View Full Version : Aircraft review copyright discussion

05-30-2015, 05:36 PM
Seems the OP holds a "Copyright" to the videos.......

This, straight from the WattFlyer Forum Posting Rules and Bi-Law's link ....:

It is illegal to post any content that is copyrighted or trademarked, unless you hold the copyright or trademark. Any material protected by copyright may not be posted in the message boards without the expressed permission of the author or owner of the copyright on that material. This includes reproducing the full text of news stories, articles, etc. It is acceptable to provide a link to copyrighted material, to post brief excerpts, or to paraphrase other works, though we do strongly encourage you to cite the original source whenever possible."

Wonder if the site Administrators possess a "legal and legitimate" application of this "copyright" on record.......subject to a public inquisition if called upon by any formal public request......?

05-30-2015, 05:44 PM
Having a bad morning? It is his material. HE is the source.

05-30-2015, 07:44 PM
Yeah, it is odd isn't it?

For some reason he really has it out for me and has since I first began posting here. Check out the UMX Radian thread where he posted a giant wall of text like he did here in this thread. I would actually post here a lot more often, but I am met with posts like this on the regular from this guy when I do.

The sad part is that for some reason he fails to understand that as a content creator published on YouTube, that I hold the copyright for my videos. It is in the the YouTube bylaws and YouTube itself has enforced it for me multiple times in couple of years. Most recently with one of my B-17 videos.

Perhaps he just has poor flying weather today lol


05-30-2015, 09:55 PM
YouTube does not provide or grant a sanctioned or legal "Copyright" to anyone......They provide a user service that permits "sharing" under their "bi-laws" referred to as a Creative Commons License.

If the validity or un-authorized posting of a particular product video is challenged by the public.......both parties (author and challenger) must provide legal proof of a "Copyright" to YouTube.

"YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court"

"Your video can still be claimed by a copyright owner, even if you have...

Given credit to the copyright owner

Refrained from monetizing the infringing video

Noticed similar videos that appear on YouTube

Purchased the content on iTunes, a CD, or DVD

Recorded the content yourself from TV, a movie theater, or the radio

Stated that “no copyright infringement is intended"


Simply placing a statement at the end of a video credit line stating it contains "Copyrights"......without an actual legal Copyright identification disclaimer, simply implies the video as well as the implied Copyright are bogus.....and can be challenged as well as re-circulated and modified by anyone who cares to.

The fact that the OP has been aware of this aspect due to recent challenges he has experienced in the past, lends itself to credibility issues as well as providing a false impression that the "published work" holds some kind of intrinsic value to others....and not just to the author.

"It is his material. HE is the source."...............yes, the vid is his material, not the product, which he is representing and advising others on it's attributes, which could be flawed and mis-represent the products (and manufactures) true purpose, intent, quality, function, and characteristics which have not been supported by the manufacture or distributor........ask the OP who were one of his first YouTube challengers.

Simple solution, the OP can provide "legal" proof that his "published work" can be supported by a legitimate Copyright and include that reference in the videos.........otherwise the current "Copyright" statement being shown has no value and will be subject to on-going challenges by both the viewing public and product manufactures and distributors.....under the possible pretense of false representation/inaccuracies and product quality and characteristic dis-credibility.

Most likely, none of the objections will get very serious due to the fact that the vid's are flying under the major players radar based on the number of viewer hits and like any good marketing rep will tell you, effective advertisement comes in both positive and negative packages......;)

If and ever, the OP starts collecting a paycheck or royalties from any RC vendor or manufacture......the intrinsic value of such videos may sustain themselves.......but until then, it's just YouTube clutter lacking credibility and industry recognition......with a little entertainment aspect.

05-30-2015, 10:20 PM
You must be really bored dude. Do you ever get tired or trying to be a Mod on these boards or can you simply not help but to resort back to your Hall Monitor days?

