Big Brother Is Watching YouTube: How My Dancing Kid Joined the Copyright Wars

A few months ago, my wife took a 78-second video of my 3-year-old son, Jacob, at the Garden State Discovery Museum in Cherry Hill, N.J., as he was dancing his heart out to Eye of the Tiger by Survivor, which was playing in the background. At the time, Marci didn't think the little clip she shot on her Flip Camera would interest anyone other than our friends, family and perhaps a few fans of the rock group who were gluttons for punishment. She couldn't have been more wrong.

Marci, who hadn't even named the video, recently got an email from YouTube saying it had attracted the notice of the Google-owned (GOOG) website for all the wrong reasons. Their cryptic message read as follows:

Your video, Video 4, may have content that is owned or licensed by Sony Music Entertainment.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team




Oddly enough, the Content ID Matches link had nothing there. That left me even more perplexed: I had no idea what YouTube was talking about until spokeswoman Victoria Grand explained it for me. Copyright holders provide the company with Content IDs for material such as songs, and every video uploaded to YouTube is scanned against the database to see if it contains copyrighted material that matches one of the digital fingerprints. If it does, owners of the copyrighted material have a range of options, from asking the site to remove the video to selling ads around it, or just monitoring its popularity.

"In many cases, however, the label elects to leave it up and to reap whatever benefits the video may avail them to, such as income from advertising or promotional value," said Pauline Stack, a spokeswoman for ASCAP, in an email.

Filtering Software Stumbles Over Fair Use


According to Jonathan Band, an Internet industry lobbyist, my situation is not unique.

"I don't deny that it's a little strange," he says in an interview. "It's happening more frequently."

On the bright side, Band noted that our video is still on YouTube and that Sony (SNE) hasn't sued me. I'm not terribly worried about a Google swat team knocking on my door either. Still, you'd expect one of the savviest and richest companies companies in history would be able to figure out a better way to separate the innocent videos from the guilty ones. Unfortunately, thanks to the complexities of copyright law, that's not simple.

Sony Music wouldn't say what it thought of my son's video. YouTube, which is expected to generate $450 million in revenue, wouldn't either. I could care less if Sony considers my son the next Justin Beiber (though as his father, I can assure the teen heartthrob that my son is no threat to his career). However, it annoys me to to have my family treated as if we did something wrong when clearly, we didn't. Just because a video contains copyrighted material does not mean that it infringes on it. Thanks to what is called the "fair use" doctrine, individuals have a reasonably wide latitude in this respect: Just as bloggers are able to quote from The New York Times, parents should be able to video their children without worrying about what music is playing in the background, right?

Wrong.

YouTube's Still Flinching From Viacom Suit


David Sohn, senior policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, says he's confident that my son's video is legally permissible, but he couldn't be positive because determining "fair use" is extraordinarily complicated -- or as lawyers say "fact specific." Of course, YouTube has long been a haven for copyright infringers, and it needs to crack down on illegal content to stay in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In 2006, Viacom Inc. (VIA), parent of MTV Networks and Comedy Central, sued Google and YouTube for $1 billion, alleging that the video site allowed users to illegally post clips of its hit programs such as The Daily Show. A federal judge sided with Google in June, a decision the search engine said at the time was "an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the Web to communicate and share experiences with each other." New York-based Viacom has appealed the decision, and in the meantime, YouTube doesn't seem to be letting its guard down.

"YouTube is not required to run the kind of system that they are running," says Sohn, adding that doing so may help the site assure content owners that it's cracking down on infringement and fight future legal challenges. Given the shear volume of videos being uploaded to the site, YouTube neither has the time nor the money to have employees screen them all, he says.

The downside, Sohn notes, is that the automated system doesn't distinguish between innocuous uses of copyrighted material (such as my son's video) and more blatant stealing. My family is luckier than Stephanie Lenz of Gallitzin, Pa., who received a "takedown notice" in 2007 from Universal Music after the company saw her YouTube video of her son dancing to Prince's Let's Go Crazy. YouTube pulled the video, but she challenged the takedown in court and won. The case is still on appeal, and she's counter-suing for damages.

A Songwriter on His Side


Lucky for me, I found an ally in Jim Peterik, one of the co-writers of Eye of the Tiger.

