If anyone does want some help with writing a response to a takedown notice, a potentially bogus copyright claim, or an account termination, feel free to send me an org note. The EFF noted that while Radiohead has the knowledge of copyrights and the clout to force YT to put back the Creep video, individuals who are subject to online bullying with eggregious takedown notices or account termiantions often don't and that bugs me. Nobody expects people will write a good DMCA response letter. Fetch the comfy couch!

Iamtheorg said:

Tyka is web sheriffing now?

.

If the Tyke persona behind the email address is the Tyka, then she shows how misguided she is.

Copyright is an idea, not a reality.

Information wants to be free and copyright law (more ideas) is trying to restrict the free flow of information.

This copyright law thus stifles creativity.

Misguided by short term monetary gains the copright terms are extremely extended beyond anything reasonable. (oh no: the beatles catalog goes into the public domain; oh no: disney stuff goes into the public domain; etc etc)

Rent seeking is her goal as she does not add any creativity.

.

How can she make a claim when she has not yet inherited stuff?

Does the Estate employ her? Only in that way she can make a claim in name of the estate but not in name of her own.

Plesae explain

AnnaStesia91 said:

Iamtheorg said:

Tyka is web sheriffing now?

She's been doing it for years. Which is why I wonder why folks are so hard on her, as if she wasn't an actual Paisley employee.

She ain't the one doing it............

Iamtheorg said:

MrSquiggle said:

Part of me thinks it would be kinda cool if they kept taking down everything. The struggle to find his material online created a certain "mad genius" feel to him, and it was all part of the fun. In a perverse way, it would make me feel more like Prince's spirit stays with us if they kept it up. You certainly can't say it's not what he would have wanted.

Man, please.

Now I've heard everything.

Why else do you think they're bothering? They're losing $0.00 from short fan-shot videos being posted. They're arguably even losing money by taking them down! Those videos are basically a form of advertising.

Whoever is doing it, is so misguided. There's only one case about considering fair use before requesting a DMCA takedown and it's a Prince case! Where damages for failure to make the analysis can be costs and attorneys fees. Eight years of attorneys fees (so far) will bankrupt anyone. Please person, think. Please. Even if the chances of having to pay attorneys fees are miniscule, they are not zero, and it's not worth the risk.

udo said:

Iamtheorg said:

Tyka is web sheriffing now?

.

Copyright is an idea, not a reality.

Information wants to be free and copyright law (more ideas) is trying to restrict the free flow of information.

This copyright law thus stifles creativity.

Please.

Copyright is what allows writers/musicians to earn from their music. It is up to them who they choose to assign it to. It is not up to some dick who uploads something without consent, taking that choice away from them.

jjam said:

udo said:

.

Copyright is an idea, not a reality.

Information wants to be free and copyright law (more ideas) is trying to restrict the free flow of information.

This copyright law thus stifles creativity.

Please.

Copyright is what allows writers/musicians to earn from their music.

.

Sure.

Earn beyond their deathbeds? See the outrageous terms. Nothing reasonable here.

.

It is up to them who they choose to assign it to. It is not up to some dick who uploads something without consent, taking that choice away from them.

.

??

1Sasha said:

1Sasha said:

I'm sure Prince wasn't happy that he never got a cut of the HUGE adrev payments that Warners and other majors get from streaming sites such as Youtube, Spotify et al. I would see this as an additional reason for Prince taking down content.

These adrev payments aren't mentioned in any artist contract so aren't illegal - but you can bet that any big artist that speaks out in support of YouTube/Spotify (like Ed Sheeran) is getting a decent backhander from their label.

Jessica55 said:

kaine said:

Be on notice. I got this email tonight regarding a 20 sec vid I posted from the Thurs night Revolution show on Instagram: We've removed or disabled access to the following content you posted on Instagram because we received a notice from a third party that the content infringes their copyright(s): Video: 'The Revolution Thurs 9/1' uploaded on September 4th, 5:22pm PDT If you believe that this content should not have been removed from Instagram, you can contact the complaining party directly to resolve your issue: Report #: 1778779985700731 Rights Owner: NPG Records Inc. Email: Tyka@NpgMusicPublishing.com Copyrighted Work: Artwork my organization or client created If an agreement is reached to restore the reported content, please have the complaining party email us with their consent and include the report number. Instagram complies with the notice and takedown procedures defined in section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). If you believe that this content was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification, you can submit a DMCA counter-notification by filling out our automated form at https://instagram.com/acc...985700731. We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Instagram to make sure that you have not posted any other infringing content, as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.

