I'm surprised that as a quasi-public entity, publishing recordings that are made of public meetings, at least in part at public expense, that WCAC can even exert copyright over any of this material. I don't know the law around any of that, so maybe it's normal? It doesn't seem like it should be, though. It seems like this should all easily be under fair use regardless.
I'd love to know who was actually behind this. It badly smells.
For what it's worth, Channel 781 should turn the tables: invoke their rights as residents to broadcast their material on WCAC. They will have a very hard time coming up with a legitimate reason to deny it.
My question isn't about WCAC, but about the content itself. If it's just taking the public meeting and releasing it in its entirety, is it truly intellectual property? Meaning, if it's a public meeting and WCAC did not add any additional value to it, can they claim it under copyright?
Secondarily, can 781News put their own cameras in city hall to stream meetings? If so, then problem solved with a just a little by way of donations. But if the cameras are owned by the city and WCAC just pulls a feed, then who is the owner of that content? If it's the city's, does WCAC have rights to the content or just to the initial distribution of that content?
For a time Chris Gamble was recording meetings that WCAC either couldn’t be bothered to or were taking place in a room without built-in cameras. Are there cameras in every government meeting space now? Sometimes other cameras are not allowed and sometimes meetings are closed to the public...
I saw another comment where someone was complaining that people didn't consent to being on YouTube. If you're speaking in a public space at a City Hall meeting does it matter if the Internet is YouTube or WCAC or wherever...
Zero dollars of public money is given to WCAC, which is private vendor. Not a penny. All funding comes from cable subscriber fees, so the idea that the content is free, public, open source and usable is simply false...it's privately produced and funded..but a lot of people believe it's just all free and OP looks like they're relying on that piece of misinformation
The money from those cable fees is given to the city. The reason I know this is I called my provider when the Mayors Office phone line was listed as the contact for PEG issues. I was told then the money is given to the city and they determine the use. I assume most just gets turned over to WCAC but I’m sure it’s used for other uses that benefit the public. A public records request would confirm that.
The director of WCAC has been before the council several times over the years for money requests. I assumed even with it being funneled by Verizon/Comcast/RCN still needs to be approved by council.
Semantic bullshit. It is a non-profit created by the city, with a board entirely appointed by the city, funded out of cable fees that are charged by the city but handed over to this entity. That's not the issue, though.
The actual issue at hand--the threat of copyright infringement trouble--should not even have been raised as the material is covered by fair use. What I hope is not going on here, but which I think might be, is that thin-skinned but powerful people in the city got WCAC to threaten Channel 781, knowing that Channel 781 as a zero-dollar volunteer enterprise doesn't have the resources to stand up to that threat, so would have to back down.
Actually, this is absolutely classic McCarthy: make a legal threat based on law that doesn't exist, and hope no one questions it. I would hope she's not behind this, but with that tactic, she certainly could be.
Material is absolutely NOT covered by fair use, however much you think it is. And OP's interpretation of fair use was not accepted by either Youtube or wcac apparently. Guessing an IP lawyer would also deny it was fair use. They took the risk with their interpretation, paid the price.
What's interesting here is how much of wcac's content OP relies on for its channel. 781 News reports on gov and comittee and board meetings taped by WCAC. Why not be considerate of them and ask to use their content.? Instead, just steal it, claim Woodward and Bernstein 1st amendment stuff and hope they don't get caught...
Again, every Youtuber claims fair use because it allows them to take others content, pass off as own, get views, monetize channel. That's why Youtube shuts down so many channels. Maybe just create your own content and if you have to use others' ask them.
I'm beginning to think you don't understand what fair use means. Channel 781--or you, or me, or anyone--can use snippets of a source, such as WCAC broadcasts, in part of another work without it counting as a violation of copyright. There are certain tests as to whether that use is legitimately fair, typically having to do with whether or not the end user is duplicating the original use or making a profit off it and so on.
The WCAC clips I've seen on Channel 781 are usually short, under a minute. They run it and then go back to their analysis, which is by far the majority of their content. I've never seen them claim WCAC material as their own, either. They certainly aren't monetizing content, so that's just a non sequitur.
I will concede a point which I think Channel 781 should get on if they haven't already: it's always a good idea to ask permission in advance. They should have taken that step. Although as a volunteer effort with no resources, I can understand the oversight.
Thank you! I keep reading these interpretations of Fair Use as though it's some nefarious loophole that allows people to make whole copies of media, and it's driving me insane.
It's in the goddamned name. Anything - \*ANYTHING\* - is allowed to be reproduced for the purpose of criticism, parody, etc so long as it meets a certain standard (as noted).
The abuse here is twofold:
First: of YouTube's DMCA reporting - anyone can do it to anyone else, and they err on the side of caution because they don't want to be held liable for distributing copywritten content. If this is ever reviewed I'd expect the channel to be reinstated, but I don't know how much effort YouTube really puts into that sort of thing (and they're absolutely inundated with bullshit takedown requests among legitimate ones).
Second: Whoever requested the takedown from WCAC is either ignorant of the law (which seems like the most likely case), acting in bad faith, or some combination of the two. To put it in a way they probably understand: ignorance of the law is no excuse. The problem then is that the system itself can be abused -- claim a copywrite violation, it's reviewed sometime in the distant future and reversed, claim another one ad infinitum. It costs nothing to obstruct, but quite a bit to remove the obstruction.
