Copyright

[Zoe]

Some unofficial cab view videos (basically taken by someone putting a camera in the cab) seem to have been removed from youtube on copyright grounds. What exactly would be copyright? Would it be the position of the signals and speed limit signs or also the livery of the trains passing that would justify removal? None of them contain shots of the cab so I don't think it would be due to the cab design.

 

[Spaceflower]

They may have been taken from Copyright videos. There are numerous DVD's aimed at enthusiasts featuring cab rides along important lines/routes in various traction. You'll find them for sale online, WHSmith, etc. Are you sure these clips weren't taken from these videos? Alternatively they may detract from the value of such videos? A similar example may be watching a live premier league game in a pub from a non licenced broadcaster.

 

[Zoe]

They may have been taken from Copyright videos. There are numerous DVD's aimed at enthusiasts featuring cab rides along important lines/routes in various traction. You'll find them for sale online, WHSmith, etc.

I don't believe this was the case, the vidoes I have seen were filmed be either the driver or someone that was in the cab at the time. They don't look to be professional productions.

 

[Spaceflower]

Then see my second possible explanation. Only a possible though, I'm no expert. I suppose such professional video makers will pay a premium for such cab footage....

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Probably someone demanded it to be taken down. YT will have just used the generic copyright excuse as a reason probably.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Youtube, like many similar companies, does take copyright very (usually too) seriously, and tends to take an approach of take down first, ask questions later. I know at least one person who had their account removed for putting up "copyrighted" material that was actually perfectly legal (it was a parody, which is protected by copyright). Shame they aren't quite so quick to react at some of the sick and illegal videos people put up (particularly relating to animal abuse). Same with ebay, put up something that might upset a big company and it will be taken down, scams, illegal items etc and they don't seem to care.

 

[GB]

Perhaps the person who orginally uploaded the cab videos to YT didn't hold the copyright to begin with..ie he either didn't film them or he got them from another source/person without authority.

Position of lineside signals or signs do not fall under copyright laws.

 

[Zoe]

Position of lineside signals or signs do not fall under copyright laws.

The livery of the passing trains would be though? I seem to remember that getting used as a reason to tell people not to take photos at stations.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The livery of the passing trains would be though? I seem to remember that getting used as a reason to tell people not to take photos at stations.

Comes under incidental inclusion I would imagine.

 

[Zoe]

Comes under incidental inclusion I would imagine.

Then why have some people I know been told "no photography" at a station and when they ask why they have been told copyright is the reason.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Then why have some people I know been told "no photography" at a station and when they ask why they have been told copyright is the reason.

Because the employees at the station are not paid lawyers specialising in copyright law? You do seem to believe everything you are told!

For the record:

The ‘incidental inclusion' exception is likely to be helpful in situations where, for example, there is a fleeting or partial glimpse of some copyright work e.g. a snippet of a programme on a television screen in the background of shot; a quick camera pan across a poster on a wall or a bill board on the street; a brief or partial shot of a magazine cover, for example in a doctors waiting room where filming is taking place; or where there is some background music playing where you are filming e.g. in a lift or shop (and it has not been deliberately included e.g. added in the edit). Note: ‘incidental inclusion' is UK defence to copyright infringement. Thus where international sales of a programme are anticipated, consideration should be given as to whether works deemed incidental for UK transmission, need to be cleared for foreign jurisdictions.

http://www.independentproducerhandb...ht-and-fair-dealing/incidental-inclusion.html

 

[Zoe]

Because the employees at the station are not paid lawyers specialising in copyright law?

In that case it would be better for them to know the law before threatening to call the BTP in.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In that case it would be better for them to know the law before threatening to call the BTP in.

They're not paid to know the ins and outs of arcane laws. They're there to run a station.

 

[GB]

I'd say its largely an attempt to scare some people to stop taking photos on stations.

 

[b0b]

Youtube, like many similar companies, does take copyright very (usually too) seriously, and tends to take an approach of take down first, ask questions later.

To be fair to Youtube, the US DMCA law says they must take down the content as soon as they are made aware of it by a claim, or they become liable for copyright infringement.

Hence the immediate removal and ask questions later.

DMCA claims are supposed to be backed by belief that actual infringement has taken place, but so far there seems to be no action taken by someone who has made an obviously false claim,