Tag: copyright

White Noise Story Generates White Noise on Copyright

TorrentFreak recently reported a story about Australian music technologist Sebastian Tomczak receiving several copyright claims on a work he created and uploaded to YouTube. The work itself is ten hours of white noise he recorded using the noise generator built into the audio application Audacity. Tomczak’s interest, as described by Andy at TF, is “listening to continuous sounds of various types, and how our perception of these kinds of sounds and our attention changes over longer periods — e.g. distracted, focused, sleeping, waking, working, etc.”

After Tomczak posted his video to YouTube, it was targeted by four rights holders claiming his track as their property; and all of these entities availed themselves of the Content ID option to monetize his video. Initially designed as a compromise solution, a Content ID account is available to rights holders who meet certain conditions, which enables automated identification of a work being used by another YouTuber. Once flagged, the account holder has the option to let the use go, request a takedown, or monetize the use by sharing in any ad revenue generated by the use. Needless to say, the system is not perfect, and among its flaws is that it may misidentify a work. Not surprisingly, many of the comments attached to the TF story viewed the white noise example as yet another example of the unfairness of copyright, though some of the comments are more appropriately critical of YouTube. Because to the extent anyone can give this particular incident much consideration at all, it really is a YouTube problem, not a copyright problem.

Keep in mind that in the world outside the demolition derby of the internet, claiming a copyright and defending a copyright are not necessarily the same thing. If Mr. Tomczak and the “publishers” making a claim against his video were squaring off to litigate, I would hope that attorneys for all parties would advise that nobody has a reasonable copyright claim in white noise. White noise by itself does not meet the minimum standard of originality for copyright and is no more protectable than an A-Flat. As much as critics like to claim that copyright is a legal system woven from pure whimsy, it isn’t quite so random in practice as it may seem when filtered through the internal policies of a business like YouTube.

And here’s a bombshell observation: the internet is brimming with people who figure out how to game the system to generate money for themselves. It could be some guy making click-bait fake news, or it could be one of these “distribution” companies that automate the process of monetizing content with which they have no relationship. This seems to be the nature of the claimants in Tomczak’s case, and these businesses are all over the web—offering to distribute your music, art, films, etc. for you. Just upload and wait for the money to arrive.

As an aside, I can tell you that when a friend of mine captured a serendipitous video that went viral, he was chased pretty aggressively by two or three of these companies offering to monetize the clip for him. These businesses were eager enough to get hold of him that they called friends and relatives in various states in their frenzy to get his video clip into their system ASAP—all for one clip in a universe of trillions of clips. Clearly, it’s a numbers game. If they can license x number of clips and monetize them for y dollars, then it’s worth the investment of z time chasing after people like my friend. There’s nothing wrong with what these companies do, per se, but they shouldn’t be confused with traditional rights holders—and certainly not with the interests of professional creators.

It should be obvious that these automated, or semi-automated, distribution systems would leverage the sound-matching capability of YouTube’s Content ID system and that they will inevitably monetize files that belong to other people. In fact, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that there’s money to be made by using a cover of a song to try to monetize a track uploaded by the original artist. In July last year, I noted that singer/songwriter Bob Seger’s work was not on Spotify but that a whole catalog of covers by Bob Segar were available and are just good enough copies of Seger’s sound that many listeners might not immediately notice. In a similar way, what’s to stop an “innovator” from using a nearly-matching track to syphon money away from a creator who’s put her music on YouTube to monetize for herself? Suffice to say, copyright isn’t the bug in the system. The system is ideal for scammers and predators.

If there’s an unscrupulous way to squeeze a few dollars out of the advertising revenue stream flowing through the web, somebody’s already doing it. The extent to which Tomczak’s example is loosely predicated on the DMCA is a distraction from the larger picture—that this kind of chicanery is not the fault of copyright law but is more profoundly the realization of the free-for-all, pirate ethos that folks like TF’s fans have long advocated for the web. Piracy is a multi-million-dollar black market that, among other things, teaches people how to profitably game the system. So, it’s curious to see TF readers complain about legitimate copyright owners in context to a story in which a) no copyrights actually exist; and b) the false claimants against Tomczak’s video are doing exactly what the pirate sites do all day long—monetize work somebody else produced. As I wrote in my response to Pirate Bay founder Peter Sunde in 2015, this is the internet you asked for. And it’s full to bustin’ with white noise.

A Quick Update on the Display Right

In a recent post, I described how the “server test,” established in the Perfect 10 case, obliterates the display right for visual artists on the internet. I further opined that the “server test” is an irrational standard and also stated that Perfect 10 may not be the final word on the matter. For recap, the Ninth Circuit held in Perfect 10 that in-line linking (also known as “framing”) images on a website without actually hosting (i.e. copying) those images does not infringe the author’s right of public display.

A new case before a U.S. District Court in Dallas this month (The Leaders Institute v. Magnovo Training Group) entails several IP and non-IP disputes between the litigants, including copyright infringement of the display right by means of “framing” plaintiff’s images to make them available on defendant’s website.  I’ll spare readers the long-winded details about these parties and their various disputes because they are not germane to the copyright issue.  What is compelling about this case, and potentially good news for visual artists, is that Judge Jane J. Boyle said the “server test” doesn’t make any sense to her either.  Here’s how she put it …

“…to the extent Perfect 10  makes actual possession of a copy a necessary condition to violating a copyright owner’s exclusive right to display her copyrighted works, the Court respectfully disagrees with the Ninth Circuit.  The text of the Copyright Act does not make actual possession of a copy of a work a prerequisite for infringement. To display a work, someone need only

show a copy of the work; a person need not actually possess a copy to display a work. And to display a work publicly, a person need only transmit or communicate a display to the public. 

Again, the person need not possess the display. For example, a person that went into a movie theater and used a video camera connected to the internet to broadcast a movie to the public would clearly be committing copyright infringement even though the person did not herself have a copy of the movie. Essentially, TLI’s framing scheme is like a live feed of Magnovo’s copyrighted website.”

Judge Boyle’s opinion seems to better conform to common sense than the “server test.” If a party displays a protected visual work, whether by in-line linking or magical incantation, that action alone should implicate the right of public display.  As mentioned in past posts, visual artists are easily the most-frequently infringed authors on the internet.  It’s so common that many photographers and other creators just starting out have all but abandoned any hope of controlling or being paid for their work.  And that’s exactly how the major internet platforms and the freeloaders want it—a market where creators feel grateful just to be exploited.

Opinions like Judge Boyle’s can be cited in future cases to eventually overturn the opinion in Perfect 10, so this is potentially very good news for visual artists as it would restore the intent of the display right in the digital market.   Add to this, the passage of the copyright small claims provision (H.R. 3945), and users might stop assuming every image they find is just there for the taking.

Copyright Small Claims: A Solution for Many Creators

In my experience, the number-one complaint about contemporary copyright is that it is unenforceable in the digital age. Independent creators take one look at the scope of infringement relative to the cost of a single litigation and give up on the idea that they have any control. Many infringers—from casual to corporate—are either unaware that they’re infringing or they know how unlikely enforcement is for small creators; and this breeds the kind of smug responses we read about all the time. You know the ones. Where even a major brand uses a photograph for its marketing and then tells the photographer he has a lot of nerve to ask for money and should actually be grateful for the “exposure.”

On top of all this day-to-day infringement, the sage critics of copyright, those self-appointed defenders of the tubes, tell everyone there is no way to enforce copyrights online without sabotaging the delicate workings of the web. Some of these ivory-tower think-tankers even claim to care about authors with a sympathetic shrug and declare, “Artists do deserve to get paid, but we can’t afford to damage the innovation. You don’t want to hurt the innovation, do you?” Ergo, non-enforcement for thousands of small-scale and start-up creators becomes a predicate for steadily eroding copyright as principle.

The Small Claims Bill

It won’t solve every problem, but it should make a tangible difference for a significant population of creators who currently do not avail themselves of any enforcement procedure, but would if the barriers were lower. And frankly, copyright critics and internet-advocates (the ones who claim to care about creators) should actually support this bill because it establishes a forum for narrow, voluntary, and limited resolution between a rights holder and an alleged infringer without creating even a hint of a new liability implication for investing in web platforms.

H.R. 3945, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE) has been more than a decade in the works. This amendment to the copyright law would establish a three-officer Copyright Claims Board within the Copyright Office, comprising two expert copyright attorneys and one attorney with specific experience in alternative dispute resolution. Rights holders can file complaints through electronic communications, without an attorney, and respondents may avail themselves of all the same defenses (e.g. fair use) that may be asserted in a federal litigation.

