Either the fair use concept didn't exist then or it wasn't worth the fight against the Disney legal team even for the low-resolution photocopied image reproduction of the time. The Barks Collector was a good and well-researched fanzine.
From The Barks Collector #10 (1978).
About a month ago my YouTube account was suspended. In brief, Dashgo/Audiobee filed a copyright violation claim against my YouTube account, causing it to be shut down and all my media and links were removed. You can read about the initial experience here: I Command Thee, Fellow!
Last week YouTube made the decision to restore the account.
Many of the amateur and even some professional internet publishers kind of lose their cool when they have their free or paid accounts that host or share media shut down. The most famous recent example being the now-defunct scans_daily forum. A lot of members and visitors went utterly bananas when scans_daily was closed by LiveJournal for Terms Of Use violations. FYI: Posting entire issues of newly published comics and graphic novels does not constitute a review in any context, fellers. That a relative few ruined an experience that many enjoyed is regretable but understandable.
Which brings me to comment on my situation regarding the claim that closed my media account.
Instead of anger, unhinged rants and casting aspersions of the gender-preferences of the various entities involved with the suspension of my account I opened a rational dialog with DashGo/Audiobee and YouTube. As YouTube recommended I filed a counter-notification to the claim. I also contacted DashGo/Audiobee. I defended the posting of the video as part of a review under fair use. The response was concern that the video was not viewable solely within the referring blog post which would further qualify it under fair use. The problem was that the clip could simply be searched for, viewed and even downloaded via YouTube bereft of any context.
So basically my use of the video on the blog was considered fair use but the manner in which it was posted to YouTube wasn't. Utilizing and perceiving YouTube only as a hosting site while ignoring that others will not use it in the same manner as I would created the conflict. That copyright holders feel the need to protect their property in that case is perfectly valid, hard to argue against though still remaining to me at least somewhat arbitrary. They have to draw a line somewhere and don't have the time or resources to review every clip and decide if it is diluting the value of the property or not. In the future there probably will be a way to determine that but right now the usual models fall short.
As of yet YouTube doesn't appear to have a setting to allow clips to be stored on their site and viewed only on another and that is another decision that seems wise on the part of the provider. Advertising, click-throughs and other revenue-generating internet thingies are all on their site and they don't want to become become some anonymous media host that fails and goes bankrupt because they are directing traffic away from their own site without compensation.
Whatever processes on the parts of DashGo/Audiobee and YouTube took place worked in my favor this time and my account was restored complete with the H.R. Pufnstuf video clip. Out of respect for DashGo/Audiobee I have disabled the clip for now and will try to have it hosted elsewhere and then provide a link to it, preferably one that leads the reader to an authorized outlet like the Krofft MySpace page. I don't know if they would be comfortable hosting it as one of their mini-clips as the site seems to be a pretty shiny happy place and the Matango-like theme of the Pufnstuf clip is dark, scary and somewhat out of place alongside Captain Kool and Magic Mongo.
About a week ago my YouTube account was 'permanently disabled' due to a complaint of copyright infringement by DashGo/Audiobee, a company engaged by Krofft Entertainment to market their product to and protect from websites and social networks.
Don't get me wrong. I come down on the side of the creator when it comes to copyright infringement and theft. Back in the early 90s I supplemented my income through creative works and it irked me no end to not get paid for what I did. I got ripped off by creeps and grifters enough that I could see the big picture even then. I don't really disagree with what the various industry organizations do to pursue the bad guys but the perception is they pounce on goofy kids and old people who don't quite grasp computer technology. They rarely seem to be publicly successful with going after the people burning hundreds of DVDs and CDs and selling them out of the trunks of their cars in parking lots or from underground websites that charge for access or downloads without renumeration to the creators.
Prior to the account being disabled YouTube sent me a message letting me know that a short clip I had used of a particularly nightmarish episode of H.R. Pufnstuf (here) had been removed due to a notice filed by DashGo/Audiobee. The next day I discovered my account was disabled due to the most recent complaint. Apparently, this was the third violation of my Terms of Service agreement. The first was when I posted a 'Sleestaks in the Library' clip, the second a comparison of MASH and Stargate. I didn't protest the the first complaint though I thought it silly as there were hundreds if not thousands of the Sleestak clips yet available that remained all over video sites that are still there to this day.
For the second complaint I filed a counter-notification as 
I considered the short clip comparing similarities between an episode of MASH and Stargate: Atlantis fair-use and for the purposes of critique and review. I never heard back and didn't care enough at the time to pursue the matter. Not hearing back from mega-companies is not all that unusual. Years ago I was once the recipient of a DMCA notice about some art that I had personally created and posted at a forum. After the warning I let them know I was the creator and owner of the image but I never heard back from the company that sent me the notice. I figured ignoring the little guy was business as usual and expected I would continue to be ignored and the matter dropped or my account would be deleted in error, which I would then protest or make the decision to go elsewhere.
