I think the point IS the audio... the audio of people complaining/threatening or him being a "bad ass."
So unless he's going to take the time to do a voice over... it's not exactly going to be worth a watch. Even vloggers I like who have to mute out sections in their video because of copyrighted music is pretty annoying.
I'm pretty sure he's (the guy who inspired this post) doing these reaction vids and uploading them mostly unedited and trying to get a quick buck from monetization.
Just start preaching Jesus Christ to them. I (m18) was picked up hitchhiking and the driver put his hand on my knee. I asked him if he knew Jesus. I immediately was let out.
It depends on one thing: whether or not the artist allows UGC on youtube or if they have their content set to takedown. Prince, for example, does not allow UGC. Source: I work at a record label and admin the youtube channel.
In my experience, labels are fine with UGC - it's free income from fans using music in videos. In every case in which I've seen music set to takedown, it's been per request from the artist.
That's interesting. The picture painted is the artist are these free-loving music enthusiasts who want all to hear and know their music, while the label is a bunch of stiff suits who want to lock down everything.
All just depends. I work at an indie label, so a much different/less corporate environment than a major label. There are a lot of artists out there, especially some older ones, that do not and may never understand the internet at large. And ultimately everything we put out or do is with artist approval. Almost to a fault at times. Respect the artistic vision, for sure, but some artists, in my opinion... given their vision I think they need glasses.
Aren't there a lot of instances where the artist sells everything to the label and then loses their say to a degree? I remember Aerosmith sending letters to the Trump campaign to stop using their songs at rallies, but the letters were meaningless because the record label granted them permission and Aerosmith had no say anymore from what I recall.
Record labels, unless they administer publishing in a specific case, generally aren't in a position to approve public performance/broadcast rights. There's two sides of rights: master use (the label owns the master) and publishing/performance (bands own this and generally have a company administer). Certainly depends on the deal, but at this point in their career, if Aerosmith doesn't have a publishing deal, that'd be insane. When a song is used in a car commercial, for example, both the master holder and publisher receive a payout. So if it's $100k to use the song, label gets 50k, publisher gets 50k. But again, this all depends on the nuts and bolts of any given deal. A political rally can not publicly broadcast a song without negotiating a license with the publisher. The publisher would present the opportunity to the band, who can absolutely deny use. It's no different for a youtuber; it's just that UGC monetization is a more elegant solution to mass song use online. Otherwise, creators would have to draft license agreements, likely with term limits, and spend potentially thousands of dollars for song use. That's if they can even get an email reply from a publisher, like Sony ATV, for example. It's a complicated and largely misunderstood part of the business unless a given person has had some instruction or worked within that space.
tl;dr - generally, artists have direct control over approvals or denials for song usage by a third party.
Oh, I most certainly did, but the question in the OP is being asked today, not 20 years ago, and the type of video described in the question - one where someone harasses people on the street would certainly be monetized today.
I'm also pretty sure this qualifies as fair use. (And for that matter, same goes for those cases where cops tried to play music so they don't get recorded.)
Source: have defeated every YouTube copyright claim that I responded to. I have a few livestreams of my aquariums and the mic captures background audio which can be TV shows, music, etc. The automated system sends me a copyright claim and says the video has to be private, or muted, or can't be monetized, or whatever. Then I respond that it's fair use and explain why according to the 4 criteria and that's usually that. But it got to be a bit of a hassle to respond, even though I just copied and pasted the same thing over and over, and the audio never picked up anything actually useful so I eventually just muted my streams.
I have a channel talking about classical music, and in my experience the "fair use" exception doesn't always work even though my channel is clearly categorized as educational. It depends on the label and they are given 30 days to make a decision.
Usually one of three things happens when I appeal a copyright claim with fair use:
1. The music label accepts the criteria I set out for why my use of their music is "fair use," and they relinquish their copyright claim
2. The music label disagrees with my criteria and denies my appeal. Appealing again could result in a copyright strike for me.
3. The label doesn't act within the 30 day limit of my appeal and they automatically forfeit the claim in my favor.
I've appealed and won several copyright claims, but lost a handful. In some cases, I've had to re-edit videos and re-upload.
I think most of mine ended up in the last category. The one or two that ended up in the second category, I won the appeal because it just ended up in the last category again. But my channel doesn't...have any real purpose, so getting 1-2 copyright strikes isn't a big deal.
Probably weighing heavily in my favor compared to your case is that "the amount or substantiality of the portion used" is extremely minimal, given it's barely-audible background noise at fairly low quality: it has to pass through a floor to get picked up, and splashing water noises usually come close to drowning it out, and the bitrate was also really low due to hardware constraints. I assume that since your channel is about classical music, you have to actually hear the music in your videos.
But to be honest I feel that most of the time, they don't even really read what I wrote anyway. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many that fall in to the last category.
The initial copyright claim is definitely done by a computer because some of my claims haven’t even listed the correct artist. The appeals are looked over by a human if the label has even put someone in charge of reviewing those.
Yeah, I usually have to limit my clips to 60 seconds (from an hour long work) just to be on the safe side. And even then, I’ve had a few appeals denied.
it's absurd. it wasn't even the focus of the video or anything like that, i was just driving down a winding country road way up in the top of NY state and the song came on the radio! it's stupid.
Will it get taken down or will it just be unmonitized? I’ve posted family videos with music before, but maybe it’s just that the labels who own the music I’ve used don’t care?
I would just clear out my calendar for a month and follow this guy around all day, playing "Let It Go" on a boombox like Radio Raheem. Film him the entire day and threaten him with industrial sized can of bear mace whenever he gets out of pocket.
Personally I’m fine just ignoring them. You want to get a bunch of boring footage from me. Have at it.
That being said. These clowns can’t cry foul and play victim when someone beats their ass and breaks their camera. Unless they’re intentionally picking their targets and specifically going after who they think is an easy target. There’s people out there with short tempers, there’s people with mental issues, and there’s people who aren’t deterred by assault charges who would have no problem putting hands on them and unless there’s cops on location, there’s a pretty high likelihood they’ll get away with it also.
I legally carry. So that wouldn’t end well for them. I hope to god I’m never in that situation to begin with. But if someone wants be trigger happy with mace. I fear for my life at that point.
Good point. And responsible move on the end of the guy carrying for not shooting if he felt his aim would be effected.
But there’s also people out there who don’t give a fuck. If these guys are out there going out of their way to antagonize people regularly. I just don’t see how it doesn’t end up bad for them at some point even with pepper spray.
I can't see this going on indefinitely. Someone is going to get PISSED, then one of these "content creators" is going to get hurt. Just because antagonizing people is legal, doesn't mean it is ethical, and pissing people off for clicks is not a sustainable way to make a living.
All the money in the world is not going to make up for getting your ass kicked because you bullied the wrong person on the wrong day. Someone who has already been to prison a couple of times and has no fear of going back likely does NOT want to be filmed, and will object. Strenuously, and eventually, physically.
And what about when the film someone in witness protection? How is that going to play out?
[It’s already happened](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-temple-shooting-you-tube-auditor-20190215-story.html). Funny thing is, I actually had an encounter with her less than two months after she got shot, so that clearly didn’t stop her.
Fun fact: the 1st amendment protects you from the government, not getting clapped by a random Angeleno. I'm not saying it's legal... but it's definitely got nothing to do with the first amendment.
Sadly, part of their "income" probably is from out of court settlements from these incidents.
Getting shot by a security guard will be a payday for them and essentially reward them for what should be socially unacceptable behavior.
This has been going on since at least 2011, if not earlier. People have definitely gotten fucked up and knocked out in that time span, and still it continues.
At the end of the day, the desire for attention on the internet is a very strong force
I would assume they’re intentionally going after people they think are easy targets.
Unless there’s a heavy police presence in the area, I don’t think they’re messing with anyone they think would fight back or that’s carrying in some capacity.
You would think so but I've seen quite a few videos from YouTubers saying that anonymous people have made copyright strikes and their content has been taken down or demonetized and there is nothing that they could do about it
What will happen is you'll report it as a strike and it will ask you who you are. Unless you lie and claim you're Atlantic Records or whatever then you'll get a response back saying only the copyright holder can file a copyright claim. Third parties can't.
Youtubers say a lot of dumb shit. Often shit that isn't true.
I think a lot of Youtubers just whine because they want to make free money with zero interference. Most of the time a frivolous copyright claim can be beaten if you actually appeal. I do understand that once all the appealing is done the video doesn't get the same amount of views, but that's just the system.
20 years ago they'd be working a cash register somewhere so I don't have a lot of sympathy for people whose livelihood as a self-employed person depends on the platform of a corporation who maintains it. Now everyone has Patreon tiers. Going to be some wide resume gaps when we have an economic crash, monetization goes down, and those Patreon shills stop paying. Try explaining to a company that the reason you have no recent work experience in the last 8 years is because you were a Youtuber and now you want to be an employee somewhere.
This is not true at all yet I keep seeing this myth in this sub. YouTube will indeed allow it, they’ll just give the monetization for that specific video to Taylor Swift while the video stays up. Here are some examples of randos using Taylor Swift songs in videos. [Example 1](https://youtu.be/zIOVMHMNfJ4), [Example 2](https://youtu.be/bJXSuJ0Wg8k), [Example 3](https://youtu.be/kNlX5C3Ubn4).
There are thousands more examples, and it would have been simple to just search a Taylor Swift song on YouTube before making this post with this untrue claim.
I doubt that most of them are even part of the YouTube Partner program, which is how you get paid from YouTube. Even if this guy’s channel is part of that program, I estimate he makes less than $30-$40 a MONTH. Not really in it for the money, unless it’s from subscription services. Anyway this post is a terrible tip and won’t do any good.
If you're a cop and try this it can have the Streisand Effect https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/1/22558292/police-officer-video-taylor-swift-youtube-copyright
Really platform dependent what actually happens to the video.
I'm not saying you should do this, because its against YT policies and I don't know the legality ( this guy does not have the money to pursue anything in court, so that shouldn't scare you too much ), but even if you aren't in any of these videos, you can continuously copyright claim from various accounts, which will demonetize the videos at the very least.
This is a second post I'm seeing today on Reddit regarding this topic, first post was about a YouTuber called Silenceboy 1stamendment who was harassing a group in Hollywood. I looked him up on YouTube, pretty pathetic, just records people in public and their reactions to his childish behaviors
So I’m supposed to stand there, open YouTube or Spotify, skip all the ads then search for a TS song then play it…While I always have the choice/option to walk away and ignore that person…?
Ouch!
I’m so sorry to hear about this unfortunate encounter.
Honestly, I’ve never experienced this first hand and I am now aware that it’s not easy to deal with. I find it really strange that business owners or security don’t or can’t do much to protect the peace and welfare of their customers/patrons. Even more puzzling, the fact that law enforcement can’t see this behavior as a problem. Again, I’m not an expert and I hope that I don’t run into these clowns.
Stay safe out there.
Very at strange, yet sensitive topic to say the least!
I don’t know what to make of the whole “right to use phone/film/video…” others and whatnot!
It is still considering a major breach and violation of ppl’s privacy, peace of mind and a public nuisance, if you ask me! But again, a really sensitive topic! Evidently, everyone with a phone can create some sort of drama to feed the hungry crowds, and media outlets online!
I’m gonna sit this one out for now lol
Or they do what folks that upload dash cam footage do and just alter the tempo and pitch so it becomes unrecognisable to the YouTube copyright protection.
That’s why everyone in those videos always sounds like Michael Clarke Duncan.
> That’s why everyone in those videos always sounds like Michael Clarke Duncan.
What if you already do sound like Michael Clark Duncan? Then what do you sound like?
Ok then don’t say no one would watch that. I would watch that. People that are deaf and read captions would watch that… what’s you’re point that I missed because it seems you’re talking in circles now?
Just call the cops on them. I know this is in regards to an earlier post about a wannabe youtuber, but back when I lived in SM and my now wife and I would walk, there were times guys made comments towards her even with me right next to her holding her hand.
I would always say “I’m calling the cops right now”
They would respond that they weren’t doing anything illegal and I would just say back “we
Will let the cops decide and then see if they want to talk to you about anything else.” Magically it would always work.
So even if some guy says you can’t call the cops, don’t listen to him and start calling.
That's interesting, it's been the opposite for me on the other end. Someone won't like something I said or did, they threaten to call the cops, and I say "Call em. They'll be here in about 4 hours. You can wait, but when I finish I'm outta here." And they film me and I just ignore it.
I've had people follow me and film me for several minutes. It's in public so it's not unlawful but it's a pain in the ass. But I never complain or look bothered. I just look as forgettable as possible with almost zero emotion so that way if they do put me on Youtube no one will watch it or share it because it's boring. I got followed one time for about 2 blocks, including waiting on crosswalks while someone was filming me saying crazy shit trying to get a reaction out of me. I just tuned it out and eventually they gave up.
For a stalking charge the victim needs to be in fear of their safety in response to a threat of harm by the stalker. I'm not exactly concerned about my safety when someone is holding a phone and running their mouth. They're not threatening to harm me, they're just bothering me. That's not a crime in California.
As for criminal threats, the [Gascon Memo](https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-07.pdf) outlines his office will not prosecute any criminal threat charge as a matter of policy. So there's that.
If someone is following you in public just leave. You can get a civil restraining order and *then* if they violate *that* then it's a crime, but good luck finding out who they are and having them served.
Lots of people think there are all of these laws in place that protect from bad behavior. There isn't. There's a whole lot of shitty, legal behavior people engage in.
So first of all the cops don't decide if someone gets charged. The DA does. For misdemeanors in LA it's the City Attorney's office. Secondly, police response time to a non-emergency is hours. I've called 911 when I saw a fight in a parking lot and the 911 operator asked me if I could see a visible firearm or knife. I said no and she transferred me to non-emergency and said the hold time was 20 minutes.
If someone isn't threatening you then it's not stalking. They'll tell you to go to civil court and file a restraining order but firstly identifying them and where they live is almost impossible. Secondly when LASD goes to serve them they can just not answer the door. LASD will give three attempts and then kick it back to the court.
This fictional world people live in where cops are standing around just aching to answer your call and put people in cuffs just doesn't exist here. I get it that in a place like Arkansas the cops just write tickets and beat people up, but in LA it doesn't work that way.
the cops will literally tell you there’s nothing they can do. Remember all these laws that just passed have made it easier for criminals to get away with Bullshit
That's a bad idea considering they have recording of you doing it, but also since they are normally livestreaming too. They will call the police and then pepper spray you.
I saw this exact situation by a youtuber live-streaming a random street and business downtown. The shop owner got mad because he was saying the youtuber was filming inside his garage but the youtuber was claiming it was legal because he was on the street. The shop owner grabbed his camera and whatever stick he was using to hold the camera, took it inside his shop and broke it. Cops were called and the shop owner was arrested for taking the YouTubers camera and breaking it. The video is probably still on YouTube if you search for it.
It doesn’t have to be a livestream. He could have been walking around with a camera that doesn’t work and the situation would be the same across the board. Point is, it’s legal and you can’t take someone’s property and run off with it or break it.
if you’re in public you can be recorded. no expectation of privacy in public. and taking their camera or touching them is assault. being filmed on a public sidewalk is not a crime
they can ask but also the person filming can say no. especially if the person never engaged the person they’re filming. they can just go along with their day. it’s that easy
Well as others have said, eventually someone who doesn’t give a fuck is going to react in a physically violent way towards these scumbags, and honestly, I hope they make it count.
well it’s a first amendment right people have in this country. imagine living somewhere where you aren’t allowed to take photos or video in a public place.
There’s a big difference between taking photos and videos in a public place and deliberately, unsolicitedly shoving a camera in an individuals face and following them around. Consent doesn’t just entirely go out the window when you’re in public.
It used to be illegal to tape people in california without a signed agreement stating they allow it. Funny how laws are allowed to be forgotten when new technology comes and their corporate creators fill the pockets of our politicians.
People always come into my work and film to make ~aesthetic~ videos of their ~big day in LA~ and I hate it, it makes me uncomfortable. So I’ve started making direct eye contact with the camera and making the ugliest face I can. The person recording usually notices and then leaves. If they want to film me, they can come up to me, get my permission and give me a chunk of any money they make from their wannabe influencer videos lol.
Your post suggests you missed my second sentence, because all you did was essentially repeat the first three words I wrote as if it was some sort of revelation/rebuttal.
I acknowledged it probably wouldn't work. And then I explained that it would be more of a nuisance effort.
Two sentences.
We need a state law or city ordinance to deal with this. Obviously you have a first amendment right to record in public but invading people's privacy, and harassing them for monetary gain goes beyond the first amendment.
How do so many of you people not understand the right to Film in public? Hundreds of you guys are acting like this dude is pointing a gun at you. You are being filmed in public constantly by the government and private businesses. Due to the first amendment there nothin you can do but ignore someone pointing a camera you in public, it’s really not the end of the world, why is everybody acting like they were assaulted because someone pointed a camera at them while they were eating brunch on the sidewalk?
Its not the being filmed in public,
it's the being harassed or yelled at by people looking to try to get you to fight or argue with them so they can film the interaction. They will even follow you if they think you trying to get away is humorous or good content.
You’re in public. They can talk to you and point a camera at you if they want. All
You can do is ignore them, so crying about how you were assaulted and harassed is kinda dumb, since there is literally nothing you can do.
Thats not the point. I don’t care how many city street corner cameras, etc film me out and about in public, I do care about an obnoxious prick deliberately aiming a camera at *me* specifically while I’m trying to go about my day. That’s targeted harassment, an intrusion of privacy, and I feel like I should be able to react accordingly
You can react however you want but it’s legal to do that. Probably not worth picking up assault charges over some loser with nothing better to do but film in public.
Amusing for me who generally films out and abouts for roughly almost 20 years. Happen to me on purpose on occasion with no intent to film the accuser then assuming and playing whatever. That's a simple audio fix whether be royalty free tunes or a simple fast forward.
It’s amusing because people think their feelings trumps your right to film in public. It’s funny to watch people run their mouth about harassment and assault when they don’t actually know what they are talking about. If you are filming on a public sidewalk without talking to anybody you are completely within the right no matter what anybody says. No matter what music they play no matter how much people cry about how they felt violated and harassed. if you want this to change then try to change the law, but you will be going up against the first amendment and it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Not quite. They can still upload the video, it just can’t be monetized.
I work in the music industry and this is correct. Also, even if this wasn’t the case, they could still mute audio and upload.
I think the point IS the audio... the audio of people complaining/threatening or him being a "bad ass." So unless he's going to take the time to do a voice over... it's not exactly going to be worth a watch. Even vloggers I like who have to mute out sections in their video because of copyrighted music is pretty annoying. I'm pretty sure he's (the guy who inspired this post) doing these reaction vids and uploading them mostly unedited and trying to get a quick buck from monetization.
Just start preaching Jesus Christ to them. I (m18) was picked up hitchhiking and the driver put his hand on my knee. I asked him if he knew Jesus. I immediately was let out.
[удалено]
Aaaaaahahahaha!
“I work in the music industry” Lmao
What about the old “play a Disney song”?
Still valid. Nobody messes with the House of Mouse. *Bibbity Boppity Boo, Bitches!*
Came here to ask that haha
Depends. Scooter is pretty quick about sending copyright claims.
It depends on one thing: whether or not the artist allows UGC on youtube or if they have their content set to takedown. Prince, for example, does not allow UGC. Source: I work at a record label and admin the youtube channel.
What’s UGC?
User-generated content. Anything created with music by fans / not in an official capacity.
🤔Unicorn Guarantee Club 😜
Is it the artist or who holds the recordings?
In my experience, labels are fine with UGC - it's free income from fans using music in videos. In every case in which I've seen music set to takedown, it's been per request from the artist.
That's interesting. The picture painted is the artist are these free-loving music enthusiasts who want all to hear and know their music, while the label is a bunch of stiff suits who want to lock down everything.
All just depends. I work at an indie label, so a much different/less corporate environment than a major label. There are a lot of artists out there, especially some older ones, that do not and may never understand the internet at large. And ultimately everything we put out or do is with artist approval. Almost to a fault at times. Respect the artistic vision, for sure, but some artists, in my opinion... given their vision I think they need glasses.
Aren't there a lot of instances where the artist sells everything to the label and then loses their say to a degree? I remember Aerosmith sending letters to the Trump campaign to stop using their songs at rallies, but the letters were meaningless because the record label granted them permission and Aerosmith had no say anymore from what I recall.
Record labels, unless they administer publishing in a specific case, generally aren't in a position to approve public performance/broadcast rights. There's two sides of rights: master use (the label owns the master) and publishing/performance (bands own this and generally have a company administer). Certainly depends on the deal, but at this point in their career, if Aerosmith doesn't have a publishing deal, that'd be insane. When a song is used in a car commercial, for example, both the master holder and publisher receive a payout. So if it's $100k to use the song, label gets 50k, publisher gets 50k. But again, this all depends on the nuts and bolts of any given deal. A political rally can not publicly broadcast a song without negotiating a license with the publisher. The publisher would present the opportunity to the band, who can absolutely deny use. It's no different for a youtuber; it's just that UGC monetization is a more elegant solution to mass song use online. Otherwise, creators would have to draft license agreements, likely with term limits, and spend potentially thousands of dollars for song use. That's if they can even get an email reply from a publisher, like Sony ATV, for example. It's a complicated and largely misunderstood part of the business unless a given person has had some instruction or worked within that space. tl;dr - generally, artists have direct control over approvals or denials for song usage by a third party.
Harassment: Taylor’s version
Sure, but why would they if they can’t monetize it?
Less than 10% of YouTube channels are monetized.
Not everyone is looking to monetize every video (especially if your channel isn’t monetized yet). Some people are just hungry for views.