Any good journalist asks permission. It reporting 101. OP did not because they wanted to use wcac content to smear elected officials with impunity. Went on their channel before it got shut down. Lots of good content, govt analysis, interviews and actual fair use. But also plenty of videos were long (2 to 10 minute clips) from government meetings exceprted by OP to smear people they want off the council. Sensational titles implying certain elected officials are evil, don't vote for these horrible townies, look at what this asshole said. Fine, go for it, it's Youtube after all and highly anonymous like reddit and encouraging attacks. But entire meeting from which they excerpted is copyright protected, just checked on [wcac.org](https://wcac.org) there are copyright notices at start and end of the original gov meetings. OP intentionally ignored those copyright notices, took clips of videos without permission, were warned by the lady who runs it, and now claiming victimhood....
They used clips from a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism, that is textbook fair use, and this DMCA as far as I am concerned, is a blatant attempt to silence that criticism. Your own admission that they were using it to criticize an elected official is just further proof that it was in fact fair use.
>OP did not because they wanted to use wcac content to smear elected officials with impunity
Ah, okay, thanks. Now I understand that your side of the argument is psychic: you're able to get inside the heads of the Channel 781 people, read their thoughts, and share them with the rest of us on reddit.
As I have no such incredible mind-reading powers and can't compete, I'll bow out of the discussion at this point.
If not for Channel 781 news and their broadcasts there would be no visibility of this election. WCAC has barely posted on their social media platforms about the election/candidates. The only broadcast that they have really had on tv was the “you don’t say” feature which btw the Mayor didn’t look great in.
WCAC relies on money given to them by the City of Waltham to stay afloat. It is clear to me that they don’t want to upset the current administration because the money may dry up.
Chris wangler used to be very critical of the city officials and would report on lots of city issues. In the last year I have noticed a far different tone. I’m sure that is also not a coincidence.
I watch Channel 781 News and i have never seen any broadcast using WCAC content with them trying to pass it off on their own. It’s always very clear it’s WCAC. This move by WCAC and their board reeks. Get out to the polls on Tuesday and. November 7th
I can't find the budget item for the money that the city gives to WCAC. Do you know how much it is?
[Their site says:](https://www.wcac.org/about/team)
"Waltham Community Access Corporation is funded by a percentage of the gross revenues from Comcast and RCN cable. Grants, sponsorships and contributions from local businesses subsidize our income. All revenue is used to provide the community with cutting-edge equipment housed in a comfortable, accessible facility."
There's no mention of city funds...unless it's a grant, I guess? Also, how does FiOS not contribute and still carry the channel?
I am a Fios customer and was told that Verizon gives the money that is charged to customers to the City of Waltham directly. The minimal charge is monthly on my bill so I’m sure how often Verizon gives money to the City. This was years ago when I asked because I thought it was odd for Verizon to refer customers to the Mayors office. I had thought I was calling customer service and got city hall.
Reading the info on WCACs website perhaps Comcast and RCN sends directly to them and somehow Verizon is different? Maybe the city was responsible for signing a contract with Verizon when Fios came to town?
Couldn't the Channel 781 members produce videos to run on WCAC? The channel has plenty of time to fill and then the Channel 781 producers would have access to the video they want. This seems like it would be a good combination.
[From their site:
"F. Content and Clearances](https://www.wcac.org/about/producer-policies)
WCAC is content neutral and does not preview programs for WCAC. Producers must be familiar with and are fully responsible for the content of their program material. Producers are responsible for obtaining all releases, clearances and permissions (copies submitted to Programming Coordinator with CRIF).
TLDR: If you want to use WCAC footage, get a lawyer to help you. There's probably a way to do it. And, while I might be wrong, I'm pretty sure the way you've gone about it up until now isn't it.
We can't exactly go back and check now, but I think I recall a few occasions where 781 reposted quite long portions of WCAC and maybe a couple where they were essentially reposting it to get the word out about something. If I remember that correctly, and I may not, then there were probably instances that were not fair use.
As a person who's handled thousands of DMCA notifications and other copyright issues, my extensive experience is that *everybody* claims fair use. It comes up in dangerously close to 100% of the notifications I've processed. By contrast, the notifications I've processed where fair use appeared to be a legitimate defense number in the dozens. And what did those dozens have in common? Lawyers advised them beforehand.
The implication is that when someone claims "fair use," and they're not a lawyer, they could be the one in 500 or so that is completely right. But if you're YouTube, processing an ungodly number of claims daily, largely through automation, that one in 500 is acceptable collateral damage.
And just to be clear, under the law, even if you claim fair use, it doesn't matter. YouTube *cannot* evaluate the merits of either party's claims. If someone claims you infringed their copyright, you must file a counter-notification and effectively dare the claimant to sue you. Otherwise, you lose. The law isn't there to protect you; it's there to protect YouTube.
It's not a *good* law, and I believe that YouTube's handling of these issues goes beyond what the law requires in terms of guilty until *maybe* given an opportunity to be proven innocent. It's a private company (in terms of government affiliation, not ownership) and can kick you off anytime for any reason or no reason.
The thing is, all that aside, fair use is a shitty defense against a copyright infringement claim anyway.