All of my videos are my work just like a song or a movie/documentary. Just like any of those things some aren't very good and some are decent. However, the point is I am simply showing my experience with the product and my experience has been very clear cut in that regard. The work is mine and published as such. I DO NOT need the support of any of the manufacturers for me to publish my content based on my experience with their products. In fact, that is a conflict of interest BIG TIME if I do. I pay for my RC Planes with my money and comment with my opinion and my opinion alone.

You are trying to mix things together that don't mix to advance your witch hunt.

STOP IT before you make yourself look anymore foolish.


05-30-2015, 10:56 PM
I'm finding a great deal of entertainment aspect here. I'm almost sensing a hidden agenda/vested interest. I hear indoor flying has really taken off ;) It's a great way to get out of the house with or without favorable outdoor flying conditions! It's raining here too.

05-31-2015, 04:15 AM
I'm not sure if GBLynden monetizes his videos but if he does, he will be earning from them. I'm a YouTube partner and earn money from my videos (they aren't RC related). I have several thousand subscribers and more than a million views. Not big by YouTube standards but comfortably "above average" in terms of performance.

YouTube does not own or claim use to the videos. You may, if you wish, use a Creative Commons license. But that is optional. Alternatively (and the 'default' option) is the standard "YouTube" license, which I believe is required for monetized videos. Under the YouTube license, the publisher retains ownership and copyright of his/her work; and YouTube is de facto granted a non-exclusive, unlimited, worldwide license to distribute your work. If your work is monetized; that is, you allow YouTube to place advertisements over your work in addition to the ads they already place; they will pay you, if you meet the YouTube Partner requirements.

In any case, whether it's creative commons, the YouTube License, or otherwise; there is no copyright violation going on here. The key component here is a section that was not bolded; and it's "without the expressed permission of the author or owner of the copyright material". A Creative Commons license is expressed permission, and GBLynden is the author. Finally, if it's under the YouTube license; then he does retain and own the copyright.

If you scroll to the bottom of the description; you'll see that he is in fact using the Standard YouTube License. So he retains ownership and copyright; and YouTube maintains a non-exclusive, unlimited, worldwide, and universal license to use and distribute the media.

GBLynden, I appreciate your videos. There are very few out there, and I appreciate your perspective. You've responded to some of my comments on those videos, and that is always appreciated!

Finally, a point was made about "not verified by the manufacturer". U.S. Copyright law allows for copyrighted and trademarked materials to be reviewed and critiqued. Period. He has the legal right, without the need to notify or ask permission from the manufacturer, to demonstrate, review, and critique these products. Which is exactly what he is doing. On my YouTube channel I do a handful of reviews from a couple of vendors who send me TnE (Testing and Evaluation) models. Some are pre-production and some are on the shelf stuff you can buy. Reviews are posted, sometimes items are sent back, sometimes they collect dust in my basement. If I give a bad review (And I have) they could stop sending me stuff; which is fine. It's kind of a pain anyway because they don't always send you stuff you're particularly interested in. But I have every right to take their trademarked product, copyrighted logos and artwork, etc., and critique them in the same way GBLynden does with RC planes. And I certainly review products I own and have paid for as well. In fact, those are usually more in depth as they are "owner reviews". I'm up front about which products were sent to me and which products I actually spent my own cold hard cash on.

No copyright or trademark violations are happening here. As to industry recognition, that takes time. Everyone has to start somewhere. And that's not everyones goal. I have no desire to become some sort of full time YouTuber and the channel is already significantly bigger than I thought it would be. I just thought it was fun. And it is fun. If people want to watch it, awesome! If they don't, awesome! From what I've been reading, I would imagine GBLynden has the same attitude. I'm entertained, I enjoy them, and I have watched most of the videos. Frankly, sometimes it's more informative to see some owner show off his new toy than another big magazine or YouTube channel fool around with one and tell us how great it is right off the bat. I also appreciate the in-depthness. A HUGE pet peeve of mine is "unboxing reviews", because they generally mean something that someone takes out of the box and then "reviews" right there off the cuff without actually using it (how can you know anything about it?). While GBLynden does unboxing, he puts a few flights on and gives a perspective of what it's like to own one of these. Which is great.