"I love this kind of thing in association with my songs," he writes in an email. "Speaking for myself, there are some judgment calls as to what constitutes a publishing violation. I tend to be very liberal when it is something done in the right spirit of the song. It is only good for all concerned. ... Who wouldn't be thrilled? If someone was misusing the song for monetary motives that's another story."

Grand, the YouTube spokeswoman, says it's against company policy to discuss specific videos. She added that I could fill out a notification form for the site if I believe my video passes legal muster. Sony must not be too worried though, because now there's a small ad below the video: Viewers of the clip can instantly purchase Eye of the Tiger through Amazon (AMZN) or iTunes (AAPL) with a click of the mouse.

Too bad my son isn't getting a commission from Sony, because his birthday is coming up at the end of the month. When he gets older, I'll use this episode to teach him about one of the golden rules of capitalism: Those who have the gold make the rules.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

How Financial Planners go Grocery Shopping

Learn to shop smart and save.

View Course »

Banking Services 101

Understand your bank's services, and how to get the most from them

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

106 Comments

Filter by:
tiggymow

Wow that is just totally insane dude. www.private-data.tk

September 15 2010 at 8:00 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Danni

for all the rude comments about the child not dancing at all and is just wandering around...lemme clear this up for u. 1. He is 3 for God's sake!!! 2. It's a museum there are things there that might catch his eyes and 3. Kid's at that age are usually very antsy and walk around ALOT We were all kids at once, don't you remember that age. We did some things that made our parents proud that others would find stupid. Here is a perfect example. Oh and by the way, this is about legal issues. Not dancing issues

September 14 2010 at 8:26 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
tlh62

I find it amazing that some one would actually take issue of a little child knowinghis mother was filming his dance to a song he's most likely heard before and like all well adjusted children he was putting on a show for his folks.Now some adult idiot rocker has the brainless mentality to take issue with this only assures his mental capacity which has to be less that the child performer. URRRR!!

September 14 2010 at 2:29 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
bebe

it is mostly a video of a kid running into a curtain. how dumb

September 14 2010 at 2:26 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Cake

What it sounds like to me is that Sony is trying to say that they own everything someone records on their camcorders, cameras etc. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So what exactly is the customer paying for? The right to rent your products for life? It's stories like this that alarm me. I'll tell you one thing though, if you had the millions of humans on this planet walk up to sony with a "What gives?", they'd apologize for the inconvenience.

September 14 2010 at 2:13 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Yo! Pete!!

That video was terrible. The kid wasn't dancing; he was loitering.

September 14 2010 at 2:04 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
scott

The dreaded name of ASCAP show's up more and more, they are the Nazi's of music along with BMI they've stolen more money from their own artist's than any of us have ever done, and they do it legally............. WATCH OUT next they're coming after your Bought and Downloaded cell phone ring tones next....... if your phone rings in Public it counts as "use of the music in a public forum" and they are going to start charging you for EVERY RING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you love how music has become So Special that the song writers deserve to be paid EVERY TIME it plays for eternity?

September 14 2010 at 1:46 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to scott's comment
cmacdon101

That's right! Because I LIVE OFF that money, and creating music is the ONLY thing I do! So if it plays and pays, then I feed my face! LONG LIVE BMI!

September 14 2010 at 3:42 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
charliesworld@mail.com

It appears common sense went out the window and greed took over. The song was playing in a very public environment as background music, the video focus is the video taping parent's child who also in a very public place. The video isn't charging admission for the child's dance - it's a simple short video of a child doing what children do, and briefly filmed for family enjoyment - not to hijack a song that is almost intelligible in melody and words. Come on, use your common sense. Somebody is making some money out of this and it isn't the family who shot the video! This is public domain - not a secret plan to steal and produce someone else's song. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/bAXGxr

September 14 2010 at 1:27 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
Jackie

Start posting the videos w/o cute kids in them or people, just songs. See how much revenue any of those companies will generate. They should pay the people the in them commission or reveue eveything submitted for copyright infringements. If they do nothing to prevent a problem, they are part of the problem.

September 14 2010 at 1:24 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
goodmansbooks

I would hardly call that "dancing his heart out".

September 14 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to goodmansbooks's comment
jvan

I agree 100%, in fact I found this video very boring to watch.

September 14 2010 at 1:45 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply