Old TV commercials on youtube?

Question

OK, here's my question. I put up on youtube my favorite TV commercials ever, about 2 years ago. Yes, I don't own the rights to it it's over 10 years old, (Superbown 1997)

(See it below it's still floating around youtube ---> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ho9WiVrYRv8

This commercial is a parody of the YMCA they don't use the same lyrics. I did name the file "YMCA Pepsi Bears Superbowl 1997"

This week it was taken down by youtube due to a copyright infringement notice. (here it is)----> "This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Scorpio Music S.A. / Can't Stop Productions claiming that this material is infringing"

Why in the world would the publishing company care about this? I really doubth they are loosing sales due to a TV ad parody. I'm really tired of media companies complaining about trivial crap like this. If this is the case, shouldn't the YMCA organization complain to Scorpio?

So the question s are, how many years does it take for TV ads to be in the public domain

And was this really infringing to the publishing company Scorpio Music S.A. / Can't Stop Productions or are they being stupid by over reacting.

Honestly, who is getting hurt from this?

Answer 1

It is not a matter of who is getting hurt but is one of the copyright holders legal rights.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

I don't know how far you want to take this but you might have a case if you come under the fair use doctrine.

See the link below for more information.

Answer 2

well i can't really answer the OP question(s) per se but just today the same media company took down a theatrical trailer for the movie "Can't Stop The Music" that i posted on youtube. at the time of their move, the video clip had garnered thousands of views and quite a bit of user response via comments. all positive, i might add. and all utterly free-of-charge publicity for the "intellectual property" in question. now nobody is being exposed to it or talking about it on youtube. justice prevails!

i do not gain financially in any way from anything - which is pretty much just strictly theatrical trailers for movies, mind you - that i post on youtube. remember when media corporations used to have to pay large sums of money to get the very same trailers for their movie products aired? me too! now it can happen completely for free via internet channels and these media mogul morons (not all) just simply do not get it. they fight the future. i never went to business school, mind you, but i think this kind of takedown represents one of the stupidest intellectual positions i have ever heard of.

i would encourage everyone in the general public to boycott Scorpio Music SA because i think they have clearly demonstrated that they are too freaking stupid to be allowed to continue to be in business.

Answer 3

hi Fonzie, previous responders you have already regarded (Nicky, Melissa, artifacts & Jimmy) have made good calls in this question; for me, the over-reliance on those songs cheapens the clarification we like those songs in the 1st place, besides because of the fact the artists' legacies. To my way of questioning (admittedly slightly greater philosophical, in keeping with possibility, than the final focused customer), this severe use reflects poorly on the advertising and marketing Dept's of the manufacturers and is an utter indictment of the innovative vacuum that curiously exists on the advert businesses which concoct the labeled classified ads. you need to assert that the 1st time a music became into used, then that became right into a one-off 'clever concept', and as long because it became into used with permission from the artists & songwriter(s), it may be proper. unavoidably, however, our copycat modern international pounced on the assumption and song followers are frequently pushed up the wall. yet i don't understand the way it is going to ever provide up. perhaps the greater youthful song followers of today are already acquainted with it, and could not difficulty 20 or 30 years from now whilst their previous favorites get appropriated for annoying advertisement use.

Answer 4

whoever owns the YMCA song gets paid anytime it is broadcast, so they want to prevent unauthorized use on YouTube.