More than spoon is bent, says EFF

The IPKat has learnt from Ars Technia that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a suit against pseudo-psychic Uri Geller claiming that, by requesting that YouTube take down a video featuring an excerpt from one of Geller’s programmes, Geller himself infringed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The YouTube video was posted by Brian Sapient, a member of the "Rational Response Squad," which aims to debunk the claims of those who profess to have a special connection with the supernatural. The video is an excerpt from a series originally broadcast by PBS in 1993, which featured James Randi, a magician, demonstrating how Geller did his tricks. As part of that demonstration, clips of Geller performing were included.

Geller sent YouTube a takedown notice under the DMCS, stating:
"I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed; I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and this notification is accurate".
However, the EFF claims that Geller only owns the copyright in 3 seconds of the 13 minute YouTube video, and that this is precisely the sort of thing that would be covered by the fair use defence.

The IPKat reckons that the use of takedown notices in such circumstances is predicated on the belief that their subjects will ‘go quietly’ and will take down the clips with minimal fuss and publicity. He commends the EFF for ensuring that this isn’t the case here. Merpel adds, if Geller’s a psychic, why didn’t he see this lawsuit coming?

EFF’s full complaint is available here.
More than spoon is bent, says EFF More than spoon is bent, says EFF Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, May 11, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.