Getting sued for posting on YouTube

[bicker]

Yes it is close to similar. YouTube is a business.

Clearly we're not going to agree about this until the first YouTube video is removed. Let's wait for that, and just agree to disagree until then. Okay?

 

[KellyNY]

Google and Disney are friends. If Disney says take a video down, Google will do so, perhaps even no questions asked.

Google/YouTube actually is pretty good about responding to complaints regarding violations or even perceived violations. Google doesn't want to get in between feuding parties. They're rather just use their discretion, provided for in their terms of service, and take a disputed item down.

So what you say, they would take it down not because of Laws or because it is illegal but just because they are "friends", intersting point of view.

 

[bicker]

No, I'm saying that they'd take it down because of the law, and not try to obstruct against it like you implied, because as friendly companies, they would respect each other's rights under the law (not to mention that YouTube is already inclined not to violate intellectual property rights, regardless of the relationships they may have with the intellectual property owner).

 

[twokids0204]

Mental Note: No photos allowed next vacation, in case I accidentally get a Giant Mouse or Recognizable Castle in the background.

 

[Metsoskil]

Mental Note: No photos allowed next vacation, in case I accidentally get a Giant Mouse or Recognizable Castle in the background.

No, it's OK to take those photos. You just can't show them to anyone without violating Disney's rights. After all, they own the rights to those images, not you.

(posted with total sarcasm)

 

[KellyNY]

No, I'm saying that they'd take it down because of the law, and not try to obstruct against it like you implied, because as friendly companies, they would respect each other's rights under the law (not to mention that YouTube is already inclined not to violate intellectual property rights, regardless of the relationships they may have with the intellectual property owner).

Considering that there are tons of Disney and other companies videos on Youtube I doubt that anyones rights were violated (Youtube is alive and running) and even so Youtube is a business it hardly gets popularity (and no profit therefore associated with a particular company) because of Disney videos, those are just a tiny portion in a sea of videos and as I said before Disney actually benefits from that as they get a FREE advertizement. Anyway, I agree to disagree on a topic.

 

[KellyNY]

No, it's OK to take those photos. You just can't show them to anyone without violating Disney's rights. After all, they own the rights to those images, not you.

(posted with total sarcasm)

 

[P.I. Squirrel]

So what you say, they would take it down not because of Laws or because it is illegal but just because they are "friends", intersting point of view.

When you upload a video to Youtube (or anyone else), the Terms of Use state that the video ceases to become yours, and now belongs to Youtube. They can delete or alter the video at will, and you have no legal recourse to fight it.

So, yes, Google does not need a law, or threat of civil lawsuit, to remove your video if Disney contacts them. And you can't force Google or Youtube to put it back up.

The same thing has been happening for years on Ebay. Auctions are cancelled quite often when Disney notifies Ebay of a IP violation. This has happened to us, and thousands of others, when Disney objects to what is being sold. And there is no recourse we have with Ebay.

Lastly, the daycare case is classic IP infringement. It's as simple as this: if you use a likeness for personal use only, no IP case. If a business uses the same likeness anywhere in the course of their business (even on the wall of a daycare), they have violated IP law.

 

[Millermom0606]

So what about Photopass pics I've PAID for the rights to??

 

[KellyNY]

Mental Note: No photos allowed next vacation, in case I accidentally get a Giant Mouse or Recognizable Castle in the background.

That is why no flash photos allowed on Pirates, Universal spies can finally find out how Johny Depp looks like and he is under Disney copyright.

 

[Santa]

That is why no flash photos allowed on Pirates, Universal spies can finally find out how Johny Depp looks like and he is under Disney copyright.

Now I was under the impression that Jack Sparrow was made to look like Johny Depp.

 

[talfonso]

Disney not only goes after vacation pictures or vids, but it also goes after logo design as well. I own a Zazzle store on Flexible Disney (my blog), and I decided on a puzzle piece logo with mouse ears. I had a lot of product rejects due to that logo, so I switched to my freehand design of a flag associated with the Brazilian tour groups that swarm Disney right now and used it on my products as well as Flexible Disney.

 

[BeentoallDParks]

In the original article, Busch Entertainment is on record saying "Yeah, sure, video and upload all you want. We love it!"

It would have been a lot smarter for Disney to say that, too. Especially since it never goes after anyone for these videos, so why not come across nicer? They would have no trouble taking down an objectionable video (like of the monorail accident last summer) even if they'd said they love it when we upload video. Lawyers! They make everything unfriendly.

 

[disgram]

This whole thing is very confusing to me. I go to youtube to see the videos of not just Disney but other places that I might like to visit. To me, these videos are more less a "unautherized ad" for these places! They help me to decide if I want to see these places. Is this wrong?

 

[bicker]

It all comes back to what was inidcated in the child care center lawsuit: If someone can prove that they knew about a specific violation of their trademark, and they do not vigorously prosecute their rights with regard to that violation, then they endanger their right to protect their trademark entirely.

As long as there is no possible evidence that Disney has been informed of a specific violation, then there is no requirement, under the law, for them to vigorously prosecute their rights with regard to that violation.