Please read what I just posted about the 29 second baby clip singing Let's Go Crazy. If she/NPG keeps doing that, the 9th Circuit is going to take her down.

Actually, they are probably not. Firstly there is only a duty to consider, that means practically nothing. You can instantly consider and then dismiss anything, Secondlt the case you mention rumbled on for about a decade and cost an enormous amount of money, most people posting a 20 second clip on facebook are not likely to want to give up a decade of their life and potentially their house to pursue this.

Jessica55 said:

laurarichardson said:

It violates copyright laws. Broadcasting anything that you do not permission to broadcast that is copyrighted can be subject to a take down notice. I also told you that there are plenty of closed groups so people can still look and listen if they know how to use a search engine.

People can find stuff if they want to look. If you can find Pokemon you can find Prince music.

Check out my post re a similar case of Prince's music as fair use. Feel free to pass it along to any FB groups.

Also fair use neds to either, add a critical element, a parody, not compete in anyway with the original product. So many people are simply cutting and pasting a song and then claiming fair use, well that does not constitute fair use, that's just copying and sharing.

1Sasha said:

Why doesn't the Estate establish a Prince site on YouTube, showing everything it can legally get its hands on? If it wants to maximize revenue, it should be promoting Prince, not pulling him out of the public eye.

That;s a good point, although the income would be quite small. One Million views tends to net you about £1000 or $1300 dollars so in the grand scheme of Prince's estate, a very tiny amount.

jayspud said:

Jessica55 said:

Please read what I just posted about the 29 second baby clip singing Let's Go Crazy. If she/NPG keeps doing that, the 9th Circuit is going to take her down.

Actually, they are probably not. Firstly there is only a duty to consider, that means practically nothing. You can instantly consider and then dismiss anything, Secondlt the case you mention rumbled on for about a decade and cost an enormous amount of money, most people posting a 20 second clip on facebook are not likely to want to give up a decade of their life and potentially their house to pursue this.

The Plaintiff is paying nothing; the EFF is funding all costs and attorneys fees for this case pro bono.

To determine fair use, the copyright holder has to consider 4 factors which are pretty long: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. You can do it quickly (if you're well versed in the area) but you've got to review all 4 factors.

Universal hadn't considered fair use at all before it issued its takedown notice which they were supposed to do.

jayspud said:

Jessica55 said:

Check out my post re a similar case of Prince's music as fair use. Feel free to pass it along to any FB groups.

Also fair use neds to either, add a critical element, a parody, not compete in anyway with the original product. So many people are simply cutting and pasting a song and then claiming fair use, well that does not constitute fair use, that's just copying and sharing.

You dont need to add anything or make a parody. You need to show the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work but that's much less than competing in any way (baby dancing doesn't effect the market for the song). You do want to look at if you're using it for a commercial purpose (making money) and the amount and substantiality of the portion you used in relation to the work as a whole. You might be thinking of a parody because 2 Live Crew won a Supreme Court case for its parody of Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. There were a number of factors in that case and additionally both parties settled.

Jessica55 said:

jayspud said:

Actually, they are probably not. Firstly there is only a duty to consider, that means practically nothing. You can instantly consider and then dismiss anything, Secondlt the case you mention rumbled on for about a decade and cost an enormous amount of money, most people posting a 20 second clip on facebook are not likely to want to give up a decade of their life and potentially their house to pursue this.

The Plaintiff is paying nothing; the EFF is funding all costs and attorneys fees for this case pro bono.

To determine fair use, the copyright holder has to consider 4 factors which are pretty long: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. You can do it quickly (if you're well versed in the area) but you've got to review all 4 factors.

Universal hadn't considered fair use at all before it issued its takedown notice which they were supposed to do.

In this case the lawyers are donating their time but this is unikely to happen with other cases, so my original point would stand. It is also impoirtant to remember the Fair Use is a US idea, in the UK we have fair dealing which requires different areas https://en.wikipedia.org/...ingdom_law

It's difficult because some people argue the clips are a advertisment but firstly, there is not currently and may not everbe a product and secondly is it not up to the creator if they want to promote their work?

