False Copyright Claim

[charlie99]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me.

I run a small news channel on YouTube and recently published a short clip on my channel.

The video was a slideshow of CCTV images that had been released to the public by the Police force.

The clip only contained images, no audio and was a simple Movie Maker slideshow with transitions between each image (3 in total)

However a user on youtube also uploaded the images in a "slideshow" as described above and is now claiming copyright on the clip despite the fact the images do not belong to him and he has not been give exclusive rights to use them.

My understanding after speaking to the Copyright Licensing Agency & the Intellectual Property Office is that the user cannot claim copyright on the images/clip as the contents (the original images) do not belong to him in the 1st place.

I have tried to explain this to the user but they are adamant that copyright law has been broken and they have submitted a copyright infringement notice to youtube which has resulted in my clip being taken down.

I have submitted a counter claim against this action but the user is threatening me with legal action and suggesting I get a good lawyer as he wants to go to court.

This is all pretty new to me and as you can imagine is quite intimidating.

What can I do?

Thanks in advance

[typonaut]

I have submitted a counter claim against this action but the user is threatening me with legal action and suggesting I get a good lawyer as he wants to go to court.

Ask for his solicitor's name, address and phone number so that you can contact them directly about the matter. Ask him what his claim to ownership of the images is. Ask the claimant for their name address and other contact details.

There is a provision in the CDPA 1988 for false patent claim, but I don't think there is one for false copyright claim. Perhaps Andy knows better.

Either way you don't really want to go to the trouble of instructing a solicitor in order to scare him off.

You might want to have a google search about this sort of thing, which seems common, or read through this http://yttalk.com/threads/false-copyrig ... elp.34175/

[charlie99]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply...

My understanding from reading this forum is that the slide show is classed as derivitive work as it only contains 3 images that do not belong to him (or myself) so he would need permission from the copyright owner before he could accuse me of any sort of breach

The user seems to be under the impression that he can take 3 photos, turn them into a slideshow and then start threatening people with legal action.

I have asked him to prove he owns the images, I have also asked him to prove we took "stole" his footage.

However he ignores most of my questions and only ever accuses me of stealing his "film"

How can he honestly believe that 3 images (he took from the public domain) constitutes a "film" or "his work" ?

He also seems pretty confident in his position.

I have submitted a counter claim via Youtube, reported him Youtube via there "partners program" and also sent an email to Police Force who own the images informing them he laying claim to them.

Thanks in advance

[AndyJ]

Hi Charlie,
Just to confirm what Typonaut said above, there is no cause of action for making a groundless threat in relation to copyright infringement, unlike both patent and trade mark law.
Let's first look at the individual images. If they were taken from police-owned CCTV cameras then there is little doubt that the Police will own the copyright (if it exists) in the images and so they will have released them lawfully. However if the images came from a privately owned CCTV setup, it is possible the Police did not have explicit permission to publish them, although they probably had a right under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to obtain the images for evidential purposes. I say 'if [copyright] exists' because it is highly arguable that fixed cameras overlooking a public place would be recording 'facts', that is to say events occurring in front of them, without any ingredient of human creativity on the part of the camera owner as to what events occurred or the manner in which they were recorded, edited etc. I mention all of that because it may well be there is no copyright at issue here.
To come to the specifics of your problem, the only 'new' element which this other person seems to have added is the incorporation of three still images into a sort of pseudo video, ie a slide show, which was done using software. On that basis I cannot see any grounds for saying this slide show would attract copyright as a derivative work. And as you say, if he did not have permission from copyright owner (assuming copyright existed in the stills), then his derivative work would be an infringing copy and so not eligible for any additional protection as a new work.
If the still images were in the public domain either by virtue of being ineligible for copyright, or because their release by the Police was accompanied by an implict licence, then the other party cannot claim copyright just in the fact that he used minimal effort and skill to stitch them into a slideshow.
He has no cause of action based on the facts you have given us.
BUT, if by some means of which you are not aware, the other person has obtained a licence from the copyright owner to use the images in his slideshow, then there may be more to this than you first appreciated. If, and it seems unlikely in the circumstances, he obtained an exclusive licence from the copyright owner, then he could claim infringement of that licence and initiate litigation. But if he has a non-exclusive licence then only the actual owner can start litigation.
Either way you need to see on what he basing his claim to copyright. I suspect he either doesn't understand copyright law, or is behaving in this way in order to remove competition to his 'news' service.
Whatever else happens, you need to receive a letter before action, preferably from his solicitor spelling out the basis for his claim, before he can take matters further.
Youtube should follow the DMCA procedure and restore your video until such time as he can provide evidence to back up his claim, once they have received your counter claim.

[charlie99]

Hi Charlie,
Just to confirm what Typonaut said above, there is no cause of action for making a groundless threat in relation to copyright infringement, unlike both patent and trade mark law.
Let's first look at the individual images. If they were taken from police-owned CCTV cameras then there is little doubt that the Police will own the copyright (if it exists) in the images and so they will have released them lawfully. However if the images came from a privately owned CCTV setup, it is possible the Police did not have explicit permission to publish them, although they probably had a right under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to obtain the images for evidential purposes. I say 'if [copyright] exists' because it is highly arguable that fixed cameras overlooking a public place would recording 'facts', that is to say events occurring in front of them, without any ingredient of human creativity on the part of the camera owner as to what events occurred or the manner in which they were recorded, edited etc. I mention all of that because it may well be there is no copyright at issue here.
To come to the specifics of your problem, the only 'new' element which this other person seems to have added is the incorporation of three still images into a sort of pseudo video, ie a slide show, which was done using software. On that basis I cannot see any grounds for saying this slide show would attract copyright as a derivative work. And as you say, if he did not have permission from copyright owner (assuming copyright existed in the stillds), then his derivative work would be an infringing copy and so not eligible for any additional protection as a new work.
If the still image were in the public domain either by virtue of being ineligible for copyright, or because their release by the Police was accompanied by an implict licence, then the other party cannot claim copyright just in the fact that he used minimal effort and skill to stitch them into a slideshow.
He has no cause of action based on the facts you have given us.
BUT, if by some means of which you are not aware, the other person has obtained a licence from the copyright owner to use the images in his slideshow, then there may be more to this than you first appreciated. If, and it seems unlikely in the circumstances, he obtained an exclusive licence from the copyright owner, then he could claim infringement of that licence and initiate litigation. But if he has a non-exclusive licence then only the actual owner can start litigation.
Either way you need to see on what he basing his claim to copyright. I suspect he either does't understand copyright law, or is behaving in this way in order to remove competition to his 'news' service.
Whatever else happens, you need to receive a letter before action, preferably from his solicitor spelling out the basis for his claim, before he can take matters further.
Youtube should follow the DMCA procedure and restore your video until such time as he can provide evidence to back up his claim, once they have received your counter claim.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the very detailed response. (Much appreciated)

I can confirm that the CCTV images are from within the Police station and not from a 3rd party camera.

The Police released the footage to try to track down the person in question and within hours of the images being released (and slide shows appearing on youtube) the man was named.

As I suspected the footage in question is a derivative work and so the claimant has no grounds.

Thank you so much.

[typonaut]

I suspect he either doesn't understand copyright law, or is behaving in this way in order to remove competition to his 'news' service.

I think this is the most likely explanation. Or, someone just trying to stir up trouble for you (that's why I posted a link to another discussion thread).