By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?
It's a bit draconian, but you can thank US legislation for that beauty.
I had a situation recently by uploading a dashcam video recently, it had song played from a radio and it got flagged. I appealed from it that it is fair use (no monetary gain, it doesn't affect their sales (very bad quality, not whole song), it's not center part of the video (in fact I would prefer if it wasn't there).
The studio owning the song responded that blocking it is still valid and youtube informed me that I can appeal again, but if I lose again I can lose my account, which at that point I gave up. I doubt that studio has any consequences for labeling things incorrectly.
Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned.
Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks.
Copyright does not protect basic look and feel.
There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves.
This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place.
If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing.
You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways.
I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill...
Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...
Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.
Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist's, not Samsung's.
Think about the implications -- can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7? Of course not.
Samsung probably has some design patents on the Note 7, but that means you can't manufacture phones with the same design. It doesn't mean you can't distribute images of that design.
Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case.
The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.
Also your comment about the video footage is inane. Yeah, sure, it would likely be resolved under Fair Use, but only once a judge gets involved. The DMCA request is still entirely valid.
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if a filmmaker is sued because the Simpsons is playing in the background of a movie... that is definitely a possible legitimate copyright issue. I'd assume that fair use would apply, though.
How can that be? Every artistic work is automatically under copyright (see the Berne Convention, which the US adopted in 1988), so why wouldn't logos be?