First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply #WTFU - Is TV Tokyo ruining Anime?
6079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / England
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
I have been watching alot of the Anime Reviewers on Youtube talking about #WTFU or Wheres The Fair Use and one name that is continuously popping up in all of the video is TV TOKYO who is putting strikes against these channels causing some really talented reviewers to lose tons of money they earnt or even giving up on their youtube careers because of this.

So my question is - Is TV Tokyo right to do what they are doing or are they in the wrong and need to be reprimanded for their selfish actions?
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
I am right behind...
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
I haven't ever heard of this before, but TV Tokyo can claim copyright depending on what the youtuber considers a clip if they include content from the actual anime. If it's like 10-15 or less second snippets, yeah TV Tokyo is going kinda overboard.
17735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M /
Offline
Posted 3/16/16 , edited 3/17/16
They have a right to protect their property. Fair use doesn't give one unlimited access to the property of others.
11700 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
Well as you are based in England we have no fair use copyright provision here, so from a legal and moral standpoint there isn't much room for you to argue against TV Tokyo on. People in glass houses and all that.

At a more hypothetical level, companies have to balance the benefit of letting their fans reuse their material to promote a product against overuse of the material damaging the product. Without knowing how far the "reviewers" were pushing the envelope it is hard to tell if a company is overeacting by issuing take down notices. As a rule of thumb though, if they are making money from the reviews then they are no longer simply fans and are just another media business - they have to respect the same legal requirements as any other media outlet. If the reviewers have pushed things too far and are losing money they shouldn't have gained in the first place then I won't shed any tears.

16406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
It's like Doug Walker said. Companies need a penalty for constantly putting out copyright strikes. What you are talking about is definitely within fair use as it is transformative to the original work. Doug Walker by the way is the guy who started WTFU. You should look him up. This is a serious problem.
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
Anime is dead... There is only... Carnage.
215215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Anime World
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
Is this also related to the ChibiReviews strike thing a few weeks ago? The show actually airs on TBS as well but yeah, they are handling out strikes. I don't use Youtube much but I wish they revamp their system a bit.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Virginia USA
Online
Posted 3/16/16
What's funny though is that some of these marks are on youtubers who they SENT things to for them to review and talk about. Youtube is just way too overzealous and simply react without investigation.

I deleted most of my videos due to receiving strikes because their was a faint sound of music being played on a radio in the background and people putting copyright claims on them... sound... in the background... from a radio... about 12 feet away from where I was recording.
29741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 3/16/16
TV Tokyo is most definitely in the wrong for striking down channels who use clips of their anime that last mere seconds, but then they're not the only ones exploiting the pitiful system YouTube has in place. I feel like YouTube's system needs a drastic overhaul, to be far less exploitative. I always find myself thinking that I wish content creators would just flee YouTube and find another platform to work on... even though a viable one doesn't currently exist, but then I think of all the jobs that would be lost, should YouTube fall. It's just that I feel as if they need a massive wakeup call; even louder than all the people currently pissed off at them.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Virginia USA
Online
Posted 3/16/16

Frenzify wrote:

TV Tokyo is most definitely in the wrong for striking down channels who use clips of their anime that last mere seconds, but then they're not the only ones exploiting the pitiful system YouTube has in place. I feel like YouTube's system needs a drastic overhaul, to be far less exploitative. I always find myself thinking that I wish content creators would just flee YouTube and find another platform to work on... even though a viable one doesn't currently exist, but then I think of all the jobs that would be lost, should YouTube fall. It's just that I feel as if they need a massive wakeup call; even louder than all the people currently pissed off at them.


Vimeo is much better quality imho, but noone uses it.
104033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / This Dying World
Offline
Posted 3/16/16 , edited 3/17/16
Two parts.

From an intellectual property standpoint, TV Tokyo has the right to do this.



I do not "believe" in reviewer opinions - having TV Tokyo "striking" them down through a twisted loophole in the "law" is doing me a favor. From the limited amount of reviews I do read, it always goes towards me thinking (s)he is a dumbass who is talking out the wazoo.

Reviewing a piece-of-work without established, quantifiable method; for me, is a money scheme. I want to translate my thoughts negatively. I have no basis at all - I will talk about this, and you should pay me.

No, it is not ruining anime. Yes, it might ruin the lives of Youtube reviewers.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/16/16 , edited 3/16/16
The institution of copyright is essentially a contract where society agrees to temporarily surrender some of its power to duplicate and distribute works in exchange for continued production of works. A key part of the agreement is that society will retain the power to duplicate and distribute pieces of works for purposes such as critique or satire at all times. This right is as essential to the creative process as copyright's protection of the ability to profit from creative work for a time, and it has felt woefully undervalued of late.