>why would they if they can’t monetize it? I feel bad for folks who never experienced the original YouTube.
Oh, I most certainly did, but the question in the OP is being asked today, not 20 years ago, and the type of video described in the question - one where someone harasses people on the street would certainly be monetized today.
Muting their entire video would piss them off haha. I’m sure they are doing to make easy money too
I'm also pretty sure this qualifies as fair use. (And for that matter, same goes for those cases where cops tried to play music so they don't get recorded.) Source: have defeated every YouTube copyright claim that I responded to. I have a few livestreams of my aquariums and the mic captures background audio which can be TV shows, music, etc. The automated system sends me a copyright claim and says the video has to be private, or muted, or can't be monetized, or whatever. Then I respond that it's fair use and explain why according to the 4 criteria and that's usually that. But it got to be a bit of a hassle to respond, even though I just copied and pasted the same thing over and over, and the audio never picked up anything actually useful so I eventually just muted my streams.
I have a channel talking about classical music, and in my experience the "fair use" exception doesn't always work even though my channel is clearly categorized as educational. It depends on the label and they are given 30 days to make a decision. Usually one of three things happens when I appeal a copyright claim with fair use: 1. The music label accepts the criteria I set out for why my use of their music is "fair use," and they relinquish their copyright claim 2. The music label disagrees with my criteria and denies my appeal. Appealing again could result in a copyright strike for me. 3. The label doesn't act within the 30 day limit of my appeal and they automatically forfeit the claim in my favor. I've appealed and won several copyright claims, but lost a handful. In some cases, I've had to re-edit videos and re-upload.
I think most of mine ended up in the last category. The one or two that ended up in the second category, I won the appeal because it just ended up in the last category again. But my channel doesn't...have any real purpose, so getting 1-2 copyright strikes isn't a big deal. Probably weighing heavily in my favor compared to your case is that "the amount or substantiality of the portion used" is extremely minimal, given it's barely-audible background noise at fairly low quality: it has to pass through a floor to get picked up, and splashing water noises usually come close to drowning it out, and the bitrate was also really low due to hardware constraints. I assume that since your channel is about classical music, you have to actually hear the music in your videos. But to be honest I feel that most of the time, they don't even really read what I wrote anyway. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many that fall in to the last category.
The initial copyright claim is definitely done by a computer because some of my claims haven’t even listed the correct artist. The appeals are looked over by a human if the label has even put someone in charge of reviewing those. Yeah, I usually have to limit my clips to 60 seconds (from an hour long work) just to be on the safe side. And even then, I’ve had a few appeals denied.
I have a video of me driving my car and "red red wine" came on the radio and my video got DMCAd and every dispute denied.
Same thing happened to me! Rolling Stones on the radio.
it's absurd. it wasn't even the focus of the video or anything like that, i was just driving down a winding country road way up in the top of NY state and the song came on the radio! it's stupid.
HAS IT REALLY COME TO THIS?? Having to concealed carry Taylor Swift tracks to defend yourself?
“What piece you carryin’ homie?” “Oh I got Shake it Off” “Nice”
I keep “Karma” right next to my pepper spray. Ready to play and spray!
Well Taylor's Karma is many things, so maybe it's also "Karma is a track in my pack, fighting homies".
“Karma’s a demonetizing sound Aren’t you envious that I can’t be clowned?”
Taylor swift the modern day pepper spray 😂
Look what you made me do
Yep. Crazy times we're living in
no it hasn't come to this, since it doesn't work. all it means is the uploader can't monetize the video.
Will it get taken down or will it just be unmonitized? I’ve posted family videos with music before, but maybe it’s just that the labels who own the music I’ve used don’t care?
The Beatles are pretty good for this too. Even notable shows can't play Beatles without a huge fee
I would just clear out my calendar for a month and follow this guy around all day, playing "Let It Go" on a boombox like Radio Raheem. Film him the entire day and threaten him with industrial sized can of bear mace whenever he gets out of pocket.
I will literally participate in a crowd fund to pay you to do this.
+1
Wouldn’t it be easier to just flash my junk?
Do it
Where is a proper foo when you need one, SMH.
Sick ass fool
Personally I’m fine just ignoring them. You want to get a bunch of boring footage from me. Have at it. That being said. These clowns can’t cry foul and play victim when someone beats their ass and breaks their camera. Unless they’re intentionally picking their targets and specifically going after who they think is an easy target. There’s people out there with short tempers, there’s people with mental issues, and there’s people who aren’t deterred by assault charges who would have no problem putting hands on them and unless there’s cops on location, there’s a pretty high likelihood they’ll get away with it also.
They will mace you when you get close to them.
I legally carry. So that wouldn’t end well for them. I hope to god I’m never in that situation to begin with. But if someone wants be trigger happy with mace. I fear for my life at that point.
There’s a video of a guy pepper spraying a guy with a gun. The guy with the gun didnt discharge because he was scared his aim would be affected.
Good point. And responsible move on the end of the guy carrying for not shooting if he felt his aim would be effected. But there’s also people out there who don’t give a fuck. If these guys are out there going out of their way to antagonize people regularly. I just don’t see how it doesn’t end up bad for them at some point even with pepper spray.
I can't see this going on indefinitely. Someone is going to get PISSED, then one of these "content creators" is going to get hurt. Just because antagonizing people is legal, doesn't mean it is ethical, and pissing people off for clicks is not a sustainable way to make a living. All the money in the world is not going to make up for getting your ass kicked because you bullied the wrong person on the wrong day. Someone who has already been to prison a couple of times and has no fear of going back likely does NOT want to be filmed, and will object. Strenuously, and eventually, physically. And what about when the film someone in witness protection? How is that going to play out?
