Think of ice skating. It's been years since I stopped uploading videos of ice skaters to Youtube, because they are automatically deleted based on music matching their filtering database. Others in my ice skating circle share videos on Amazon Prime Photos or similar platforms, never on Youtube.
Some might cry foul at this. As a thought experiment, I wonder if such cases are worth clogging up our court systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that violations of law ought to go without remediation... but purely from a pragmatic point of view, I'm not sure that the system is currently set up to handle lawsuits over this as a recourse.
In the US, I'm not sure if small claims courts would handle such a speculative case.
We could set up extrajudicial processes via executive bureaucracy, but the end result is simply less transparent courts.
I suppose we could compel businesses to manually validate takedown requests and the like... I am also imagining that would be ripe for abuse to the point it ends up being used antagonistically and ultimately drives down shared revenue for all participants to offset the cost.
1. YouTube supports DMCA notices, because it has to in order to keep safe harbor, but YouTube's preferred/automated system does not use DMCA notices and so is not bound by the DMCA's rules.
2. It's next to impossible to meet the standard for getting punishment/damages out of a false DMCA takedown. The only part of a notice that's made under penalty of perjury is that assertion that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. The claim of infringement is not made under penalty of perjury. The infamous Diebold case did get damages, but only because Diebold literally admitted in court "we knew this wasn't infringing but sent a takedown anyway". As long as the sender of the takedown notice isn't quite that stupid, they won't be on the hook for anything.
Seriously though, when you copy and upload 'their' (in many cases the author is long dead, or in your case they even attacked the author) works of art it's "How dare you, you are single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of the fabric of society. You should be locked up forever, we lost over 1bn moneyz because of your video!!!!11"
But when they store and sell your age gender and other personal data to other shitheads that want to sell you useless stuff you don't need it's all fine and dandy.
This is why I will always endorse piracy at user's discretion as a way to harm stupid greedy corporations relying on a broken copyright law.
All of the revenue that otherwise would have been the uploaders.
If I want to use someones music in my ad or product showcase or movie or anything that will make money I need to pay those artists for using their work. You should also IF you want to make money from it.
It's only fair if the money goes to the real copyright holder. We know that Youtube is broken here, and allows non-copyright holders to claim the ownership.
I would prefer you didn't have such issues with sharing videos.
I do not know about the Olympics but I checked with the national ice skating federation, and there are apparently no special licensing fees for ice skating events. Ice rinks pay the usual fees for public performance, though.
Suffice to say, the music they choose may be copyrighted or long out of copyright (I'm looking at you Carmen). Skaters are never paid for competitions, thus they can play their music without worry at the events. Recently, music with words has now been allowed at competitions.
Here is a brief over-view of music and ice skating: https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/965031866775437312
I don’t mean in the specific case of ice skating but in the general professional performer / athlete sense.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/08...
In this case, isn't the usage covered by the event venue paying ASCAP? I don't think there's an exemption for "but I'm not making any money off of it".
> But the basic rule is simple: Standard licensing fees paid by broadcasters cover these uses, and the money makes its way, eventually, to songwriters as royalties.
Most of the time, when songs are included on television, producers have to pay for a so-called synchronization license from music publishers. Negotiations can lead to high fees for the most in-demand pieces, like Beatles songs.
But since the Olympics are considered a “live event,” even when tape-delayed, no such special permission is needed, said Steve Winogradsky, a lawyer who is an expert in music licensing. [0]
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/arts/music/olympics-figur...