Nikola Issues Copyright Takedowns Against Critics Who Use Rolling-Truck Clip (arstechnica.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Nikola has issued copyright-takedown notices targeting critics on YouTube who used clips of the promotional video in which a Nikola prototype truck was seen rolling down a hill. Nikola last month admitted that the promotional video of a supposedly functional Nikola One electric truck moving along a highway actually consisted of the company's vehicle rolling downhill. This week, Nikola "forced the removal of several critical videos from YouTube, saying they infringed its copyright by using footage from the company," including the truck-rolling-downhill video, the Financial Times reported yesterday.
Sam Alexander is one of at least two financial commentators who had videos removed by Google subsidiary YouTube at Nikola's request. He says that four of his videos were taken down. "The claim is from when I showed 30 seconds of their Nikola One in Motion footage, which is what they put on Twitter and it's of their Nikola One rolling down the hill," Alexander said in a YouTube video he posted Wednesday. Alexander said he believes his videos should be protected as fair use under YouTube's policies. He used the 30-second clip of the Nikola One in videos that lasted 10 minutes or more, he said. Alexander said he put the words "Source: Nikola" in the corner when he played the truck clip and played his own audio over the clip. Nikola appears to claim that YouTube is the party that initiated the video-removal process. "YouTube regularly identifies copyright violations of Nikola content and shares the lists of videos with us," a Nikola spokesperson told Ars. "Based on YouTube's information, our initial action was to submit takedown requests to remove the content that was used without our permission. We will continue to evaluate flagged videos on a case-by-case basis."
YouTube contradicted that claim, saying the company took advantage of the Copyright Match Tool that's available to people in the YouTube Partner Program. "Nikola has access to our copyright match tool, which does not automatically remove any videos," YouTube told the FT. "Users must fill out a copyright removal request form, and when doing so we remind them to consider exceptions to copyright law. Anyone who believes their reuse of a video or segment is protected by fair use can file a counter-notice."
Sam Alexander is one of at least two financial commentators who had videos removed by Google subsidiary YouTube at Nikola's request. He says that four of his videos were taken down. "The claim is from when I showed 30 seconds of their Nikola One in Motion footage, which is what they put on Twitter and it's of their Nikola One rolling down the hill," Alexander said in a YouTube video he posted Wednesday. Alexander said he believes his videos should be protected as fair use under YouTube's policies. He used the 30-second clip of the Nikola One in videos that lasted 10 minutes or more, he said. Alexander said he put the words "Source: Nikola" in the corner when he played the truck clip and played his own audio over the clip. Nikola appears to claim that YouTube is the party that initiated the video-removal process. "YouTube regularly identifies copyright violations of Nikola content and shares the lists of videos with us," a Nikola spokesperson told Ars. "Based on YouTube's information, our initial action was to submit takedown requests to remove the content that was used without our permission. We will continue to evaluate flagged videos on a case-by-case basis."
YouTube contradicted that claim, saying the company took advantage of the Copyright Match Tool that's available to people in the YouTube Partner Program. "Nikola has access to our copyright match tool, which does not automatically remove any videos," YouTube told the FT. "Users must fill out a copyright removal request form, and when doing so we remind them to consider exceptions to copyright law. Anyone who believes their reuse of a video or segment is protected by fair use can file a counter-notice."
Wrong move, moving on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee wiz - I see what you did there.At least I do if you're from the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say "dedicated", I say "committed", in all senses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
more 'infringements' please (Score:5, Funny)
"Users must fill out a copyright removal request form, and when doing so we remind them to consider exceptions to copyright law"
Youtube says NIkola has to do all the work here. More people should be posting the video on Youtube. Maybe they'll get tired of filling out forms... Wankers.
Surely, commentary on the video clip is fair use (Score:2)
It seems to me that, when a company uses a misleading video in its advertising, use of the clip in criticism of the company's actions is entirely within the fair use exceptions.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that, when a company uses a misleading video in its advertising, use of the clip in criticism of the company's actions is entirely within the fair use exceptions.
Fair use is a defense against infringement that is litigated in court though. It's defined by legal doctrine rather than statute. You can't assert fair use unless you are prepared to drop a couple of $100k on lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that! Your advice is always appreciated since you are an expert in all DMCA and copyrights matters!
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re:Surely, commentary on the video clip is fair us (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use is a defense against infringement that is litigated in court though. It's defined by legal doctrine rather than statute. You can't assert fair use unless you are prepared to drop a couple of $100k on lawyers.
Attempting to silence criticisms with a copyright infringement lawsuit would be SLAPP violation.
A SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition -and is specifically prohibited in many jurisdictions. It is the kind of thing that will piss off a judge and can result in sanctions against the plaintiffs attorneys as well as punitive fees for the plaintiffs -as well as generating even more bad publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think that counts. Criticism only counts as fair use if it's the copywrited work you are criticising. This guy is a financial commentator,, and I suspect he was mainly criticising the finacial dealings of the company that created the work, and not the work itself.
In any case that's not the justification he's using. He says he replaced the audio and added a credit, and claims that's enough to qualify for fair use. It's not. He should watch Tom Scott's excellent Youtube video on copywrite, Youtube and
Re: (Score:2)
Assumes, of course, that YouTube is fully truthful here too. Both parties may be shading the truth. YouTube could be fully truthful. I don't know. But I'd trust a third party more than either of the two involved.
Make it part of public record (Score:2)
The Streisand Effect (Score:2)
It's time these jackasses were forced to become familiar with it.
Re: The Streisand Effect (Score:3)
Copyright for faked content? (Score:2)
Can you claim copyright over a faked video clip? I guess they produced it, so yeah. It seems a bit absurd, though.
Anyway, I'll be surprised if this company survives more than a few years. I'm looking forward to the lawsuits from their investors who realized they got scammed.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. But using as much of a clip as necessary to support critique is fair use...
They are still alive? (Score:2)
I thought it was dead as a door-nail.
Re: (Score:3)
Never underestimate Trevor Milton and his "nice guy" act, or the desperation of some to catch the "next Tesla".
"Nikola World" - which had been scheduled for a couple days after Trevor gets to sell his stock - had to be postponed. Their negotiations with BP (over getting the latter to take a leading role in building out "their" hydrogen network) were terminated by BP. GM postponed the planned signing of their deal (which is heavily lopsided toward GM) with Nikola, but haven't called it off altogether; it sou
Re: (Score:1)
** Ed: 11% of Nikola
Where's the link? (Score:2)
So each of us can post it a couple of dozen times.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the video at the start of this clip [youtube.com].
Just need a few more months (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
GM among them, then.
Is this 'Nikola' a Chinese company? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube finds them. You have to claim it. (Score:2)
While YouTube find the matches for you, you still have to dispute them manually and YouTube tells you what percentage of your video they are using of their total video so it is clear if it is a copy and upload job or just part of a video.
They are lying.
Congratulations! (Score:2)
You're about to learn what "The Streisand Effect" means!