NBC Jacks Taofledermaus’ Content

Ain’t this some bullllllshit? For a Dateline story about a MURDER:

Crime-Scene-Chalk-Outline-Police-Line-Murder

I didn’t see the segment, but I’m intrigued since I have no idea what slowmotion mousetraps and fire have to do with murder.

Taofledermaus is disgusted, for good reason.  What a bunch of punks.  *smh* they even cropped out his watermark.

What happens now?  Something tells me suing NBC isn’t a viable option.  Too bad they wouldn’t just write him a $10,000 apology check which he could spend on ammo.


Comments

12 responses to “NBC Jacks Taofledermaus’ Content”

  1. Unless he checked the box to enable a creative commons license he has a pretty good case here. If he lawyers up the check would be more than 10k they would have to pay, given the wide reach of this program.. and continued syndication/reruns.

    1. TheBear Avatar

      Exactly.

      I have no idea why Endo Mike doesn’t think suing the network is an option.

      Personally, if I were Taofledermaus I would contact a lawyer and negotiate a % deal with him or her, then turn them loose.

      1. ENDO-Mike Avatar
        ENDO-Mike

        Yea alright the % deal would work if they are willing to do it for free. I never thought of that, because I think we can both agree that NBC made more money in the past second that Taofledermaus’ channel would make if it were a million times the size.

      2. I agree – I think this guy has a good case. I don’t NBC would have a legal defense under 1st Amendment nor under Fair Use, because they didn’t properly attribute the video by removing the watermark.

        At a minimum, until a judgement is awarded, Taofledermaus should get a cease and desist or restraining order prohibiting NBC from airing that section of the video due to the death threats he received.

    2. William Avatar

      The Creative Commons license used on YouTube requires attribution. That is, they must not misrepresent the source of the content like they did in this episode.

  2. I have a question, if I may? I don’t understand this. Doesn’t NBC own the original program, as it aired? Wouldn’t the copyright be theirs? Did taofledermaus film this segment and owns some rights because of that?

    If taofledermaus took the video, watermarked it and then uploaded it, wouldn’t NBC have a right to remove the watermark? Or, perhaps, NBC is using their original media? What is the taofledermaus connection?

    Would someone please explain?

    1. ENDO-Mike Avatar
      ENDO-Mike

      They used that mousetrap footage… all of that is his. The lighter, the carrot, the cellphone. All without permission or proper attribution under the creative commons license.

  3. Oh…thank you so much. I misunderstood and thought that taofledermaus was involved with the NBC program and claiming those rights.

    In that case, I agree that he should be compensated.

  4. Thank you Mike! My head has been spinning about this whole thing. The producer for the show actually called me the same day I uploaded the video. I didn’t have to hunt him down. He told me that they had fair-use rights to use the video from the trial. I asked him what about the 2 other videos they used clips from and why they cropped out my watermark. He didn’t have an answer for that. NBC, for whatever reason, took down the video from their website. I thought that was odd. Anyway, I’ve been talking to a lawyer who has sued NBC over very similar things before. We’ll see how that goes.

    Jeff

    1. Jeff I hope you got some sort of deal worked out from this. Cropping out the watermark shows that they knew what they were doing. You make great content and I know how much work goes into simply shooting and editing videos, not to mention the experiments themselves.

  5. Al Sharpton Avatar
    Al Sharpton

    Bend ’em over and lube ’em up, here comes the weenie!

  6. Al Sharpton Avatar
    Al Sharpton

    Tell them that blurring your watermark shows knowledge that the were violating your rights and you’ll settle out of court for $10K within the next hour. Advise him that while he’s using that time to talk to his executives, you will be using it to talk to your attorney- and that their deletion of further evidence shows knowledge of tortious conduct and an attempt to thwart discovery, as no cease-and-desist has been issued. In short, their deletion is an acknowledgment of guilt- and now to mitigate that guilt they must pay damages.

    These people mess over the little and big guys all the time. Then pretend to be apologetic or anything else to get off the hook. Be yourself. Tell them you normally would have given it up freely, but that when they take it from you by force, you’ll make them pay so they learn manners.