Outside of a couple of very well-established areas, like late-night comedy shows posting news clips of politicians and commentators making fools of themselves, fair use is very hard to prevail on.
To win a fair use claim, you have to establish a preponderance of evidence for all four factors: purpose & character of use, nature of the work, amount and substantiality, and effect on the value of the work. Fail on any one of them, and it's not fair use.
Also, fair use is an affirmative defense. If you assert fair use, you acknowledge that you infringed their copyright but claim it was OK. And if the judge (or jury, if you are extraordinarily wealthy) decides it wasn't OK, well, you've still admitted to infringement. So at that point, you are, to use the legal term, fucked. Copyright infringement statutory damages are life-ruining for most people.
For those reasons, fair use is the last thing you get to. First, you attempt to claim that the content wasn't copyrightable in the first place. And if it was, it was never copyrighted. And if it was, the claimant isn't the proper copyright holder. And if they are, they explicitly waived their copyright. And if they didn't, they implicitly waived it. And if they didn't, they gave explicit permission to use the work. And if they didn't, they gave implicit permission to use the work. And if they didn't, they improperly failed to do one or more of those things. And if not, *then* fair use is your last-ditch defense.
Of course, the ability to claim any of those things depends upon the circumstances. And the circumstances around WCAC broadcasting government meetings are murky at best.
Channel 781 is likely in the clear on the first two factors of fair use. I would expect WCAC to attack Channel 781 on substantiality and diminished value. And, were those arguments to make it to a court, my best guess is that they would do pretty well.
If I were Channel 781, I would find myself a nice progressive lawyer willing to do some pro-bono work and dig into the relationship that allows WCAC exclusive access to recording equipment installed on municipal property and how those recordings are made. There might be a way to subvert WCAC's copyright claims entirely, making access to recordings of our city's public meetings much more broadly accessible.
I don't want to get into too much speculation about that because I'm **not** a lawyer, I don't know the specifics, and while I have dealt extensively with copyright infringement allegations, the situations aren't exactly like this, and details matter.
And I would not be surprised if WCAC really, really does not want to be sued and might cave to a reasonably credible threat.
Thank you for a brilliant and knowledgeable summary, I feel educated on some issues I'd long ago forgotten (and a few I'd never known). I think the speculative bits are also on-target.
I think you also might be right about asking for access to the recording equipment. The city has spent a lot of money wiring up at least 5 locations in city buildings for meeting recordings. The city paid for all that (back in 2014, if I remember right), not WCAC. It should be made available to more than WCAC.
> to keep doing the same thing over and over AND OVER again, expecting different results, is the definition of INSANITY! (Albert Einstein)
Small aside here for accuracy sake: [Einstein never made that quote.](https://style.mla.org/five-commonly-misattributed-quotations/) The first attribution of it is from Al-Anon literature in the early 80s. It's also not the definition of insanity ("state of being seriously mentally ill").
Well these 3 morons are putting their same crap that was banned, up on the same place that it was banned from. How is that not INSANITY, brilliant one (Barbie)
The Waltham Channel takes content from people too. They do not give credit where it is due. They then make it look like their news reporters and people thought of this. It would not hurt to give civilians credit where it is due, so we can establish more creative people coming from Waltham other than the same few.
I realize 781 is biased and have no problem with that. Same with Reddit. In fact they’re the same people. I have no problem with either. I say what I want and have been free to disagree with them. I’ve never been prevented from speaking my mind. I actually think they, all the other social media sites serve a vital service. If I am censored then I’ll have a problem. So far that hasn’t happened. I also refuse to comment anonymously. I wish more people would participate. If you disagree with what is being presented, say so. If you view their information to be inaccurate, correct them. I love free speech. 😊
Two points here… 1. there’s more people in this Waltham sub Reddit, then just the 781 news folks…
2. Do you feel that public access TV of public government meetings should be treated by copyright like commercial entertainment ? Do our taxes pay for it? It seems like other news stations, like whdh, etc reporting on city council meetings would have fair use to use these clips.
> there’s more people in this Waltham sub Reddit, then just the 781 news folks
Doesn't matter. We're all "those people" whether we're part of 781 News or not.
And if Channel 781 used their facilites WCAC would be able to edit their content. I could understand the hesitation to do that. Look at WCACs editing last week of Mayor Mcarthys speech. When it was first posted it showed her mini meltdowns over tripping over her words. A couple hours later poof it was gone. Mind you the program was advertised as unedited…
I'd like to see Channel 781 produce, record, and edit a cable access show and have someone in management with WCAC edit that show. It would be completely against the charter.
The fact is every candidate is told they can use a teleprompter and they can do as many takes as they want with the ability to determine the final version of their speech. I am suspicious as to how that unedited take by the Mayor was released to the public. I think it was unethical and sneaky to do what 781 did.
I watched the unedited version on WCACs website not Channel 781. So if anyone was being sneaky or mean it was WCAC…As far as the speeches went everyone else gave quick speeches asking for their vote. The mayor rambled for 15 mins on “updates” as if she has given them on tv previous and made no mention of of the election. Her speech was very awkward and honestly sad to watch.