YouTube has a responsibility to its shareholders to ensure that it has taken sufficient measures to protect itself from liability for damages against copyright holders, but it also has a social responsibility as an open media platform of its scale and importance to craft those measures such that the institution of fair use is respected at the same time. I understand that this is a difficult thing to do, but there are ways to do it. Holding advertising revenue until such time as a claim is resolved one way or another seems perfectly fair and a good way to eliminate false claims by individuals who flag content they don't have a copyright to for the sake of extracting ad revenue. Issuing a penalty for people who repeatedly submit claims they later opt not to defend or that turn out to be false seems a good way to reduce frivolous claims. Though it may not ultimately be practical it might also be a positive step to forbid the use of bot programs to submit claims. Making the defence process more transparent and engaging people in a more timely fashion may require additional personnel, but it's also a good way to ensure that fair use is protected and would improve public confidence in YouTube's commitment to an evenhanded claims process. There are things YouTube can be doing to improve the situation.
70034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/16

BlueOni wrote:

eliminate false claims ... for the sake of extracting ad revenue.

This is what I'm most interested in seeing data on. You can't put a system like this in place in front of companies and not expect them to wring every cent out of it. That's how business works, expecting businesses to not do it is stupid.
17735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M /
Offline
Posted 3/16/16 , edited 3/17/16
One other thing needs to be observed. Companies not only have the right to defend their property, but also has a DUTY to defend their propety. Meaning if they don't make a concerted and consistent stand to defend their property then it weakens their argument when seeking court satisfaction in relief against a predatory use of their property. Would it be nice if the property owners create a system to allow use and maybe materials for use in reviews? Yeah. Would it be nice if the reviewer contacted the producer and asked for permission? Yeah. It's a 2 way street. Both sides need to make an effort to reach out to the other.
70034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/16 , edited 3/17/16

Gafennec wrote:

One other thing needs to be observed. Companies not only have the right to defend their property, but also has a DUTY to defend their propety. Meaning if they don't make a concerted and consistent stand to defend their property then it weakens their argument when seeking court satisfaction in relief against a predatory use of their property. Would it be nice if the property owners create a system to allow use and maybe materials for use in reviews? Yeah. Would it be nice if the reviewer contacted the producer and asked for permission? Yeah. It's a 2 way street. Both sides need to make an effort to reach out to the other.

This is a difference between copyrights and trademarks. Mickey Mouse for example is a trademark, while the short film Steamboat Willie is copyrighted. Disney has to defend Mickey Mouse, otherwise they'll lose the trademark and anyone can use him. But the copyright on Steamboat Willie isn't going away until it expires (right now in 2021).

    From memory I believe that will also void their trademark on Mickey Mouse, which is why Disney has been extremely influential in lobbying for longer copyrights, ex. the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" of 1998. It'd mean anyone could start selling Mickey Mouse mugs and that just won't do at all. It's getting a tad silly really.

Anyway this is where the episodes of Shirobako and Osomatsu-san which too closely parodied other works got struck. They didn't cut and paste actual other anime into their anime, but their parodies too closely resembled aspects of the real thing which the trademark holders were obligated to defend (most likely unhappily in these cases).

To not do so would threaten the trademarks, but certainly not the copyrights.

The Youtube fiasco is about copyright, not trademarks, and the automated flagging system exists so that Youtube has a legal defense to prove they are not abetting copyright infringement on their site (especially after being bought by Google, who'd be a rich target for a lawsuit). The legal obligation isn't with the companies but with Youtube.

Fair use exists especially to protect the use of intellectual property by outsiders, it's not a legal threat to a company's intellectual property or maintaining their trademarks, and legally they are obligated to not fuck with it, not the reverse. Unfortunately the internet has turned this into such an enormous anthill that it's hard to enforce either set of rights.

This has led to flagrant and egregious violations of fair use law by companies looking for example to shut down bad reviews of their games, or simply spam thousands of claims and reroute all the ad revenue. This is actually an abuse of a system intended to protect their copyrights and weakens its ability to suss out actual cases of infringement.

The bonkers aspect being that the system actively incentivizes this abuse since there are no catches or penalties for spamming false claims, the ability of users to clear claims is catastrophically limited, and the system actively pays companies free ad revenue for abusing it. So there's really no practical reason for them not to abuse the hell out of it.

(The above is accurate to the best of my knowledge.)
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.