20th Century Fox Having Bad Reviews Pulled Off YouTube

20Th-Century-Fox-LogosmallJust when you think studios couldn’t act worse… they just keep on surprising you! I’ve just been notified by YouTube that 20th Century Fox has just filed a copyright infringement notice with them to have our review of the ass awful film “Reno 911: Miami” taken off their site and deleted.

And before you ask… yes… the review was a negative one.

It is curious that they are claiming copyright infringement. As most of you know, in our video reviews we will cut in clips from the trailers of the movies we’re discussing. Trailers that are made publicly available by the studios for anyone, anywhere to download at anytime. on top of that, according to Stanford’s website, “Fair Use” of material is covered under the category of “COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM”. The site states:

“If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work–for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. “

Let me repeat that I didn’t take clips from a pirated version of the movie… I used the clips, in a legitimate “fair use” exercise, from a source that the studio themselves made fully and publicly available to everyone. And yet they pulled my review of their terrible movie off of YouTube. Fox knows full well that this has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

The review is ancient history, and I could care less about it. But the principle here of a billion dollar studio using its legal department to have legitimate negative reviews of their movies taken off the internet is outrageous.

51 thoughts on “20th Century Fox Having Bad Reviews Pulled Off YouTube

  1. Yay for the Streisand Effect, but I’d be more concerned if it was a government doing this. So a studio got rid of a negative review – my God, the World is coming to an end. As if studios have never pressured anyone to write good reviews for them.

    The vast majority of movie-goers and -buyers are influenced by word-of-mouth opinion from people they know, and marketing strength. Taking down one bad review from one of the myriad movie rating sites will not affect the movie’s revenue in any substantial way.

    This is probably just part of a department dedicated to getting rid of all copyrighted content on YouTube. Just because an advert is distributed widely and for free by the studio, doesn’t mean that it loses its copyright.

    Any movie-rating programme that is broadcast on television first has to get permission from the studio to broadcast any adverts.

  2. TOOMY6 you need to do a little more research on copyright infringement and the parody/fair use exceptions. It doesn’t matter if you are making money off a copyright infringement (although that is part of the copyright intent) all that matters is that you have used material belonging to someone else without their permission. It’s not unlike taking your neighbors car without permission. The fact that you purchased a DVD of Family Guy in no way gives you the right to pull material off of it and use it for your own purposes. I mean you can go ahead and do so if you want but don’t be surprised that it gets pulled. After all copying protected material is illegal. Now, if your video was a parody of Family Guy (like say, dubbing a Flintstone’s soundtrack over a Family Guy animation) you might be right in being angry, but your description didn’t sound like a parody (of course I never saw it so I could be mistaken). Every single person who posts to YouTube is protected by copyright (including you) so be thankful that it exists.

  3. I glad I boycotted 20th Century Fox, because Fox doesn’t providing closed-captioning on special features. So… what?!

    There is a best accessibility on the captioning and SDH (subttiled for the deaf and hard-of-hearing) on bonus features including: (Disney/Buena Vista since 2006 for Blu-ray and 2007 for DVD), Universal Studios since 2005, Weinstein Company since first DVD release has best accessibility policies than Paramount since (I think first DVD release with bonus material?) or Paramount/Dreamworks that make Fox would be profit will going down.
    By the way, Dreamworks did good job for providing best accessibility including (bonus features started in 2001, especially previews since 2006) for captioning and subtitled in other language including “Bee Movie”, “Shrek 3” and pre-Paramount/Dreamworks titles that which Dreamworks was with Universal Studios best than this present including Shrek trilogy, “War on the Worlds”, “Just Like Heaven”, “Wallace & Gromit” and list goes on after 2001 and beyond DVD releases.

  4. my video family guy brian griffin in love was taken off of you tube for the same reason and it was just some clipes from an episode on a dvd that i bought with some music in the backround
    this is bull shit how was it copyrighting i didnt even get payed for it

  5. what are you a pussy??
    just put it back up
    on a different site if you have to.
    you did nothing wrong so what are they gonna do about it??
    send it to me i don’t mind putting it on my youtube account or something.

    I mean big companies pull this shit all the time (kane&lynch any1?).
    they’re fuckin criminals destroying free speech and journalistic indepence like this!

    (note i’m dutch so it’s probably filled with grammar and spelling errors)

  6. Anon, it’s not as much personal harm as much as it is infringement on our rights that are guaranteed to us by both the constitution and laws like the fair use law. If we were to let every corporatation sensor us then we would pretty much be letting them dictate what we say and where we spend our money, that’s not really something I’m that willing to give up- how about you?

  7. Why on earth would he want to do a completely useless, time-consuming lawsuit for something that didn’t exactly take him a lot of time to make?