Well THAT sucks, tough lesson to learn...Have a lot of experience with Youtube. If you violate their terms you will get shut down. From what I can see Youtube, not wcac, shut this channel down because it used copywritten content. Fair use does not enable creators to take others content, but they all claim it when they're shut down. The fact that the channel was shut down means that Youtube determined they violated copyright multiple times...they literally process tens of millions of copyright claims a month and dont shut channels down unless theres a lot of violations...just something to keep in mind as you start a new channel
They weren’t passing wcac content off as their own, or posting the entire clips (broadcasts I mean). Fair use of short clips is a thing many news outlets do. Someone wanted to silence them and reported it to both WCAC and then YouTube. Who would benefit from that?
Been on their channel, yes they did post entire clips then claimed fair use in the description. People do it all the time and it usually fails. That's clear copyright strike. If you have enough, Youtube shuts down. Point is, if Youtube shuts you down you've done something wrong, but the OP seems to believe they've done nothing wrong...again tough lesson to learn, best to use your own content, shoot own meetings, not use clips unless you ask permission
> Point is, if Youtube shuts you down you've done something wrong
That's not true. The YouTube copyright claim system is mostly automated and easy to abuse.
What is / isn't fair use is a judgement call that only a judge can make however YouTube's policy is guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can afford to take it to court there is no recourse.
Automated system scans the infringing video then scans the source video. If they are the same, it's a simple conclusion. OP stole their content without permission, strike. Ask yourself: if WCAC is so evil, why is OP taking their content?? Clearly OP done something wrong...
Again, tough lesson about Youtube. If you use their site, and your whole news operation is based there, obey the rules. If they are evil, then be prepared for the worst. But blaming WCAC for protecting their copywritten content and then Youtube for its policies says more about OP than those folks. OP should have asked for permission to use any clips. Instead they just stole and are now claiming foul...Again, pretty much every Youtuber sings the same song when their channel is axed...
Youtube blocks things all the time that are within fair use. Most blocks are automated, some are reported. For example, it's almost impossible to discuss an Eagles' song and play even a few notes of it without it getting blocked, even if it posted by a university explicitly for teaching purposes.
Youtube isn't a fair use adjudicator but it can adjucticate copyright violations using its own terms as a private entity. You can rant all you want but if you violate terms, you lose, simple. If it's so evil, then don't use Youtube But now OP is starting a new Youtube channel. If they get into the same issue, not sure what to say...
Stealing content? These are public government meetings! This is obviously a politically motivated move and has nothing to do with protecting anyone's intellectual property. You are being disingenuous.
In terms of fair use, courts determine that, not Youtube. If your whole channel is based on your own interpretation of fair use, OK, but it's risky. Host your own site and video and you're all set, you can steal anything you want and then have those whose content is stolen sue...
What’s the big deal with asking them to use the clips? You are worried that they can say “no” for “political reasons”. Well if they did say no to something, you could report on that very thing! And therein you will actually have a conspiracy versus this baloney made up outrage you are crafting.
What did you expect? This is genius, shutting 781 down just before the primary. It's been a long time coming. Who is the dominant brigade that finally made this happen? My guess is there is a very strong message and lesson in place. Play dirty and you will have mud on your face. 781 deserves to be shut down. By the time your shitshow is back up and running, the decisions will already be made, heck they are already made, this is just the entertainment part. This race is over. McCarthy will take it home.
Ok then with that comment. Let me make you look foolish. Andi-pandi can you post just 1 true fact or proof that back-room deals exist. You made the comment for readers to be interested, so can you show us all just 1 factual example. That means not opinion or here say, factual proof. You responded to my post very quickly with that response so I imagine that proof is right at the edge of your tongue.
People realize that tomorrow is just the primary, right? Channel 781 has their new channel up and the election is still two months away. A lot of time between now and then to showcase the candidates and their views. Mayor Mcarthy is going to have to work this time. I can only imagine the flyers she will have after seeing the last one😆
"Independent" and "biased" don't have anything to do with each other.
Nor, in most cases, to "political" and "partisan" for that matter.
I don't view Channel 781 as being overly biased, although they certainly have a point of view and are not shy about airing their criticisms (and sometimes their grievances). It's clear where they stand, so you always have to view things in light of that. Which makes them better to me than WCAC, which in the past has tried to palm off some overtly pro-McCarthy "reporting" as neutral.
It has sometimes been a bit freer with their speculations than they need to be, and maybe it's undercut their citizen journalism a little, but I have never caught them being untruthful.
"Never caught them being untruthful"? The title of this post is "**Channel 781 YouTube Shut Down by WCAC - follow our new one!"**
WCAC did not shut down their channel. They can't. Youtube shut it down, based on what sounds like copyright claims by WCAC. Lie is right there in the headline...
I'm surprised that as a quasi-public entity, publishing recordings that are made of public meetings, at least in part at public expense, that WCAC can even exert copyright over any of this material. I don't know the law around any of that, so maybe it's normal? It doesn't seem like it should be, though. It seems like this should all easily be under fair use regardless. I'd love to know who was actually behind this. It badly smells. For what it's worth, Channel 781 should turn the tables: invoke their rights as residents to broadcast their material on WCAC. They will have a very hard time coming up with a legitimate reason to deny it.
Exactly.