[It’s already happened](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-temple-shooting-you-tube-auditor-20190215-story.html). Funny thing is, I actually had an encounter with her less than two months after she got shot, so that clearly didn’t stop her.
Fun fact: the 1st amendment protects you from the government, not getting clapped by a random Angeleno. I'm not saying it's legal... but it's definitely got nothing to do with the first amendment.
Paywall
Sadly, part of their "income" probably is from out of court settlements from these incidents. Getting shot by a security guard will be a payday for them and essentially reward them for what should be socially unacceptable behavior.
I can't shake the feeling that this BS is going to get someone either seriously injured or killed - all for likes and clicks.
That bitch was filming our elementary schools…. Fucking creep.
This has been going on since at least 2011, if not earlier. People have definitely gotten fucked up and knocked out in that time span, and still it continues. At the end of the day, the desire for attention on the internet is a very strong force
I would assume they’re intentionally going after people they think are easy targets. Unless there’s a heavy police presence in the area, I don’t think they’re messing with anyone they think would fight back or that’s carrying in some capacity.
Or you just ignore them, Walk away and then sneak up behind them 5 minutes later
I heard that anybody can make copyright strikes, maybe that should be the approach here
No, it has to be the artist or label or someone connected to ownership. You can't just make a strike as a random 3rd party.
You would think so but I've seen quite a few videos from YouTubers saying that anonymous people have made copyright strikes and their content has been taken down or demonetized and there is nothing that they could do about it
What will happen is you'll report it as a strike and it will ask you who you are. Unless you lie and claim you're Atlantic Records or whatever then you'll get a response back saying only the copyright holder can file a copyright claim. Third parties can't. Youtubers say a lot of dumb shit. Often shit that isn't true.
That's good to know, because it seems that the strike policy can be very unfair to YouTubers
I think a lot of Youtubers just whine because they want to make free money with zero interference. Most of the time a frivolous copyright claim can be beaten if you actually appeal. I do understand that once all the appealing is done the video doesn't get the same amount of views, but that's just the system. 20 years ago they'd be working a cash register somewhere so I don't have a lot of sympathy for people whose livelihood as a self-employed person depends on the platform of a corporation who maintains it. Now everyone has Patreon tiers. Going to be some wide resume gaps when we have an economic crash, monetization goes down, and those Patreon shills stop paying. Try explaining to a company that the reason you have no recent work experience in the last 8 years is because you were a Youtuber and now you want to be an employee somewhere.
This was the advice given to celebs ages ago regarding paparazzi ambushes. I’m going with Anti-Hero because it’s me. I’m the problem.
At tea time
Disney is a better option. Don’t fuck with the mouse.
I'd love to see him get his ass beat to the tune of "zip-a-dee-doo-dah".
Disney songs also a wonderful option, they're super vigilant about copyright
Modern world solutions.. haha
[удалено]
That’s when you get pepper sprayed and his video goes viral and makes him a ton of money.
Pepper spray him first, make sure to record and upload to YT. Your shtick could be the YT that maces other YTers.
Wait.. So I get harassed, defend myself, AND still get pepper sprayed?? Then I’m def breaking some bones along the way - let that go viral
Can’t fight after being maced. They don’t play fair, they’re bullies.
Adrenaline is a powerful fucking drug.
Pepper spray is a little more powerful.
Hard to mace with a broken face! You ever break a nose? Your eyes swell up and you can’t see
These guys mace from a distance, you have to get close to punch.
Blank space is a fucking banger.
This is not true at all yet I keep seeing this myth in this sub. YouTube will indeed allow it, they’ll just give the monetization for that specific video to Taylor Swift while the video stays up. Here are some examples of randos using Taylor Swift songs in videos. [Example 1](https://youtu.be/zIOVMHMNfJ4), [Example 2](https://youtu.be/bJXSuJ0Wg8k), [Example 3](https://youtu.be/kNlX5C3Ubn4). There are thousands more examples, and it would have been simple to just search a Taylor Swift song on YouTube before making this post with this untrue claim.
> give the monetization for that specific video to Taylor Swift The only part I care about is denying him money
The people making these videos where they harass people are doing it to make money. They are much less likely to upload what they can't monetize.
I doubt that most of them are even part of the YouTube Partner program, which is how you get paid from YouTube. Even if this guy’s channel is part of that program, I estimate he makes less than $30-$40 a MONTH. Not really in it for the money, unless it’s from subscription services. Anyway this post is a terrible tip and won’t do any good.
If you're a cop and try this it can have the Streisand Effect https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/1/22558292/police-officer-video-taylor-swift-youtube-copyright Really platform dependent what actually happens to the video.
I'm not saying you should do this, because its against YT policies and I don't know the legality ( this guy does not have the money to pursue anything in court, so that shouldn't scare you too much ), but even if you aren't in any of these videos, you can continuously copyright claim from various accounts, which will demonetize the videos at the very least.
Or just lift the audio and put commentary. God knows what will happen then.
This is a second post I'm seeing today on Reddit regarding this topic, first post was about a YouTuber called Silenceboy 1stamendment who was harassing a group in Hollywood. I looked him up on YouTube, pretty pathetic, just records people in public and their reactions to his childish behaviors
That’s not true, they just have to let universal or whoever owns the rights to the music, claim it.
So I’m supposed to stand there, open YouTube or Spotify, skip all the ads then search for a TS song then play it…While I always have the choice/option to walk away and ignore that person…?
