How to get a semi embrassing YouTube video taken down?

[quincy]

Depending on the video, it may have already escaped the confines of YouTube and appears elsewhere on the internet.

Of course, if it appears elsewhere, DisabledGeek can legitimately use a DMCA takedown notice to have the video removed.

But the point is that removing the video from one place does not necessarily remove it from view.

If the video is old, and only stupid or embarrassing, it could be best to simply ignore it. Few people will care enough to view it and judge you by its content. It is only when a video is truly objectionable, easily found on a simple search, and it is affecting your reputation (e.g., your ability to find a job) that removal becomes important.

 

[Zigner]

YouTube is the infringer.

Well, except for that "perpetual and irrevocable" license they have. (YouTube is NOT infringing)
(from https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms)

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

Because he no longer has access, they constructively control the account, even though that state of affairs is his own fault.

Irrelevant.

EDIT: I have re-read this and retract my statement that the licenses granted upon submission of the video are "perpetual and irrevocable". They are, in fact, terminated with a "commercially reasonable time" after the account holder removes or deletes the submission.

 

[quincy]

YouTube is the infringer. ...

Nope.

 

[xylene]

He's still the creator and holder of the copyright.

DMCA notices are appropriate and effective to remove content from an inaccessible account. It isn't perjury.

A lot easier and YouTube is far more responsive to DMCA than to restoring access, to which they are virtually non responsive for reasons based on the terms you cite.

 

[quincy]

He's still the creator and holder of the copyright.

DMCA notices are appropriate and effective to remove content from an inaccessible account. It isn't perjury.

A lot easier and YouTube is far more responsive to DMCA than to restoring access, to which they are virtually non responsive for reasons based on the terms you cite.

It is not infringement. DisabledGeek published his own video on YouTube himself. It was an authorized publication. The copyright holder authorized it.

The ease of doing something doesn’t make doing it right.

(I am suddenly having flashbacks to an old thread where we debated tattoos, xylene - haha )

 

[xylene]

It was an authorized publication.

Keyword "was"

 

[quincy]

Keyword "was"

Perhaps.

 

[Zigner]

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en

If your copyright-protected work was posted on YouTube without authorization, you may submit a copyright infringement notification. Be sure to consider whether fair use, fair dealing, or a similar exception to copyright applies before you submit. These requests should be sent by the copyright owner or an agent authorized to act on the owner’s behalf.

The work in question wasn't submitted without authorization.

Do not make false claims. Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences.

Submitting false claims isn't a good idea.

And once you start this process, here is the first page:

What is the issue?

• Inappropriate content (Nudity, violence, etc.)
• I appear in this video without permission
• Abuse/Harassment (Someone is attacking me)
• Privacy (Someone is using my image)
• Trademark infringement (Someone is using my trademark)
• Copyright infringement (Someone copied my creation)
• Other legal issue (including the circumvention of technological measures, such as providing keygens or serial numbers)

I don't see an option for "I previously posted this but can't access my account", but if you use the "other legal issue" option, you get taken to a help page that can help you attempt to recover your account. It does not take you to the takedown request.

If you choose on of the other (inaccurate) statements in order to get to the DCMA, there are the following warnings:

By checking the following boxes, I state that:

• I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
• This notification is accurate; and
• UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
• I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
• I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.

So, as you can see, there are risks involved with submitting a false DCMA takedown to YouTube.

Having said that, I will agree that the likelihood of any adverse effects for the OP's submission of a false claim are slim, but it is not wise to suggest it as a course of action.

 

[Zigner]

Keyword "was"

Doesn't matter - the authorization remains until the video is removed by the poster.

 

[xylene]

Doesn't matter - the authorization remains until the video is removed by the poster.

That's meaningless if the ability to remove the video is lost for any reason.

 

[quincy]

That's meaningless if the ability to remove the video is lost for any reason.

DisabledGeek should make every effort to recover his account so he avoids the penalties that can come from submitting a false copyright infringement takedown notice.

I do not recommend perjury.

 

[Zigner]

That's meaningless if the ability to remove the video is lost for any reason.

On what theory?

 

[quincy]

On what theory?

The theory of phantom time?

 

[xylene]

The theory of phantom time?

Charlemagne is not real.

 

[quincy]

Charlemagne is not real.

Is anything really real - or are we all computer simulations?