Tur began the first copyright infringement case against YouTube,
but his suit was lodged before the company was bought by the
deep-pocketed Google. He claimed that YouTube was making money by
allowing people to view his footage – of controversial events such
as 1992's LA riots or a car chase involving OJ Simpson – without
his permission .
He said that he has now dropped that complaint and joined the
class action suit led by England's football Premier League.
"I carried the ball against YouTube for a year now," Tur said in
a statement, according to news site News.com. "After careful
analysis and consideration, I have concluded that the [Premier
League] class action is the most effective way for independent
copyright holders to secure the judicial remedies that I am
seeking."
Tur's own case was the subject of a preliminary hearing in June
at which both sides sought a summary judgment. That was denied, and
Judge Florence-Marie Cooper's ruling on the summary motions was a
mixed blessing for Tur.
His case and the class action he has joined both accuse YouTube
of violations of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
YouTube claims that as a service provider without control over the
content published on the site, it qualifies for 'safe harbor'
protection under the Act.
Judge Cooper's preliminary judgment ruled in Tur's favour by
refusing to guarantee that YouTube was protected by the DMCA's
'safe harbor' clause.
Cooper issued a blow to Tur's case, though, when she said she
would not rule that YouTube definitely benefited financially from
violations of his copyright. She said that, under the DMCA,
financial benefit is only considered once it is established that
the service provider is in control of the offending material.
"As the statute makes clear, a provider's receipt of a financial
benefit is only implicated where the provider also has the right
and ability to control the infringing activity," said Judge
Cooper. "Tur has not presented any evidence to the Court, despite
numerous opportunities to do so, that establishes that YouTube had
the right and ability to control the allegedly infringing
activity."
Other companies have joined the class action this week,
including the Finnish football league, the UK's Rugby Football
League and the US's biggest music publishing organisation, the
National Music Publishers' Association. France's football league
and its tennis association have also joined the case.
A Google spokeswoman told The Scotsman newspaper that the case
is based on a poor reading of the law.
"This lawsuit simply misunderstands the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, which balances the rights of copyright holders
against the need to protect internet communications and content. As
a result, it threatens the way people legitimately exchange
information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic
expression over the internet," she said.
"Most content owners understand that we respect copyrights, we
work every day to help them manage their content, and we are
developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better,"
said the spokeswoman.