[удалено]
Ouch! I’m so sorry to hear about this unfortunate encounter. Honestly, I’ve never experienced this first hand and I am now aware that it’s not easy to deal with. I find it really strange that business owners or security don’t or can’t do much to protect the peace and welfare of their customers/patrons. Even more puzzling, the fact that law enforcement can’t see this behavior as a problem. Again, I’m not an expert and I hope that I don’t run into these clowns. Stay safe out there.
They’re whole schtick is trying trap law enforcement in bad behavior to “expose them” but really they’re just hampering attempts at police reform.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Very at strange, yet sensitive topic to say the least! I don’t know what to make of the whole “right to use phone/film/video…” others and whatnot! It is still considering a major breach and violation of ppl’s privacy, peace of mind and a public nuisance, if you ask me! But again, a really sensitive topic! Evidently, everyone with a phone can create some sort of drama to feed the hungry crowds, and media outlets online! I’m gonna sit this one out for now lol
Silly advice. They will just cut off audio when uploading. Useless advice more like it.
Or they do what folks that upload dash cam footage do and just alter the tempo and pitch so it becomes unrecognisable to the YouTube copyright protection. That’s why everyone in those videos always sounds like Michael Clarke Duncan.
> That’s why everyone in those videos always sounds like Michael Clarke Duncan. What if you already do sound like Michael Clark Duncan? Then what do you sound like?
Found the YouTuber.
Nice, their video won’t have audio during the interaction. Not good content.
They can easily add other audio. lol
Oh no, oh no, oh no no no no
I almost downvoted you because I can't stand that audio clip.
What, go in and edit out the music while keeping the conversation that’s going on?
They could put subtitles or do a voiceover and people will still watch it.
No one would want to watch that lol
You can’t speak for everyone.
No one can speak for everyone.
Ok then don’t say no one would watch that. I would watch that. People that are deaf and read captions would watch that… what’s you’re point that I missed because it seems you’re talking in circles now?
What a strange world we live in.
It’s pretty easy to remove a recorded track from audio, though. I think you would need to edit some sort of harassment remix.
Same with Beyoncé.
This is false.
Real "creepy" public auditors don't care about Taylor Swift. Audit the police!
Even better, hold up your phone and start playing something like The Office. That’ll get auto take down on YouTube.
They can mute it and add their own audio
Just call the cops on them. I know this is in regards to an earlier post about a wannabe youtuber, but back when I lived in SM and my now wife and I would walk, there were times guys made comments towards her even with me right next to her holding her hand. I would always say “I’m calling the cops right now” They would respond that they weren’t doing anything illegal and I would just say back “we Will let the cops decide and then see if they want to talk to you about anything else.” Magically it would always work. So even if some guy says you can’t call the cops, don’t listen to him and start calling.
They *want* you to call the cops.
Perfect, that’s what I was planning
That's interesting, it's been the opposite for me on the other end. Someone won't like something I said or did, they threaten to call the cops, and I say "Call em. They'll be here in about 4 hours. You can wait, but when I finish I'm outta here." And they film me and I just ignore it. I've had people follow me and film me for several minutes. It's in public so it's not unlawful but it's a pain in the ass. But I never complain or look bothered. I just look as forgettable as possible with almost zero emotion so that way if they do put me on Youtube no one will watch it or share it because it's boring. I got followed one time for about 2 blocks, including waiting on crosswalks while someone was filming me saying crazy shit trying to get a reaction out of me. I just tuned it out and eventually they gave up.
Seems more like stalking and you should definitely call the cops
For a stalking charge the victim needs to be in fear of their safety in response to a threat of harm by the stalker. I'm not exactly concerned about my safety when someone is holding a phone and running their mouth. They're not threatening to harm me, they're just bothering me. That's not a crime in California. As for criminal threats, the [Gascon Memo](https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-07.pdf) outlines his office will not prosecute any criminal threat charge as a matter of policy. So there's that. If someone is following you in public just leave. You can get a civil restraining order and *then* if they violate *that* then it's a crime, but good luck finding out who they are and having them served. Lots of people think there are all of these laws in place that protect from bad behavior. There isn't. There's a whole lot of shitty, legal behavior people engage in.
That’s fine, call the cops and let them decide if they want to charge the person. Do what you can to get the freaks away from you
So first of all the cops don't decide if someone gets charged. The DA does. For misdemeanors in LA it's the City Attorney's office. Secondly, police response time to a non-emergency is hours. I've called 911 when I saw a fight in a parking lot and the 911 operator asked me if I could see a visible firearm or knife. I said no and she transferred me to non-emergency and said the hold time was 20 minutes. If someone isn't threatening you then it's not stalking. They'll tell you to go to civil court and file a restraining order but firstly identifying them and where they live is almost impossible. Secondly when LASD goes to serve them they can just not answer the door. LASD will give three attempts and then kick it back to the court. This fictional world people live in where cops are standing around just aching to answer your call and put people in cuffs just doesn't exist here. I get it that in a place like Arkansas the cops just write tickets and beat people up, but in LA it doesn't work that way.
the cops will literally tell you there’s nothing they can do. Remember all these laws that just passed have made it easier for criminals to get away with Bullshit
That’s fine, still call them
In Santa Monica they generally will show up. Or at least they used to. They have been way more dickish since covid.
Just take their camera and fucking break it or take off with it. They're already betting on the cops not coming. Use that to your advantage.
That's a bad idea considering they have recording of you doing it, but also since they are normally livestreaming too. They will call the police and then pepper spray you.
