing as bad publicity" for both Moore/Gibbs' and youtube.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,883
    As more of this comes out, just playing a hunch here, there's more material in this thing that's not licensed. There's even a couple tracks in there not credited at the end of the film and it appears several music pieces used are also not licensed.

    Yes, it's absurd that 4 seconds got this whole thing removed from YouTube. We are only being told about that 4 seconds for now. I fully suspect many more, probably around 20 entities, were not informed of their work being used in this film.

    In terms of ethics of copyright and fair use, I certainly see where Michael is coming from. But do take note that this is a fully fledged and financed production, despite being offered for free viewing. People were paid to create this piece. Some material was licensed or permission was granted. It will be interesting in the next month to see who else discovers their work is in here.

    We do live in an era where you can watch reaction videos on YouTube and that is often transformative enough, but I certainly know that is a hot, hot, hot topic behind the scenes as people receive revenue from views whether there is insight or just fishing for views. Gets much more interesting considering some of the contracts of ownership regarding some content, which is why you don't see many "film reactions", though certainly reviews w/ clips and what not. Meanwhile musicians are paid $30K+ for how some of the music was utilized in this project. I need to look up some of the current trend of what's allowed regarding 10-15 second segments of things. Most of the leeway provided in the world of YouTube regarding copywritten content being used is the benefit of free advertising. And that's usually by an individual, not a production company. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    There's many ways to produce this in a less controversial manner, but at this point for many the goal is just to get eyeballs on something, no matter the repercussions.

    *edit. I understand it's hard for many to grasp. But with traditional "anything" there are image releases, talent being paid to be in that content, etc. But when somebody or somebody's work ends up in something where no documentation and normal path of production goes down there are big concerns about consent at the end of the day over usage. Specifically in regards to an actual production. We aren't watching the "news" here. And even the news contacts people to get clearance or pays when they need a clip.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    Reminds me of my youth. When they passed the Marshall law in Poland in 1981 every time you picked up a phone you heard "this conversation is being monitored" I wonder how long till we reach this point here- only matter of time....
    Yep, this Planet is slowly becoming the Planet of the Apes.

    https://youtu.be/CiKT2z5HiDU
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,856
    Now the socialmedia picked the wrong opponent:

    Trump signs social media executive order challenging platforms' liability protections

    Trump threatened to “close down” - or at least “strongly regulate” - social media platforms that engage in ideologically-motivated censorship earlier this week after Twitter slapped a “fact-check” notice on a tweet he’d posted about mail-in voting.

    Before signing the executive order, he doubled down on his criticism of the platform, declaring that decisions about what content gets fact-checked and what gets ignored are “editorial positions” and the equivalent of political activism. Merely the act of making such choices is “inappropriate” for a platform under Section 230 protection, he told reporters.

    Meanwhile the russians stopped watching comedy and changed to watch the US.
    https://www.rt.com/usa/490055-trump-...order-twitter/
    and
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/p...der/index.html

    The Green guy is powerful the Orange guy has nukes and uses them, what a world we live in...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member DJ Meyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    Censorship by big corp which is published in the mainstream media is way better advertising than black those 4 seconds. Now it's not just one free stream from Moore and Gibbs', but thousends of streams from others on youtube(and other media outlets) with the same content(incl. the 4 seconds). "There is no such thing as bad publicity" for both Moore/Gibbs' and youtube.
    It's almost as if the cries of censorship are disingenuous from someone who should know better than to use clips without permission.

    No that couldn't be it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,403
    It was pretty clear from the get go that the "green movement giants" depicted will do everything they can to take it down since the documentary exposed them. The easiest thing to do was file copyright infringement complaint with Youtube. I think Moore was counting on it for free advertising campaign. It worked brilliantly....for both parties- speaking of win-win ;-)
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Just want to point out as someone who spends over $1mil per month on bandwidth that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth.

    We are constantly getting hit with copyright notice claims for footage we shot and allowed the use of in companies that we have ownership in. As we are not making the claim against ourselves where is it coming from? AI?

    We are about to see a massive roll back on the copyright. The absurd concept that things in public view (like a building or Hollywood sign) can be copyrighted is already gone and now that Micky Mouse, Superman and Batman are in public domain after changing the law through bribery for decades I think we will see it back to 10 or 15 years soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts