Google (the owner of YouTube) has just announced the release of a beta version of a video filtering tool. It has named it YouTube Video Identification. This supports Google's corporate copyright law compliance (and survival against legal threats).

It is also another step towards protecting content owners whose copyright work is uploaded into YouTube without permission and then copied over, in virus-like fashion, to innumerable other sites. It's a massive problem for audio-visual content owners. For many of them YouTube is a punk, not a new kid on the block.

YouTube Video Identification has been developed internally after looking outside algorithm fortress Google. As for audio copyright works (largely music), in February 2007 Google licensed copyright filtering technology for YouTube from AudibleMagic.

Google's announcement emphasises that its latest attempted technology fix is part of a package of protections.

Before assessing Google's move, here's the 15 October 2007 Google announcement in part (emphasis ours):

This Google copyright compliance package therefore includes legal and policy restrictions on users, a continuing 10 minute limit on the length of videos, takedown software tools provided to copyright holders, and copyright tips.

However, beware of Google bearing copyright tips. Google is famous for pushing copyright law beyond traditional limits. Conveniently for Google, its copyright tips only reference United States copyright law.

• Copyright owners must of course deal with threats emanating from uploaders worldwide. Hence Google has received litigation papers and letters of demand in 2007 expressing concern against copyright infringement in YouTube. Reported cases include: (1) Viacom's in the US, (2) English soccer's Premier League, and (3) the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers.
• A US-centric perspective on copyright law can turn to mud the complexity of considerations for effective legal action outside the US against unauthorised uploaded videos. Australian copyright law, for example, has the concept of "fair dealing" which is narrower than the US "fair use" concept referenced in Google's copyright tips page. Generally you can get away with a lot less copying under Australian copyright law than under US law. This is just one of the differences.
• Google's deep pockets help. Additionally, the location of Google's servers may make some difference for blocking anti-Google actions. However the location of servers made no difference in the loss by the US defendants in Gutnick v Dow Jones and Company Inc. (under Australian defamation law) or the massive loss by the defendant in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [Kazza case] (under Australian copyright law). Kazaa in late July 2006 agreed to pay A$152 million (US$115 million) compensation for past IP infringements. Perhaps the ongoing Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) court case against Google may shed light on the extent of the difference the location of servers makes.

The release of YouTube Video Identification is another indication of Google being forced to move YouTube closer to traditional copyright industries in various entertainment and information sectors. Conventions, practices and expectations in those sectors have been molded since about the mid-19th century and in some cases even earlier. Google is playing legal chess. Lightbulb has tracked key 2007 moves:

• 16 January 2007: YouTube in copyright licensing negotiations
• 29 January 2007: YouTube's IP revenue sharing model
• 14 March 2007: Viacom to YouTube: "I want my MTV"

Google remains arguably the leading force worldwide in re-framing what is lawful under copyright law today

UPDATE: In a move which excluded Google, Disney, Microsoft Lead Copyright Pact (Wall Street Journal, 18 Oct 2007): "The copyright holders in the group have agreed not to pursue Internet companies for infringement claims if their sites adhere to certain principles. Those principles include eliminating copyright-infringing content uploaded by users to Web sites, and blocking any infringing material before it is publicly accessible."

Let's talk about your intellectual property, commercialisation and business law needs.

Call Noric Dilanchian of Dilanchian Lawyers & Consultants: Tel (+61 2) 9269 0229.

After hours send an email or better still an Enquiry Form. We'll reply with a costed proposal.

FAQ | What we do | Testimonials

Subscribe: Cue newsletter (free) | RSS feed

Search: Overall site search | Library-specific search | Library downloads page

Author & Firm: Author profile |  Contact author |  Firm Differentiation |