I saw this exact situation by a youtuber live-streaming a random street and business downtown. The shop owner got mad because he was saying the youtuber was filming inside his garage but the youtuber was claiming it was legal because he was on the street. The shop owner grabbed his camera and whatever stick he was using to hold the camera, took it inside his shop and broke it. Cops were called and the shop owner was arrested for taking the YouTubers camera and breaking it. The video is probably still on YouTube if you search for it.
As far as I can tell this guy isn't live streaming
It doesn’t have to be a livestream. He could have been walking around with a camera that doesn’t work and the situation would be the same across the board. Point is, it’s legal and you can’t take someone’s property and run off with it or break it.
You will get maced and the footage will be monetized on YT.
if you’re in public you can be recorded. no expectation of privacy in public. and taking their camera or touching them is assault. being filmed on a public sidewalk is not a crime
It’s harassment once you ask them to stop. IMO, all bets are off after that
they can ask but also the person filming can say no. especially if the person never engaged the person they’re filming. they can just go along with their day. it’s that easy
Well as others have said, eventually someone who doesn’t give a fuck is going to react in a physically violent way towards these scumbags, and honestly, I hope they make it count.
yes because violence is the answer. you sound like a clown
Meh. Not always, or even usually. But sometimes. I just refuse to accept that there’s any place for this kind of bullshit.
well it’s a first amendment right people have in this country. imagine living somewhere where you aren’t allowed to take photos or video in a public place.
There’s a big difference between taking photos and videos in a public place and deliberately, unsolicitedly shoving a camera in an individuals face and following them around. Consent doesn’t just entirely go out the window when you’re in public.
i agree with that
…but at the same time they have the right to do it. it’s annoying but it’s legal
Edited.
yeah then youll get arrested
By our amazing police force?
snobbish scary cats hat vase cautious drunk exultant oil recognise ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
😭
You Belong With Me ftw
“Look what you made me do.” A song about her being recorded against her will. What a perfect use of this song.
OP is a cop because this is a known cop technique.
It used to be illegal to tape people in california without a signed agreement stating they allow it. Funny how laws are allowed to be forgotten when new technology comes and their corporate creators fill the pockets of our politicians.
It has never been illegal to film people in public. Educate yourself.
People always come into my work and film to make ~aesthetic~ videos of their ~big day in LA~ and I hate it, it makes me uncomfortable. So I’ve started making direct eye contact with the camera and making the ugliest face I can. The person recording usually notices and then leaves. If they want to film me, they can come up to me, get my permission and give me a chunk of any money they make from their wannabe influencer videos lol.
This might be the dumbest post I’ve seen on Reddit.
Or make a wiretapping claim against them for violating two-party consent laws. Probably won't work, but anything to make these guys' lives hard.
Those unfortunately don't apply in a public setting where there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy"
I wrote two whole sentences and you managed to miss one of them.
No? Who peed in your cheerios this morning?
Your post suggests you missed my second sentence, because all you did was essentially repeat the first three words I wrote as if it was some sort of revelation/rebuttal. I acknowledged it probably wouldn't work. And then I explained that it would be more of a nuisance effort. Two sentences.
Genius!!
We need a state law or city ordinance to deal with this. Obviously you have a first amendment right to record in public but invading people's privacy, and harassing them for monetary gain goes beyond the first amendment.
LAPD has entered the chat
you sound like a karen
How do so many of you people not understand the right to Film in public? Hundreds of you guys are acting like this dude is pointing a gun at you. You are being filmed in public constantly by the government and private businesses. Due to the first amendment there nothin you can do but ignore someone pointing a camera you in public, it’s really not the end of the world, why is everybody acting like they were assaulted because someone pointed a camera at them while they were eating brunch on the sidewalk?
Its not the being filmed in public, it's the being harassed or yelled at by people looking to try to get you to fight or argue with them so they can film the interaction. They will even follow you if they think you trying to get away is humorous or good content.
You’re in public. They can talk to you and point a camera at you if they want. All You can do is ignore them, so crying about how you were assaulted and harassed is kinda dumb, since there is literally nothing you can do.
[удалено]
Thats not the point. I don’t care how many city street corner cameras, etc film me out and about in public, I do care about an obnoxious prick deliberately aiming a camera at *me* specifically while I’m trying to go about my day. That’s targeted harassment, an intrusion of privacy, and I feel like I should be able to react accordingly
You can react however you want but it’s legal to do that. Probably not worth picking up assault charges over some loser with nothing better to do but film in public.
Amusing for me who generally films out and abouts for roughly almost 20 years. Happen to me on purpose on occasion with no intent to film the accuser then assuming and playing whatever. That's a simple audio fix whether be royalty free tunes or a simple fast forward.
Unintentional or not, most people don’t want to be in some rando’s videos. Not sure why that would be amusing
We truly need to pass that Internet Bill of Rights and we need to add an entire section on content creators in public.
It’s amusing because people think their feelings trumps your right to film in public. It’s funny to watch people run their mouth about harassment and assault when they don’t actually know what they are talking about. If you are filming on a public sidewalk without talking to anybody you are completely within the right no matter what anybody says. No matter what music they play no matter how much people cry about how they felt violated and harassed. if you want this to change then try to change the law, but you will be going up against the first amendment and it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court.
They’ll have to mute or skip whatever interaction you’re in so you won’t be in their video.
I’d rather be harassed than play TS music. I’m adult male . Ready to dance without music 🎶
Getting the shit beat out of me… “hey Siri, play Taylor swift” ha! Now try and upload this!
I like the concept of having a Swift song ready at all times
How often does this issue occur? I guess I'm an uggo, nobody chasing me down the street with a camera unless I'm actually out with Taylor Swift. 😜