This weekend, I was surfing for news and boy, did I stumble into a firestorm over on this post: Notes On Video: Using a Copyright Infringement claim to shut down the opposition.
Turns out that our friend Den Lennie has posted on facebook about a review video he posted comparing a couple of lights and one of the vendors (Rotolight) had the video taken down on “copyright violations” when in fact they admit in the facebook stream that they simply didn't like the results (meaning Den didn't like their light).
This isn't a good precedent!
A bit of Den's post
I did a comparison video between Rotolight Anova, a Dedo softbox and the Kino flo Celeb…
Well Rotolight have served a copyright infringement notice on Vimeo who have now removed the video.
I feel that this is unjust simply because they did not like the results.
Surely if you purchase a light and then do a comparison video in an environment where the light as designed to be used and publish the results as an information video to help people looking to invest in lighting – that is not unreasonable eh?
Yet Rotolight have served a notice of copyright infringement on me simply because they did not like the results…? WTF
The company claim to make the ‘Worlds most advanced LED light' Yet when we tested it our results were not good.
And here's one of the comments from Rotolight:
Roto Light Hi Den, we would sincerely like to apologise for any upset caused, that was not our intention and we very much hope you can accept our apology.
We just feel that the test was not fair or representative of our product, and we would greatly appreciate the opportunity for you to re-test our light as you have offered. We would like to invite you to our offices at PineWood Studios for the re-test, anytime convenient for you. Please send us a PM to arrange.
There's much more on the facebook post – several back and forth comments between Den and Rotolight for all to see.
It just doesn't seem fair to me! I've been doing reviews for a while and I try to be completely fair and do my best to represent the products I test in a good light (assuming they deserve it). I wouldn't be happy if a company sent the lawyers after me if they just didn't like the results!
from the notes on video page
Using a Copyright Infringement claim to shut down the opposition
Den Lennie has posted a story on Facebook about a short video review he posted on Vimeo getting taken down due to a Copyright Infringement claim from one of the manufacturers in the test.
What's disturbing is that in the thread of the post, a representative from the company actually seems to admit that they made the claim because they didn't like the results, not because of any copyright claim. In a first message they state "We just feel that the test was not fair or representative of our product," but in their second post they state:
You are completely right, we should have just contacted you directly to arrange the re-test rather than acted via Vimeo, please accept our sincere apologies for that. We of course have no issue at all with you posting the results of the re-test all we wanted was just to ensure the test was representative, there was nothing more to it than that.
This is, frankly, shocking.
Of course you're welcome to sound off about this post – see the link below to our forum associated with this post.
(cover photo credit: snap from the rotolight site)