If Phillip Bloom uploaded these videos to Youtube, didn't he consent to a broad TOS on the usage of these videos for internal company purposes?<p>I'd be surprised if he had a case, which may be why he's taking his grievance to the media instead.
Wow. Philip Bloom is a pretty well known and revered figure, especially in indie film making scene. He has a huge following. If Google is smart they will settle this quickly.
Reminds me of a video I watched yesterday by some photographers that successfully sued a company for using one of their images on an iPhone case product. The company wound up having to pay 40k for their use of the photo [1], which seems a little mind boggling. The photographers were willing to settle for less, but the company kept making excuses and tried avoiding them.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0</a> (video title says 60k because they're estimating what the other side paid for their lawyers)
I think the "internal use" argument is interesting because of its bearing to question what rights do employees have to internal software that is based on copyleft software?<p>Like for example should Google employees have right to redistribute their internal patched Linux (that I'm certain they have) code without repercussions (ie getting fired)? How would one even enforce such thing?
Are there any good examples of copyright hypocrites? That is, companies which have spent great effort pursuing copyright infringement while infringing on copyright themselves.<p>I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought to expand access (when it's in their interest, at least). Companies like Disney come to mind, but they're not exactly the same. They often adapt works where the copyright has expired, while lobbying to prevent their own works from having their copyright expire. That is definitely unfair, but not quite the same.
Question for the HN community. What if you take some copyrighted picture and make it a meme and put it on /r/AdviceAnimals, should the person submitting that post or Reddit be liable? Even if the intended purpose of posting that content was a joke/satire of some kind? I don't know what the right path forward here is. I do feel that if the intended purpose of using the copyright material was to make money then I do feel that legal action is required. I don't see that is the case here though.
Does fair use [0] apply to this at all?<p>[0] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a>
The Google video: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish...</a>
What's to settle? Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds.<p>For instance, you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame?
<i>"My footage is represented online by two major stock-footage companies. And I license it for all sorts of projects and uses, from commercials to broadcast to corporate films," said Mr Bloom.
"A fair amount of my footage has been licensed for internal use only, so to hear Google not state that they will compensate me for its use is very surprising.</i><p>The footage was licensed for internal use, and Google has presumably paid for that.<p>The contention arises because the video was leaked; in the film maker’s view, he should be compensated because it is not internal anymore and thus breaks the usage agreement.<p>If Google has purposefully published the video, that’d be a very easy ruling to make in favor of the videographer; but the fact that it was leaked will make this an interesting case to follow.