    Seriously. Just let it be. Obviously, because the clips are covered by fair use, the review had every right to stay up–but YouTube can do whatever the hell it wants. It doesn’t even have to be taken down for Fox’s complains, it can be taken down for whatever the fuck YouTube wants to take it down for. Granted, it sucks that it was a bad review, but once you upload your videos to YouTube, even though it is your material, YouTube can take it down. Terminate it for no reason.

    Not everything has to be resolved with a lawsuit, especially when it’s not something that caused personal harm to those affected.

  8. If YouTube informed you that they were taking down your review because they recieved a DMCA takedown notice, then you should immediately send them a “putback” notice. Then, the burden will shift to 20th Century Fox to either file suit against you within 10 days or let the review go back up.

  9. Youtube is certainly big enough, with it’s own legal department, to challenge 20th Century Fox. They could pick up the challenge, talking about copyrights, freedom of speech, or whatever, and have a lot of positive free advertisement from this! No doubt Fox is legally on very thin ice as far as actually presuing a lawsuit.

    By the way….Reno 9/11 sucks anyway!

  10. ahhh fuck 20th century fox they are a bunck of old gay closet queens who will drop to their knees to suck off a ten dollar bill….this movie sucks plain and simple so just don’t go see it and boycott 20th fox programs cause after all they ALL SUCK

  11. fuck them cocksuckers that film sucked and so do their lawyers go chase a injury case creeps ….i’ll piss in their wine next time they order one or i’ll rub myu cock on the glass they drink from….ha ha ah ha

  12. When a false DMCA notice is filed, you have the right to counter-sue and get damages awarded. Everythign is in your favor, so call your legal team and bust them down for a BILLION dollars, MINIMUM.

  13. There seems to be a lot of misinformed people about.

    There’s no need to do the whole thing again with stick figures.

    YouTube is required to take down video upon receipt of a notice. John can make his reply, and judging on past experience with fair use (see the Randi/Geller clips for example), his clip will go back up.

    If it can be demonstrated that the studio has acted in bad faith by issuing takedowns for content it should know is legal, John has the basis for a suit.

  14. Louis, if you think that Fox hasn’t heard of TMB than you’re crazily wrong. Corporations like Fox use web culture and viral marketing as a tool to advertise- which is why they are censoring YouTube in the first place- cause they know word of mouth can kill a product, I guess they didn’t forsee such a negative reaction to it.

    Example: Andy Milonakis does stupid ramblings on YouTube and somehow gets a show on MTV2 based on the amount of hits he got.

    And you really think film and tv corporations don’t closely monitor EVERYTHING that goes on related to their products and potential products on te web? Dead wrong.

  15. Max, (#13) – you’re an idiot.

    Youtube -does- have a choice in the matter, and they would not lose any status by refusing an illegitimate request, assuming they were able to verify that was the case.

    “Safe Harbor” is all about due diligence, not the end result.

    As said above, why not post it to your own website, and stop relying an unreliable service like YouTube?

  16. That sucks man. I’ve had my brushes with Fox’s legal department and they’re a bunch of dicks.

    BTW it’s “couldn’t care less”, NOT “could care less” ;) The latter means you do care about it, but you mean you don’t care.

  17. What the fuck? You can’t be serious? So you can’t put a bad review? BULLSHIT!
    So if you as the reviewer add clips from the trailers in, it’s copyright infringement! What if I upload a fox trailer to youtube from there offical site, is that copyright infringement?

    FUCK YOU FOX!

  18. I think you’re being wayyy too conspiracy-minded and, frankly, rather melodramatic. No one’s out to get you. Fox has probably never even heard of your blog. It was probably just a robot searching out a list of movie titles and you were accidentally tagged.

  19. They are in their legal rights to take down re-cut trailers unless the work is for for parody and even then the lack of additional material (like not even using a new voice over) is weak argument for fair use. But you are solid on criticism and can post your review on your site with a review of your review and link to your site on YouTube. Then if they send you a cease and desist you can tell them to kiss off. And lastly for people that have not read the Constitution – free speech is right but the protection of it is yours – all the Constitution (the first amendment really) does is protect you for Congress, not corporations.

  20. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides for a different interpretation of fair use online, as compared to in other media. which changed net copyright in many ways. It reduces fair use rights.

    What is legal on TV or in print may not be legal online.

  21. Put the review back up without the copyrighted bits in it, perhaps?

    At the end of the day this’ll (obviously) come down to a Fair Use debate. Fox actually charge to be able to use their clips – call them and ask for their “FEATURE AND SERIES LICENSING ENQUIRIES” sheet to get an idea on the price (the one I have which is a couple years old says its thousands of dollars per minute of footage).