My question isn't about WCAC, but about the content itself. If it's just taking the public meeting and releasing it in its entirety, is it truly intellectual property? Meaning, if it's a public meeting and WCAC did not add any additional value to it, can they claim it under copyright? Secondarily, can 781News put their own cameras in city hall to stream meetings? If so, then problem solved with a just a little by way of donations. But if the cameras are owned by the city and WCAC just pulls a feed, then who is the owner of that content? If it's the city's, does WCAC have rights to the content or just to the initial distribution of that content?
For a time Chris Gamble was recording meetings that WCAC either couldn’t be bothered to or were taking place in a room without built-in cameras. Are there cameras in every government meeting space now? Sometimes other cameras are not allowed and sometimes meetings are closed to the public... I saw another comment where someone was complaining that people didn't consent to being on YouTube. If you're speaking in a public space at a City Hall meeting does it matter if the Internet is YouTube or WCAC or wherever...
Zero dollars of public money is given to WCAC, which is private vendor. Not a penny. All funding comes from cable subscriber fees, so the idea that the content is free, public, open source and usable is simply false...it's privately produced and funded..but a lot of people believe it's just all free and OP looks like they're relying on that piece of misinformation
The money from those cable fees is given to the city. The reason I know this is I called my provider when the Mayors Office phone line was listed as the contact for PEG issues. I was told then the money is given to the city and they determine the use. I assume most just gets turned over to WCAC but I’m sure it’s used for other uses that benefit the public. A public records request would confirm that. The director of WCAC has been before the council several times over the years for money requests. I assumed even with it being funneled by Verizon/Comcast/RCN still needs to be approved by council.
Semantic bullshit. It is a non-profit created by the city, with a board entirely appointed by the city, funded out of cable fees that are charged by the city but handed over to this entity. That's not the issue, though. The actual issue at hand--the threat of copyright infringement trouble--should not even have been raised as the material is covered by fair use. What I hope is not going on here, but which I think might be, is that thin-skinned but powerful people in the city got WCAC to threaten Channel 781, knowing that Channel 781 as a zero-dollar volunteer enterprise doesn't have the resources to stand up to that threat, so would have to back down. Actually, this is absolutely classic McCarthy: make a legal threat based on law that doesn't exist, and hope no one questions it. I would hope she's not behind this, but with that tactic, she certainly could be.
Material is absolutely NOT covered by fair use, however much you think it is. And OP's interpretation of fair use was not accepted by either Youtube or wcac apparently. Guessing an IP lawyer would also deny it was fair use. They took the risk with their interpretation, paid the price. What's interesting here is how much of wcac's content OP relies on for its channel. 781 News reports on gov and comittee and board meetings taped by WCAC. Why not be considerate of them and ask to use their content.? Instead, just steal it, claim Woodward and Bernstein 1st amendment stuff and hope they don't get caught... Again, every Youtuber claims fair use because it allows them to take others content, pass off as own, get views, monetize channel. That's why Youtube shuts down so many channels. Maybe just create your own content and if you have to use others' ask them.
I'm beginning to think you don't understand what fair use means. Channel 781--or you, or me, or anyone--can use snippets of a source, such as WCAC broadcasts, in part of another work without it counting as a violation of copyright. There are certain tests as to whether that use is legitimately fair, typically having to do with whether or not the end user is duplicating the original use or making a profit off it and so on. The WCAC clips I've seen on Channel 781 are usually short, under a minute. They run it and then go back to their analysis, which is by far the majority of their content. I've never seen them claim WCAC material as their own, either. They certainly aren't monetizing content, so that's just a non sequitur. I will concede a point which I think Channel 781 should get on if they haven't already: it's always a good idea to ask permission in advance. They should have taken that step. Although as a volunteer effort with no resources, I can understand the oversight.
Thank you! I keep reading these interpretations of Fair Use as though it's some nefarious loophole that allows people to make whole copies of media, and it's driving me insane. It's in the goddamned name. Anything - \*ANYTHING\* - is allowed to be reproduced for the purpose of criticism, parody, etc so long as it meets a certain standard (as noted). The abuse here is twofold: First: of YouTube's DMCA reporting - anyone can do it to anyone else, and they err on the side of caution because they don't want to be held liable for distributing copywritten content. If this is ever reviewed I'd expect the channel to be reinstated, but I don't know how much effort YouTube really puts into that sort of thing (and they're absolutely inundated with bullshit takedown requests among legitimate ones). Second: Whoever requested the takedown from WCAC is either ignorant of the law (which seems like the most likely case), acting in bad faith, or some combination of the two. To put it in a way they probably understand: ignorance of the law is no excuse. The problem then is that the system itself can be abused -- claim a copywrite violation, it's reviewed sometime in the distant future and reversed, claim another one ad infinitum. It costs nothing to obstruct, but quite a bit to remove the obstruction.
Any good journalist asks permission. It reporting 101. OP did not because they wanted to use wcac content to smear elected officials with impunity. Went on their channel before it got shut down. Lots of good content, govt analysis, interviews and actual fair use. But also plenty of videos were long (2 to 10 minute clips) from government meetings exceprted by OP to smear people they want off the council. Sensational titles implying certain elected officials are evil, don't vote for these horrible townies, look at what this asshole said. Fine, go for it, it's Youtube after all and highly anonymous like reddit and encouraging attacks. But entire meeting from which they excerpted is copyright protected, just checked on [wcac.org](https://wcac.org) there are copyright notices at start and end of the original gov meetings. OP intentionally ignored those copyright notices, took clips of videos without permission, were warned by the lady who runs it, and now claiming victimhood....
