Somehow I doubt he is following the rules. Professional or otherwise. These pros don't think he is following the rules.
Poor Casey Neistat Lost his Mavic Pro
- Thread starter Klnyc
- Start date
Somehow I doubt he is following the rules. Professional or otherwise. These pros don't think he is following the rules.
I'll add to this.... Stern does not do anything for me. I also don't understand what people like about him. However, I know for a fact that 1) people do like what he does and 2) that those people dictate paying Stern a _lot_ of money for what he does. Does this mean I need to dislike Stern? Heck no! Props to him for being good at what he does and getting paid well. As I said, I have no interest in Stern... but I think he's a _genius_ at marketing himself.
I think some people don't understand the difference between not liking the product someone puts out and saying it's a bad product. Two different things.
Neistat isn't a drone pilot that happens to be an entertainer, he's an entertainer that happens to use a drone in his shtick. It's a tool. Getting the shot is what matters to him, not how it was obtained. I don't worry about his methods any more than I worry about whether or not Hollywood producers are breaking laws filming their productions. There are people, entire agencies, whose job it is to worry about that stuff. I don't have to.
Hollywood is not typically out in the public filming. Legit Hollywood anyway. The rest (Rule breakers, careless, reckless) should be a concern for any of us that want the hobby to continue.
By those standards, probably 80% of drone flyers are "not good for our hobby". How many people fly beyond VLOS? How many people fly at night? Plenty of videos here showing both. Do you call all of those people out? What does you not like about Casey's drone flying? That he some times fliers over people?
To be fair, I do think he was a little irresponsible when he launched a small drone in Midtown and it just flew away.
Life is too short to try to be the Sheriff. I see that there are many in this drone community that are will to do that job for me, so...thanks for that.
I asked the question to stimulate conversation. No, I don't ask folks on this forum, or any other if they do what they do legally. We were talking about Casey here, so I brought it up. It was not a rhetorical question, maybe he has a cert, maybe he has a pilots license. I find the question very relevant to current drone culture, which is evolving day by day. Casey makes a small fortune from his ventures, which of course extend beyond just drones.
Those 2 losers are pro's? What pro needs to steal other peoples video clips to make a video of their own? They even had to disable the comments on their video because they are thieves plain and simple. Pro's? No... Thieves? Yes, Obviously...
Some people think so Highleey of themselves
Whatever. If you feel that people that are reckless and put the public in danger needlessly are more professional than these guys that promote the hobby in a positive and safe way then that is your right but I will continue to fly safe following the rules that some of you feel are just suggestions.
These self-important "pros" appear to be desperate to get on the internet, but do so without anything like Casey Neistat's sense of style.
I understand what you are saying and you have the right attitude
Unfortunately their video breaks American laws on copyright infringement. They could have just as easily made an even better movie by not breaking the law and stealing other peoples work. It's just a bad example video, no big deal and not something that you're responsible for in any way. They didn't need to take Casey's content and then monetize their video so that they can make money off of his clips being in so much of the video. Because they have added commercials to their video and are making money off of him, makes this video and these guys look really bad. If they hadn't been scalping off of Casey's work to make their own money off of Casey's back, then it would have looked a lot better. But obviously these guys are in it for the money by using other peoples hard work to make $$$ for them and that's against the law. What could happen if Casey wanted to push it, is that the drone guys channel would be shut down and their ip permanently blocked by google from ever posting another video. In this video they're just being careless and not promoting any of us well because they are breaking the law. Then having their public comments blocked also shows that they either didn't have good intentions to begin with or they probably received so many negative comments that they had to shut it off to save face and hide the fact that their greed took over and out went their dignity.I understand what you are saying and you have the right attitude
I don't see copyright infringement here.
Nobody can miss it... Using other peoples footage in that video is blatantly obvious... You don't see it simply doesn't change the fact that it's totally obvious to the producers who know the laws that everyone signs up with to post movies on YouTube...
Using other people's footage in that context is not copyright infringement. The source is cited.
I understand what you are saying and you have the right attitude
Please feel free to read up on Fair Use of copyright material. You will find that someone _can_ make limited use of someone else's material without their permission. In this case it's legal as the posted video is offering criticism and comment. It is also being put out to benefit the public. Lastly, the people who made the video are creating their own content and not simply putting out Casey's video as their own. This is _extremely_ common. To say that the posted video is in violation of copyright material indicates no knowledge of what Fair Use is. If you've ever watched any type of news broadcast on TV you'd see plenty of this as examples.
The video in question _screams_ Fair Use.
I respectfully disagree, you can check out YouTubes laws yourself right here - Fair use - YouTube
Being that they are making money from Casey's content in this case makes it commercially profitable for them and that makes a big difference in how it is seen. If the movie was made for non profit, that uses different rules. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer but I am familiar with YouTubes laws. Posting a negative video that can cause Casey to lose viewers, cut's into his profit and these guys are making money by using his content themselves. It's not like they just used a few seconds of his content, they used many of his clips, a lot more then they needed. If Casey wanted to push it, their channel would disappear...
For what it's worth, I actually discovered Casey's channel out of curiosity upon learning about him in a negative remark made a month ago on this forum. I kind of like his stuff occasionally in small doses.
What do they say, "Any press is good press, or there's no such thing as bad publicity."
None of what you linked to dismissed what I stated and it fully supports everything I posted.
"Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. "
Which is what I pointed out in that it's not simply a copy and it's being used for a different reason.
"Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense."
Yup... just as I mentioned... monetizing does _not_ rule out fair use. If you look further into this you will find what I posted above as applying to their fair use even if it's monetized.
So what you posted from Youtube supports what I posted above 100%, if you look further into fair use you should see that the video meets pretty much everything that would support it under fair use and lastly, YT is not the defacto determination anyway. YT would need a take own notice from the copyright owner. They would then allow the owner of the above video to dispute the claim and (now) the video would be put back up under the OPs account and allowed continue to be monetized by the poster.
You can disagree all you want. However 1) YT (as they clearly state themselves) are not the courts so they have no said so as to what is fair use (they actually need to stay 100% clear of the issue to avoid liability themselves) and 2) the video is simply and clearly protected under the US fair use laws. As I mentioned, watch any news show on TV and you will see examples of the exact same type of fair use clips.
Similar threads
