(03-03-2015, 12:16 AM)MaytagMan Wrote: First off, let's be serious, this guy's videos are a joke at best. Next, his website is crap with a lot of junky ads for crap products.
So what brought about the note? Playing the Devil's Advocate, here might be where his problem(s) is/are. He see that he is getting some traffic so investigates and finds the sites on the SC domain. He sees that his video content is embedded and his site is not mentioned, etc. Could that be his issue? Don't know.
As for the whole copyright and youtube thing, there is a lot of information out there - I was curious and did some reading. Here is one article - a few years old but interesting nonetheless: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/yo...-copyright
Another article I read but lost the link to said that even though an embed link was provided, that content creator (owner of the copyright) still has can determine where the video is shared and ask for it to be taken down if used without permission.
As for his photography business, I don't think that the pics are necessarily infringement, but then again I am no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination. This photographer had a good article about the subject: http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html
So the question remains as to what to do. Well, since the guy's videos are crap, does SC want to be associated with them, and is it worth any kind of resistance to keep them?
Hmph...
I will be interested to hear what other info you guys come up with on the subject... it is interesting.
If the guy didn't mention his name in his own videos, well shame on him. Most people watermark their videos anyways.
Second, he could have easily just sent an email asking for their removal. One would think a cigar review video would be good to present to a bunch of cigar smokers, but not this guy. If he would have asked then it would not have been a big deal.
Third, YouTube TOS clearly states that when you upload a video:
"You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. "
The share and embed functions ARE permitted functionality under the YouTube TOS. He uploaded the videos for viewing, sharing and distribution.
And finally, his photos. You are absolutely correct that his photos are not a legal issue. It is HOW those photos are used which becomes the issue. A photo/photographer is one thing, but selling those works becomes a whole different matter. Take a picture of the eBay building and sign outside (ebay logo is registered just like the cigar bands). No problem, share away on Facebook...no problem! But put it on a T-Shirt for sale....and see how long it takes before you get that letter in the mail.
The cigar bands are the focus in most of the images, which are the manufactures registered marks. While the photography is allowed, the resell of the mark is not. I know General Cigar, Oliva Cigar and Padron are very proactive against such trademark use. He is not using the mark to sell their product in good faith, he is using the mark to sell his own photos.