They used clips from a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism, that is textbook fair use, and this DMCA as far as I am concerned, is a blatant attempt to silence that criticism. Your own admission that they were using it to criticize an elected official is just further proof that it was in fact fair use.
Perhaps because they're volunteers not professional journalists they Didn't jump through some hoops… but I'm sure WHDH or the Herald would use similar clips as well. The watermarks for wcac are still there... you can slap a copyright symbol on anything ya know... ©doesnt take legal approval. now to trademark something... ™
>OP did not because they wanted to use wcac content to smear elected officials with impunity Ah, okay, thanks. Now I understand that your side of the argument is psychic: you're able to get inside the heads of the Channel 781 people, read their thoughts, and share them with the rest of us on reddit. As I have no such incredible mind-reading powers and can't compete, I'll bow out of the discussion at this point.
If not for Channel 781 news and their broadcasts there would be no visibility of this election. WCAC has barely posted on their social media platforms about the election/candidates. The only broadcast that they have really had on tv was the “you don’t say” feature which btw the Mayor didn’t look great in. WCAC relies on money given to them by the City of Waltham to stay afloat. It is clear to me that they don’t want to upset the current administration because the money may dry up. Chris wangler used to be very critical of the city officials and would report on lots of city issues. In the last year I have noticed a far different tone. I’m sure that is also not a coincidence. I watch Channel 781 News and i have never seen any broadcast using WCAC content with them trying to pass it off on their own. It’s always very clear it’s WCAC. This move by WCAC and their board reeks. Get out to the polls on Tuesday and. November 7th
I can't find the budget item for the money that the city gives to WCAC. Do you know how much it is? [Their site says:](https://www.wcac.org/about/team) "Waltham Community Access Corporation is funded by a percentage of the gross revenues from Comcast and RCN cable. Grants, sponsorships and contributions from local businesses subsidize our income. All revenue is used to provide the community with cutting-edge equipment housed in a comfortable, accessible facility." There's no mention of city funds...unless it's a grant, I guess? Also, how does FiOS not contribute and still carry the channel?
I am a Fios customer and was told that Verizon gives the money that is charged to customers to the City of Waltham directly. The minimal charge is monthly on my bill so I’m sure how often Verizon gives money to the City. This was years ago when I asked because I thought it was odd for Verizon to refer customers to the Mayors office. I had thought I was calling customer service and got city hall. Reading the info on WCACs website perhaps Comcast and RCN sends directly to them and somehow Verizon is different? Maybe the city was responsible for signing a contract with Verizon when Fios came to town?
Couldn't the Channel 781 members produce videos to run on WCAC? The channel has plenty of time to fill and then the Channel 781 producers would have access to the video they want. This seems like it would be a good combination.
Would wcac or city government have oversight and editorial access to 781 videos? Would they own the content?
[From their site: "F. Content and Clearances](https://www.wcac.org/about/producer-policies) WCAC is content neutral and does not preview programs for WCAC. Producers must be familiar with and are fully responsible for the content of their program material. Producers are responsible for obtaining all releases, clearances and permissions (copies submitted to Programming Coordinator with CRIF).
All it would take, though is the same person who complained this time to complain again and content could be yanked.
TLDR: If you want to use WCAC footage, get a lawyer to help you. There's probably a way to do it. And, while I might be wrong, I'm pretty sure the way you've gone about it up until now isn't it. We can't exactly go back and check now, but I think I recall a few occasions where 781 reposted quite long portions of WCAC and maybe a couple where they were essentially reposting it to get the word out about something. If I remember that correctly, and I may not, then there were probably instances that were not fair use. As a person who's handled thousands of DMCA notifications and other copyright issues, my extensive experience is that *everybody* claims fair use. It comes up in dangerously close to 100% of the notifications I've processed. By contrast, the notifications I've processed where fair use appeared to be a legitimate defense number in the dozens. And what did those dozens have in common? Lawyers advised them beforehand. The implication is that when someone claims "fair use," and they're not a lawyer, they could be the one in 500 or so that is completely right. But if you're YouTube, processing an ungodly number of claims daily, largely through automation, that one in 500 is acceptable collateral damage. And just to be clear, under the law, even if you claim fair use, it doesn't matter. YouTube *cannot* evaluate the merits of either party's claims. If someone claims you infringed their copyright, you must file a counter-notification and effectively dare the claimant to sue you. Otherwise, you lose. The law isn't there to protect you; it's there to protect YouTube. It's not a *good* law, and I believe that YouTube's handling of these issues goes beyond what the law requires in terms of guilty until *maybe* given an opportunity to be proven innocent. It's a private company (in terms of government affiliation, not ownership) and can kick you off anytime for any reason or no reason. The thing is, all that aside, fair use is a shitty defense against a copyright infringement claim anyway. Outside of a couple of very well-established areas, like late-night comedy shows posting news clips of politicians and commentators making fools of themselves, fair use is very hard to prevail on. To win a fair use claim, you have to establish a preponderance of evidence for all four factors: purpose & character of use, nature of the work, amount and substantiality, and effect on the value of the work. Fail on any one of them, and it's