  22. You sent a counter-notice to Youtube, right? They are obligated to honor the notice from the studio, and they are equally obligated to honor a counter-notice from you. Even if you had used clips from the actual movie it is fair use unless you used gratuitous chunks of it. I appreciate the fact that you’re sticking it to Fox here, but really it shouldn’t be a big deal.

  23. I think you meant to say, you “couldn’t” care less about it. Saying you could care less means you care about it more than you maybe should.

  24. They probably did a bombardment of DMCA takedown notices putting the onus on the injured party to prove they weren’t infringing on copyright. However the behaviour is illegal. Not that anyone has been punished for it. One day they’re going to do it to a politician or journalist and finally something will be done about it.

  25. Also, youtube has no say in it. If they don’t remove a DMCA request they lose their right to ‘safe harbor’ which means everye asshole in the world can sue them. That being said, if companies like News Corp and Viacom continue to file illegal DMCA’s they will lose their right to file DMCA’s and youtube won’t have to listen to them. The process of removing clips will become harder and harder for the movie studios.

  26. What of it?

    YouTube doesn’t have to adhere to copyright regulations. They can pull your stuff off at any time because they are not a publically owned website.

    Host your video on your own website, put up a Digg link to it, etc, and Bob’s your uncle. You might even get Boing Boing to cover it if you can provide a link and a story about Fox getting it taken down.

    Just to be clear, you are legally free to make a video like this, but YouTube is not legally obligated to host it for you.

  27. Time to get the EFF to take your case up and sue these pricks for violation of the DMCA. Abusive DMCA requests is a felony, and a corporation CAN be charged with the crime.

  28. Galvin and Pete have a great idea. The problem is, it wouldn’t work and Fox would still veto it. After all, I could have sworn ‘Reno :911″ was made with stick figure drawings. Or at least made out of cheap cardboard.

    The Seeler’s hypothesis:

    1) As far as Fox taking everything off YouTube, perhaps they want to focus on MySpace videos?

    2) Maybe Fox was owning up to that Reno 911 was an error and they want to clean up the mess, pretending like the film was never made…

    3) Has Gio reviewed other Fox films in a two minute video review? Are they taken down/on iTunes no more?

    4) Will Fox make amends to TMB by giving away swag from ‘Avp2’, perhaps a specially made Todd McFarlane doll of the (jk) homosexual Predalien?

    5) Will Fox make amends by showing up at next year’s Comic Con?

  29. My advice and this has happened to me before is, resubmit the video and include in the discription of the video that it falls into the fair use catagory. Then if it happens again you are going to have a stronger case agaist youtube for removing the vid and FOX for sending a FALSE!! DMCA notice…

  30. You CAN sue the crap out of ’em. Filng a false take-down notice under the DMCA is bad mojo.

    Around Oct. of 2003 Diebold Corp did a slew of take-down notices against sites critical of their electronic voting systems. Mine was one hit, but I filed a counter-notification under the DMCA that’s been cited as a “what to do” at least as drafted by a non-lawyer:

    http://www.equalccw.com/liebold.html

    Another of the people hit around the same time sued and won a $125,000 judgment, as in my case (and yours) where “fair use principles” were completely ignored. See also:

    http://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold

    Congrats. You just won the lottery. This isn’t a gray area situation, you have them by the BALLS. You can take them directly to court, as what they’ve done is an open and shut violation of Federal law.

    Jim March

  31. I agree with Gavin Bollard above me, re-edit it and put some stick figures or add something in replace of the clips. With the back story this video will probably get more views than the original.

  32. You’re not the first. I have seen fan-made recut trailers getting taken off of Youtube in the past few weeks by 20th Century Fox. I think this is wrong for a studio to do that, especially focusing on bad reviews; freedom of speech, anyone?

  33. You may have a legal case against them. It’s just as illegal for them to claim ownership of your review, which you own and legally contains fair use clips, as it would be to post entire episodes of the Simpsons. The law that allows them to as for things they own to be removed does not allow them to fraudulently ask for the removal of things they don’t.

  34. Edit your review, remove the clips and replace them with non-animated kids drawings (stick figures) marked with the reason for Clip Removal and then stick your review back up.

    Don’t let them win when they’ve got such poor grounds.

  35. WOW thats some funny stuff although fox is still better that WB those guys are dicks BTW just wondering Can you tell me is their anyother way to listen to a commentary track for some reason it will not play for me? thanks

    Frankie J

  36. Do what you did when Paramount pulled something like this. Write 20th Century Fox a letter tearing them a new one. Maybe the same thing that happened with that situation will happen here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *