youtube video IP I am assuming (please to correct if not true) that copyright is not automatically conferred and that there is a process that must be followed. Assume the venue is the USA Videos are often used to show real-estate properties. How does one know if the video is copyrighted (or any other IP protection)? I ask because I would like to understand if altering the video (removing the realtor info and possibly other mods) for other purposes presents any problems. Any suggestions improve (narrow) the questions are appreciated.
"that copyright is not automatically conferred and that there is a process that must be followed" No, this is completely backwards. Copyright is automatic (in most places), but there is a formal process if you want. Copyright happens the moment that the work is created. In the US, if you want to sue somebody for copyright infringement, you have to register your copyright, but you still have one regardless of registration. Modifying the video is a derivative work and must be licensed/released from the original author/copyright holder. From copyright.gov: When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
A proof can be protected by copyright. The underlying facts of math cannot. But if one has copied details of the order of the proof, or of the selection of theorems to use, and if several other choices would have been possible, then the new proof may constitute a trivially modified copy, or a derivative work, and in either case making of it might be copyright infringement. However, making and distributing a copy, even with no changes at all, for purposes of comment and criticism, might be fair use in the US, fair dealing in the UK or some other parts of the Commonwealth, or fall under an exception to copyright in other countries (these generally vary significantly by country). This is usually a very fact-driven question.
That's copyright infringement, and is illegal under various copyright laws. To take down the content, you'll have to make a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The online form for making a takedown notice to YouTube under the DMCA can be found here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en Remember, that by submitting a takedown notice, that you are initiating a legal process. Take extra care not to abuse it, and to make sure that all information you submit is accurate.
The subtitles would be protected by copyright, in general. In the US, temporarily downloading the subtitle text to create statistics would, I think, constitute a fair use. It is transformative, it does not serve as a substitute for the original sub titles, and it does not harm the market for the film or for the sub titles. The existence of the API for the subtitles might or might not be evidence for fair use, depending on who supplied the data and under what terms. In other countries that have an exception to copyright for analysis and criticism, such a download might be held to come under such an exception. One cannot be sure until there is case law on the point, and I know of none. The ruling might be different in different countries. Statistics (words and their counts) about the subtitles for a particular film or video would be facts, and as such would not be protected by copyright at all. A text discussing those facts would be protected.
The particulars of "actual knowledge" are addressed in Viacom v. YouTube. The ruling from the appeals court states (emphasis mine): Under § 512(c)(1)(A), knowledge or awareness alone does not disqualify the service provider; rather, the provider that gains knowledge or awareness of infringing activity retains safe-harbor protection if it “acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii). Thus, the nature of the removal obligation itself contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific infringing material, because expeditious removal is possible only if the service provider knows with particularity which items to remove... Thus, actual knowledge must be knowledge that is specific enough to allow a service provider to take action against specific infringing content. "General" knowledge of infringement is not specific enough to be actionable, so it cannot qualify as "actual knowledge". (e.g., The general knowledge, "In the past, about 5% of the videos uploaded to our site were infringing, and we expect that trend continues into the present, so some of our videos right now are probably infringing," is not actionable to specific videos, so it does not quality as "actual knowledge".) That ruling also clarifies the distinction between (i) and (ii), which are respectively termed the "actual knowledge" provision and "red flag" provision: In other words, the actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually or “subjectively” knew of specific infringement, while the red flag provision turns on whether the provider was subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific infringement “objectively” obvious to a reasonable person. Actual knowledge is different from a notification, which the service operator must respond to according to section (c)(1)(C) (whereas your quote is from (c)(1)(A)): (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. Expeditious removal is required in either event: the operator has actual knowledge of infringement, per (c)(1)(A)(i), or the operator gets a notification, per (c)(1)(C). Actual knowledge and notifications are different, but they impose similar responsibilities for the operator.
Am I as the user of this site in any way liable if the music turns out to violate copyright? Yes. In a similar way to if I give you “permission” to take my neighbour’s car. Only worse. Because stealing requires intent - you have to mean to do it - while copyright violation is strict liability - if you do it, you’re guilty. If the user that uploaded the item did not have the authority to give the site permission then the site does not have permission and neither do you. If you take reasonable precautions such as performing a reverse image source and verifying that the item appears to be owned by the same person everywhere and, perhaps, reaching out to them then your violation will be an “innocent” infringement which mitigates but does not eliminate damages. The only way to be sure with copyright is to know the provenance of the copyright/licences back to the original creator.
This basically is about the legal responsibility a web-site owner has for user-created content that violate copyright or other laws (such as libel laws). In the USA, this situation is covered by the DMCA. In the EU, this situation is covered by the e-commerce directive. In other jurisdictions, other regulation may apply. The DMCA (USA) is the simplest of those regulations. It stipulates a protocol of Notice and takedown. A web-site owner that complies with this protocol is given Save Harbour. This means that a compliant web-site owner cannot be sued. This goes both for a web-site that is a registered business, and a site run by an individual. The owner of the IP may, however, take the individual who stole and published copyright protected work to court, and will do probably do so if the financial loss was substantial (e.g. a major motion picture was leaked before hitting the cinemas). In the EU, the law is much less explicit than in the USA. Basically, the Notice and takedown protocol works like in the USA, but since it is not part of the law, it is less formal. In the USA, you can safely not act on any complaint that does not strictly follow the protocol (you just have to give feedback so they can fix it). Not so in the EU. And as follows from Delfi AS vs. Estonia, you can be sued even if you take down stuff. In particular if you create an environment for anonymous postings that encourage transgressions and have no means of moderation in place. So if the web-site is located in the EU, the website owner need to exercise more caution when he lets friends publish content, than when a website owner in the USA.
No license can create patent protection for the subject of your videos. Licenses apply to the copyright that is inherently created when you create the video. Patents can only be obtained by applying for them through patent offices. Your video would act as prior art if anyone (including yourself, with some exceptions) later tries to apply for patent protection of any of the inventions shown in the video. For you, the US (and a few other countries) offers a 1 year grace period following your public disclosure, during which you are still allowed to file a patent application on the inventions without the video counting as prior art; in most other countries, the video would immediately disqualify you from protecting the subject inventions, unless you file a patent application before publishing the video.