Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
EFF sues "psychic" Uri Geller over YouTube takedown notice
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against spoon-bender Uri Geller. The so-called psychic had sent a letter to YouTube asking that a video be removed from the site. The 14 minute video details slight-of-hand techniques a magician could use to pass himself off as say, a psychic that can bend spoons with the power of his mind.
So where does the EFF come in? Well, apparently Geller's company only owns the rights to a few seconds of video in that 14 minute movie. There's a good chance those three seconds would fall under fair use.
So it's questionable whether Geller had any standing under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to ask that the video be removed.
[via CNet]
So where does the EFF come in? Well, apparently Geller's company only owns the rights to a few seconds of video in that 14 minute movie. There's a good chance those three seconds would fall under fair use.
So it's questionable whether Geller had any standing under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to ask that the video be removed.
[via CNet]
Comments
5
Subscribe to commentsKevin LittleMay 10th 2007 8:42AM
I know what you're all thinking. Shouldn't he have seen this coming.
RaphaelMay 10th 2007 9:11AM
Not that it's of any importance but the guy's name is Geller with an e. (Maybe he'll soon sue Download Squad for wrong usage of his name…)
Brad LinderMay 10th 2007 8:51AM
Thanks Raphael, I updated the post to reflect my dumb spelling errar.
RaphaelMay 10th 2007 9:50AM
Funny that you acted on my comment before I activated it…
JamesMay 10th 2007 2:24PM
@#1: Zing! Heh.
Seriously, am I the only one sickened at the thought that it's "questionable" whether or not he has standing to issue a takedown notice, instead of "glaringly obvious" that he doesn't?
From WP:Fair Use -- "the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting... or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Also, there's a mountain of case law supporting the notion that copyright violation cannot be used to silence critics of the copyrighted work ("create a chilling effect"), the "Church" of Scientology's behavior notwithstanding.
There's not a serious judge in the nation (leaves out the Ninth Circus, I'd guess) who would even give this case the time of day.