A Few Key Features

The small-claim option is voluntary for all parties and has the legal enforcement status of “alternative dispute resolution.” It does not preclude either claimants or respondents from availing themselves of litigation by opting out of the small-claim process; and re-litigation is an option if claims or counterclaims were not raised and decided upon by the Board. (See CORRECTION note below.) Both parties must agree to specific opt-out obligations. For instance, a respondent has 30 days to opt out upon original notice of proceeding or he/she may lose in a default judgment that is then enforceable through any court in the U.S.

A rights holder may initiate a small claim for a work that is not registered but must file a registration concurrent with the proceeding. If the work was not registered at the time of infringement, this limits the maximum award the rights holder may seek through the small-claim process, but it is an option for some relief that does not exist in federal litigation, which is impossible for an unregistered work.**

One big advantage to the small-claim provision that rights holders and copyright critics should like (though I wouldn’t hold my breath for the critics) is that the Copyright Claims Board is a copyright only panel. This is significant because ordinary court filings are sometimes bogged down by a litany of complaints or defenses that have little to do with copyright infringement, and the courts have to slog through these while the meter is running. Moreover, the small-claim panel’s specific expertise in copyright law is not necessarily going to be present in any number of federal judges, who might be presiding over hate crime in the morning and copyright in the afternoon. This copyright-specific aspect of the Board should be beneficial to both claimants and respondents.

Both claimants and respondents can avail themselves of the small-claim option without attending proceedings in person. Most of the process is handled through electronic filings with a proposal to use video conferencing for discussion and resolution. One of the myths being spread about this bill is that both parties are required to travel to Washington, D.C. Not true.

Attorneys may be employed by either party but are not required. This can prove particularly helpful in cases where the rights holder seeks a relatively modest settlement for an infringement he does not consider highly egregious or highly costly to his interests.

Although some of the usual copyright haters, like Public Knowledge, assert that the Board will become a “clearing house for awarding fees to every copyright troll” in the country, this assumption actually makes little sense. For example, the bill contains anti-abuse provisions that don’t exist in regular court proceedings. A bad-faith claimant can bring lousy copyright cases to court week after week. But a claimant who files bad-faith (i.e. harassing) complaints with the Copyright Claims Board may face financial penalties and/or be barred from using the small claims option for a year.

Rebalancing the Landscape

In everyday practice, a vast population of rights holders you’ve never heard of have neither the time nor the interest to restrict every casual use of their work online; and by the same token, a vast number of users you’ve never heard of don’t even understand when they’re infringing. This problem has been exacerbated by PR funded by the internet industry, which has a vested interest in weakening copyright and could not care less who among these nameless parties is harmed amid all the confusion.

These authors, who want to maintain control over their work, are not out to punish every blogger and they are certainly not expecting to earn big money through litigation. But the entrenched assumption that everything online is there for the taking has to stop. Most infringements are the result of laziness, ignorance, or greed—all of which is very easily ameliorated with a basic (and free-to-use) guideline: don’t use what isn’t yours without permission. And if the small claim option gives more independent creators a path to enforce their rights, then there’s a decent chance that small-time infringers will discover the value of this very simple rule of thumb.

A New Reason to Register Works

One of the concerns raised by my friend Leslie Burns is that the small claim provision will act as a disincentive to register works. She may be right with regard to people’s habits—artists do hate paperwork—but I would recommend that creators view the small claim provision as a great reason to register works because it provides a new path for enforcement that is only strengthened by timely registration.* Not only can a claim for a timely-registered work receive a higher maximum award for damages, but registration also shows an alleged infringer (respondent) that the author is serious about the work and the claim, and this should act as an incentive for the respondent to opt-in to the cheaper and easier small-claim process.
______________________________________________

*Timely registration has a technical meaning in the statute.

**Apropos a from a new reader, this does not reject the possibility of prevailing in a claim for actual damages for infringement of an unregistered work, but such claims are highly unlikely to avail themselves of the small claim option.

CORRECTION:  As originally published, I stated that parties could still litigate without restriction after the judgment of the Board. This was incorrect.

Hand photo by TanyaRozhnovskaya