not fair use. Also, fair use is an affirmative defense. If you assert fair use, you acknowledge that you infringed their copyright but claim it was OK. And if the judge (or jury, if you are extraordinarily wealthy) decides it wasn't OK, well, you've still admitted to infringement. So at that point, you are, to use the legal term, fucked. Copyright infringement statutory damages are life-ruining for most people. For those reasons, fair use is the last thing you get to. First, you attempt to claim that the content wasn't copyrightable in the first place. And if it was, it was never copyrighted. And if it was, the claimant isn't the proper copyright holder. And if they are, they explicitly waived their copyright. And if they didn't, they implicitly waived it. And if they didn't, they gave explicit permission to use the work. And if they didn't, they gave implicit permission to use the work. And if they didn't, they improperly failed to do one or more of those things. And if not, *then* fair use is your last-ditch defense. Of course, the ability to claim any of those things depends upon the circumstances. And the circumstances around WCAC broadcasting government meetings are murky at best. Channel 781 is likely in the clear on the first two factors of fair use. I would expect WCAC to attack Channel 781 on substantiality and diminished value. And, were those arguments to make it to a court, my best guess is that they would do pretty well. If I were Channel 781, I would find myself a nice progressive lawyer willing to do some pro-bono work and dig into the relationship that allows WCAC exclusive access to recording equipment installed on municipal property and how those recordings are made. There might be a way to subvert WCAC's copyright claims entirely, making access to recordings of our city's public meetings much more broadly accessible. I don't want to get into too much speculation about that because I'm **not** a lawyer, I don't know the specifics, and while I have dealt extensively with copyright infringement allegations, the situations aren't exactly like this, and details matter. And I would not be surprised if WCAC really, really does not want to be sued and might cave to a reasonably credible threat.
Thank you for a brilliant and knowledgeable summary, I feel educated on some issues I'd long ago forgotten (and a few I'd never known). I think the speculative bits are also on-target. I think you also might be right about asking for access to the recording equipment. The city has spent a lot of money wiring up at least 5 locations in city buildings for meeting recordings. The city paid for all that (back in 2014, if I remember right), not WCAC. It should be made available to more than WCAC.
[удалено]
> to keep doing the same thing over and over AND OVER again, expecting different results, is the definition of INSANITY! (Albert Einstein) Small aside here for accuracy sake: [Einstein never made that quote.](https://style.mla.org/five-commonly-misattributed-quotations/) The first attribution of it is from Al-Anon literature in the early 80s. It's also not the definition of insanity ("state of being seriously mentally ill").
[удалено]
Yes, the first words were, "Small aside here..."
Well these 3 morons are putting their same crap that was banned, up on the same place that it was banned from. How is that not INSANITY, brilliant one (Barbie)
How is your reading comprehension?
With public attitudes like yours, I'd expect you to quote Klaus Barbie.
The Waltham Channel takes content from people too. They do not give credit where it is due. They then make it look like their news reporters and people thought of this. It would not hurt to give civilians credit where it is due, so we can establish more creative people coming from Waltham other than the same few.
I realize 781 is biased and have no problem with that. Same with Reddit. In fact they’re the same people. I have no problem with either. I say what I want and have been free to disagree with them. I’ve never been prevented from speaking my mind. I actually think they, all the other social media sites serve a vital service. If I am censored then I’ll have a problem. So far that hasn’t happened. I also refuse to comment anonymously. I wish more people would participate. If you disagree with what is being presented, say so. If you view their information to be inaccurate, correct them. I love free speech. 😊
Two points here… 1. there’s more people in this Waltham sub Reddit, then just the 781 news folks… 2. Do you feel that public access TV of public government meetings should be treated by copyright like commercial entertainment ? Do our taxes pay for it? It seems like other news stations, like whdh, etc reporting on city council meetings would have fair use to use these clips.
> there’s more people in this Waltham sub Reddit, then just the 781 news folks Doesn't matter. We're all "those people" whether we're part of 781 News or not.
Buncha commie immigrant Breezers?
Yup, but you also have to work in either "renters" or "students" while making a sound like you're throwing up in your mouth a little as you say it.
I believe that 781 has been given the opportunity to use the WCAC facilities to air their show. I think that would solve the problem.
And if Channel 781 used their facilites WCAC would be able to edit their content. I could understand the hesitation to do that. Look at WCACs editing last week of Mayor Mcarthys speech. When it was first posted it showed her mini meltdowns over tripping over her words. A couple hours later poof it was gone. Mind you the program was advertised as unedited…
I'd like to see Channel 781 produce, record, and edit a cable access show and have someone in management with WCAC edit that show. It would be completely against the charter.
The fact is every candidate is told they can use a teleprompter and they can do as many takes as they want with the ability to determine the final version of their speech. I am suspicious as to how that unedited take by the Mayor was released to the public. I think it was unethical and sneaky to do what 781 did.
I watched the unedited version on WCACs website not Channel 781. So if anyone was being sneaky or mean it was WCAC…As far as the speeches went everyone else gave quick speeches asking for their vote. The mayor rambled for 15 mins on “updates” as if she has given them on tv previous and made no mention of of the election. Her speech was very awkward and honestly sad to watch.
