"1.2 million people hugry in die for republican south"...
I can't you you clips, so an image with horrible mistakes such as with this story will have to do for now.
It happened on Sunday evening (South African time), after Aiplex Software using a gmail address, claimed on Sunday evening that the material is infringing, using YouTube's pro forma copyright notification infringement form of YouTube website.
Since YouTube's default instant action is to remove clips automatically when it receives any kind of copyright infringement, the clips are disabled for now.
TV with Thinus has immediately filed a counter-notification with YouTube, also using YouTube's counter-notification page.
A counter-notification could take up to 10 days to resolve.
That means that it could take up to 10 days before the videos in question could be enabled again on YouTube. That's why you suddenly won't find any ANN7 clips on YouTube.
Once clips are restored I will report on that as a journalist and as a TV critic, as I have comprehensively reported and shown what is wrong, and going wrong with the TV channel.
It's very quick to get YouTube or Facebook to remove something someone wants to be removed. And that is actually correct and a good thing.
What's not so nice is when something is removed which is actually fair use as far as journalistic enterprise is concerned or not copyright infringement, but which then takes time to get restored.
The fair use clips - recorded to show the mistakes and sub standard quality of broadcasting of a factual news TV channel - have been recorded by TV with Thinus with cellphone camera. Other people also had their similarly recorded on cellphone clips, even less well done ones, disabled by YouTube through a quick-to-do few clicks.
In effect all ANN7 blooper clips have been censored off of YouTube on Sunday evening.
You can however watch bloopers of multiple other TV news channels from around the world which all remain on YouTube - clips which are directly captured TV feeds and not even cellphone video.
I'm not sure whether others are also filing counter-notifications with YouTube to have their clips enabled again, but I believe the clips should be restored.
As a longtime journalist and TV critic in South Africa I believe the short clips illustrate as a news story and a public talking point of discussion (the avalanche of comments proof its news and is being talked about), a legitimate issue and news story and that it constitutes what is known in the news business and journalism as "fair use".
None of the clips found and uploaded onto YouTube are even direct TV feeds, but very short clips most under 60 seconds long, which absolutely constitutes fair use as it demonstrates and illustrates real-life events as part of a newsworthy event happening.
As a journalist of 14 years and as a TV critic covering TV and the television industry in South Africa I firmly believe the clips need to be seen and are fair use in terms of news coverage.
What does YouTube say about copyright, and is it possible to use a copyright-protected work without infringing?
As YouTube stipulates, the videos have not been uploaded for monetary gain but to inform, and they were recorded off of TV by cellphones and represent small chunks of content, given the amount of content available.
Nobody is stealing or trying to steal a total performance, concert or artistic, creative work,or trying to pass it off as their work.
The video clips constitute fair use and here is what YouTube says factor in whether something is "fair use":
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, says YouTube.
(Clearly the aim here was and is to educate and inform - yes, and even have a good laugh - at the perceived level of quality of a service. I believe it's in the public interest to see what the channel is doing and is broadcasting publicly.)
- Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works, says YouTube. (The clips are of a 24-hour news channel. Nobody is recording a concert. And even if it was a concert, if the artist makes a mistake or falls off the stage, that is newsworthy and showable!)
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the "heart" of the work, says YouTube.
Not one of the clips recorded and uploaded are even more than a minute and a half long, if even a minute.