05-31-2015, 06:43 AM
Thanks for the clarification John.......As stated, YouTube permits the Creative Commons License as...:

A "Creative Commons" license is one of several specific licenses, written by a non-profit group for others to use, which conforms with the legal requirements of a copyright license. Each version of the Creative Commons license is basically a standard form that anyone can use, which by its terms allows third-parties to copy and distribute material. In other words, rather than each author having to draft their own license document, they can simpy use the pre-prepared license based on the rights they want to allow others to have."

However, the term "Copyright" applied to any creative work, does not constitute a legal binding condition or set of guidelines established by the U.S. courts or prohibit the works distribution by third parties....therefore making the work public domain......If the author were to charge a fee or seek compensation for the use or viewing of the works, most certainly a legit Copyright disclaimer would be required by law (provided by either the distributor or the original author)........thus, that is not currently the case.....Therefore, the term "Copyright" has very little leverage with regards to the OP's videos.......This may be splitting hairs, but the OP has had a history of challenges related to content, not just by common viewers or YouTube subscription members. After which, the term "Copyright" started being applied to all of the videos......as if it were to put a sense of fear or protection towards those who have challenged the works.

I must go on record stating that I have not challenged (through any remedy or media) the works......and have only questioned the character, expertise, intent and credibility of the authors (unboxing and review), through forum web-sites.......over issues that need not be expressed here.

I'm completely off topic here and will not further the discussion, of which I apologize..........!

Don Sims
05-31-2015, 11:48 AM
Moved the copyright discussion here to OT.

05-31-2015, 02:41 PM
The same protections that allow GBLynden to critique a trademarked and patented product and display it's copyrighted logos, designs and artwork apply in the inverse. Only he can say his motivation for adding a disclaimer (though 'pirating' popular videos on YouTube, where an individual downloads them and posts them to their own channel with an attempt to gain popularity, is not uncommon); but I doubt the motivation was to prevent criticism and if it was; it's awfully ineffective. You're free to critique it. In fact, you could letterbox it in your own video and critique it frame by frame if you wanted to, and copyright law would allow for that.

A copyright statement on a YouTube video is relatively redundant since all videos are under some sort of a license system anyway (in his case, the standard YouTube license).

Finally, the work is not public domain. It never was. You can file with the U.S. Copyright office and that will make life easier if you want to challenge it; but this is not required for a U.S. copyright. If it's your creative works; simply adding a copyright disclaimer does constitute a copyrighted work. Photographers do this frequently. They will place a small watermark somewhere on the photo, and often on any descriptions (such as on social media). A particularly popular piece, or a piece that might be published somewhere, might get submitted to the copyright office. But photographers, songwriters, and authors have successfully won damages in copyright cases where they had not "filed" for a copyright until after the infringement occured. Creating something and failing to 'register' it does not make it public domain.

Here are two "questions" and "answers" on the U.S. Copyright Office's website that can help you here:

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

So, the moment GBLynden's work is created, it's copyrighted. And he does not need to register unless he intends to file suit against someone; and he can register AFTER the alleged violation has taken place. It's also not true that you have to 'claim' a copyright. His videos without the disclaimer were ALSO copyrighted. There are no rules about how 'big' or how much production quality one has to have before it's copyrighted. The only exception here would be if GBLynden produced these videos at work or as a part of his job, in which case, his employer would hold the Copyright. In fact, that gets so hairy that if I were to write a book, entirely at home, on my own time, in the field in which I am educated and employed; my employer would hold the copyright.

I'm not sure why he started posting the disclaimer but 1) He DOES have every right to, and it doesn't change anything; and 2) I seriously doubt anyone who doesn't like his stuff is going to fear challenging it because it has a copyright. That simply means they can't sell or distribute it without his permission. Because of YouTube license to his work; you certainly CAN post the YouTube links, embed the YouTube videos; do almost anything you want as long as it's still feeding back to YouTube; because that's a part of the license he granted YouTube to distribute his works. You just can't use software to 'download' the video and then distribute it on other platforms. (Though you COULD insert it into your own video if it was for critique or review).