The defence of fair use by so many Youtube videos who copy whole songs and albums is just unnacceptable. I have even seen a whole movie copied using this defence.

jayspud said:

1Sasha said:

Why doesn't the Estate establish a Prince site on YouTube, showing everything it can legally get its hands on? If it wants to maximize revenue, it should be promoting Prince, not pulling him out of the public eye.

That;s a good point, although the income would be quite small. One Million views tends to net you about £1000 or $1300 dollars so in the grand scheme of Prince's estate, a very tiny amount.

I am sure they will do something like this down the road but the estate has to be settled first. I am not sure why some of you do not understand this. In addtion, Prince was doing take down notices for a long time did you see anyone putting a stop to what he was doing? He owned the copyrighted material and know the estate owns it. Things are going to get worst and now you have an actual law firm with a team of people to work on it.

laurarichardson said:

jayspud said:

That;s a good point, although the income would be quite small. One Million views tends to net you about £1000 or $1300 dollars so in the grand scheme of Prince's estate, a very tiny amount.

I am sure they will do something like this down the road but the estate has to be settled first. I am not sure why some of you do not understand this. In addtion, Prince was doing take down notices for a long time did you see anyone putting a stop to what he was doing? He owned the copyrighted material and know the estate owns it. Things are going to get worst and now you have an actual law firm with a team of people to work on it.

I think the problem is that the estate (and let e be clear, I don't mean the family who are still grieving) have been so slow to react that people have made thousands from Youtube, been paid that money and spent that money. It just needed one phonecall from Bremer Trust or anyone in authority to Websherrif or whoever to say, guard the estate whilst we work in the rest of the situation.

as utterly stupid as this is ...a big part of me smiled inside as it's so the kind of thing he would have done.

kaine said:

Be on notice. I got this email tonight regarding a 20 sec vid I posted from the Thurs night Revolution show on Instagram: We've removed or disabled access to the following content you posted on Instagram because we received a notice from a third party that the content infringes their copyright(s): Video: 'The Revolution Thurs 9/1' uploaded on September 4th, 5:22pm PDT If you believe that this content should not have been removed from Instagram, you can contact the complaining party directly to resolve your issue: Report #: 1778779985700731 Rights Owner: NPG Records Inc. Email: Tyka@NpgMusicPublishing.com Copyrighted Work: Artwork my organization or client created If an agreement is reached to restore the reported content, please have the complaining party email us with their consent and include the report number. Instagram complies with the notice and takedown procedures defined in section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). If you believe that this content was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification, you can submit a DMCA counter-notification by filling out our automated form at https://instagram.com/acc...985700731. We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Instagram to make sure that you have not posted any other infringing content, as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.

Tyka seriuosly thinks she is doing the right thing...

She does not get why Prince Kept himself off Youtube..

He wouldnt mind now...

THe fact that he can keep speaking to us through youtube is somewhat.."Afterlife ish.."

She wont succeed...

I am betting it will be almost impossible to police the number of streams and channels, and stop all the Prince "Sharing" Its growing expodentially every day...Yes a Deluge !!

Im seeing clips and hearing unreleased pieces new to my eyes or years every day...

We are sharting becasue we almost cant live without him......

or at least

we Never WANT TO....

No one will be able to Stop him reaching out to us from the Afterworld...

I have absolute Faith in that...

Tyka...if you ever read this....

Leave the Youtube Clips up for Posterity....

You have enough to do, Choose your Battles...

Dont hurt his Family Fans...Please..Think clearly and if it is You who is in Charge of it all..

Take good council.....

Keep your Third EYe OPEN...

Marrk said:

This is just like the MTV awards recently. No Bowie. No Prince. The kids didn't care! They don't know "our" music. Bowie was a virtual recluse the past dozen years, and Prince - although performing from time to time - did not have the across the board social media presence required today. Most especially, kids couldn't see him perform live on YouTube or other sites. The music wasn't featured in commercials, TV or movies. Acts from the 60s, 70s and 80s are dinosaurs to the hiphop/rap generations. Prime example: Paul McCartney, Taylor Hawkins and Beck being turned away from a LA party. The bouncer didn't know who they were! This is the group/age range the Estate has to bring in. Keep knocking down those videos. The kids won't care.

1Sasha said:

PurpleMaze77 said:

Iamtheorg said:

why be a websheriff if youre not goingtto release vault stuff?

So are they going to go after The Revolution who just posted numerous vids of the show on YouTube too?

Bunch of Ignoramuses