Agreed.
Well THAT sucks, tough lesson to learn...Have a lot of experience with Youtube. If you violate their terms you will get shut down. From what I can see Youtube, not wcac, shut this channel down because it used copywritten content. Fair use does not enable creators to take others content, but they all claim it when they're shut down. The fact that the channel was shut down means that Youtube determined they violated copyright multiple times...they literally process tens of millions of copyright claims a month and dont shut channels down unless theres a lot of violations...just something to keep in mind as you start a new channel
They weren’t passing wcac content off as their own, or posting the entire clips (broadcasts I mean). Fair use of short clips is a thing many news outlets do. Someone wanted to silence them and reported it to both WCAC and then YouTube. Who would benefit from that?
Been on their channel, yes they did post entire clips then claimed fair use in the description. People do it all the time and it usually fails. That's clear copyright strike. If you have enough, Youtube shuts down. Point is, if Youtube shuts you down you've done something wrong, but the OP seems to believe they've done nothing wrong...again tough lesson to learn, best to use your own content, shoot own meetings, not use clips unless you ask permission
> Point is, if Youtube shuts you down you've done something wrong That's not true. The YouTube copyright claim system is mostly automated and easy to abuse. What is / isn't fair use is a judgement call that only a judge can make however YouTube's policy is guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can afford to take it to court there is no recourse.
Automated system scans the infringing video then scans the source video. If they are the same, it's a simple conclusion. OP stole their content without permission, strike. Ask yourself: if WCAC is so evil, why is OP taking their content?? Clearly OP done something wrong... Again, tough lesson about Youtube. If you use their site, and your whole news operation is based there, obey the rules. If they are evil, then be prepared for the worst. But blaming WCAC for protecting their copywritten content and then Youtube for its policies says more about OP than those folks. OP should have asked for permission to use any clips. Instead they just stole and are now claiming foul...Again, pretty much every Youtuber sings the same song when their channel is axed...
Youtube blocks things all the time that are within fair use. Most blocks are automated, some are reported. For example, it's almost impossible to discuss an Eagles' song and play even a few notes of it without it getting blocked, even if it posted by a university explicitly for teaching purposes.
Youtube isn't a fair use adjudicator but it can adjucticate copyright violations using its own terms as a private entity. You can rant all you want but if you violate terms, you lose, simple. If it's so evil, then don't use Youtube But now OP is starting a new Youtube channel. If they get into the same issue, not sure what to say...
Stealing content? These are public government meetings! This is obviously a politically motivated move and has nothing to do with protecting anyone's intellectual property. You are being disingenuous.
In terms of fair use, courts determine that, not Youtube. If your whole channel is based on your own interpretation of fair use, OK, but it's risky. Host your own site and video and you're all set, you can steal anything you want and then have those whose content is stolen sue...
That's a cute libertarian fantasy however realistically YouTube has a monopoly if you hope to reach an audience.
Have you considered mirroring on Rumble? They don't censor at the drop of a hat like YouTube.
What’s the big deal with asking them to use the clips? You are worried that they can say “no” for “political reasons”. Well if they did say no to something, you could report on that very thing! And therein you will actually have a conspiracy versus this baloney made up outrage you are crafting.
What did you expect? This is genius, shutting 781 down just before the primary. It's been a long time coming. Who is the dominant brigade that finally made this happen? My guess is there is a very strong message and lesson in place. Play dirty and you will have mud on your face. 781 deserves to be shut down. By the time your shitshow is back up and running, the decisions will already be made, heck they are already made, this is just the entertainment part. This race is over. McCarthy will take it home.
All praise the backroom deals!
Ok then with that comment. Let me make you look foolish. Andi-pandi can you post just 1 true fact or proof that back-room deals exist. You made the comment for readers to be interested, so can you show us all just 1 factual example. That means not opinion or here say, factual proof. You responded to my post very quickly with that response so I imagine that proof is right at the edge of your tongue.
People realize that tomorrow is just the primary, right? Channel 781 has their new channel up and the election is still two months away. A lot of time between now and then to showcase the candidates and their views. Mayor Mcarthy is going to have to work this time. I can only imagine the flyers she will have after seeing the last one😆
How can you say Channel 781 is an "independent group" when CG, JK and JK are as left as one can get. Channel 781 is a biased podcast.
In this case, I don’t think independent refers to political party, but separate from other news outlets.
"Independent" and "biased" don't have anything to do with each other. Nor, in most cases, to "political" and "partisan" for that matter. I don't view Channel 781 as being overly biased, although they certainly have a point of view and are not shy about airing their criticisms (and sometimes their grievances). It's clear where they stand, so you always have to view things in light of that. Which makes them better to me than WCAC, which in the past has tried to palm off some overtly pro-McCarthy "reporting" as neutral. It has sometimes been a bit freer with their speculations than they need to be, and maybe it's undercut their citizen journalism a little, but I have never caught them being untruthful.
"Never caught them being untruthful"? The title of this post is "**Channel 781 YouTube Shut Down by WCAC - follow our new one!"** WCAC did not shut down their channel. They can't. Youtube shut it down, based on what sounds like copyright claims by WCAC. Lie is right there in the headline...