I have read horror stories concerning the relationship between YouTube customer service and users who have had their accounts disabled and so far my experience has been a positive one. After my account was disabled I filed a counter-notice to the DashGo/Audiobee claim under Fair Use. YouTube responded quickly to my emails, explained what was going on and how to restore my account. They have not stopped me from creating a new account. They also let me know that they can't find any counter-notices filed by me, but I wasn't really surprised at that. Those who enforce copyrights very likely ignore hundreds of counter-notices a day and it isn't the responsibility of YouTube to follow up on them. If I don't hear back in a few days I'll file again.
While I received regular communications from YouTube (if not resolution to my favor) DashGo/Audiobee is a different story. I have contacted them via email, their blog and via the counter-notification and they have yet to respond, which isn't saying they are not going to. Then again it is their prerogative if they respond at all. They feel they did their job, which is taking down infringing material from the web and protected their client's interests. Reversing their decision may set a bad precedent and their goal is to market to the web and social networking sites, which presumably means via revenue and not handing out stuff for free.
Now where I differ with what DashGo/Audiobee is doing in my case is that once again, not only is the idea of fair use not being considered but they have gone after a fan, not a pirate who is damaging their bottom line. It is hardly a secret that I am a fan of the Krofft characters, particularly The Land of the Lost. My entire online persona is based on one of the characters and anything I post about them is out of appreciation. It is just ridiculous to me that DashGo/Audiobee had my short clip removed from YouTube when entire episodes of shows remain online and unchallenged for years at various video streaming sites. Seems a bit random.
Furthermore, as with the MASH/Stargate: Atlantis video, the Pufnstuf clip was adapted from media I personally own and not ganked from other sources. I feel like I am being punished for saying something is awesome.
So what does this mean?
The actions of DashGo/Audiobee, however well-intentioned on the part of their business and their client, has for me sucked the enjoyment out of anything Krofft-related. Not that putting up something Krofft-centric was a daily event but I posted when the mood and muse rapped me upside the head. So it may be a while before I post anything about their characters or shows. DashGo/Audiobee has less protected intellectual property than successfully discouraged another fan from giving a damn about something.
This is a strategy which I doubt would be successful in a business but 
seems common among such firms that it makes one wonder if alienation of a demographic generates such a steady revenue stream that it is an important part of any business model. Let's face it, the value of the Krofft stable of characters has been decimated, possibly irreparably or for at least another ten years, by that horrible 2009 Land of the Lost movie. The Krofft franchise needs all the positive fan promotion they can get and they just discouraged one amateur media outlet that gave them regular free exposure.
So what have I learned?
Maintaining several media hosting accounts is a good idea. Keep the personal videos and photos you want to share with friends and grandma separate from those you use in a "professional" manner.
I kept my blogging-related and personal videos hosted in one place because I never believed someone would really have a problem with posting a short clip giving what amounts to free advertising. If I received notice that they did, civil discourse would work everything out in the end. I have most of my videos archived and I could easily replace them via other sources if I felt like taking the time but a few personal ones are gone for good. They will only be recoverable unless YouTube restores the account and that can only happen if DashGo/Audiobee agrees with my assertions of fair use and allows them do it.
Updates to follow, I am sure.
Some more "proof of concept" imagery for Sacrilege Lands.
You would think after 21 years of marriage my wife would stop insisting I created this image only to justify to her all those pictures of David Boreanaz I was downloading.
While sitting at home pondering the future I considered what form DRM (Digital Rights Management) and copyright may take in years to come.
Technology always continues to improve and be what was once the province of huge corporations and countries are made more accessible to the average consumer. The old ways of recording events are rapidly being phased out. As gears and switches in the telephone are no longer utilized soon actual film may be a thing of the past. Perhaps this is the last generation that will actually expose light to an emulsion to make a photograph except for the historical hobbyist.
So with the recording of digital media and the fact that the average person can easily manipulate complex data what will become prominent in the after-market of the future will be the demands of businesses and governments to control information and ensure revenue sources by protecting intellectual properties. This already exists in one form in regards to music and DRM and is the reason I will not purchase some brands of music players. I support the spirit of copyright and disagree with those who believe that anything once created is free or can be copied and mass-produced for profit without compensation to the creator. I can get behind DRM, EULA, trademarks and copyright. That is, within reason. I have about 400 compact discs and even more DVDs that I have purchased over the last 15 years and I refuse to let any person or company dictate where and when I can listen to them and in what format. I routinely copy movies to my laptop or music to my player and watch and listen to them in a more convenient format when out and about. It is one thing to watch a movie during lunch on a park bench and an entirely different matter to make copies of Good Luck Chuck and sell them at a swap meet or hand them out to the entire office where you work. If companies no longer sell a product and instead intend only to lease it temporarily then they should quit dancing around the subject and just take that position. Tell the buyer the rules flat out instead of misleading the consumer by letting them believe they actually own what they just purchased.
So I have imagined that copyright law in the future will be even more restrictive and probably applied to ridiculous levels in an always connected, online and on-demand electronic world. Currently DRM or copyright is applied when the content is created. In the future it may be applied before something actually exists.
I imagine that soon technology will be available, and then the inevitable law, that would require all recording devices to access a license database of copyrighted material prior to allowing the photograph or video to be successfully recorded. In the near future all image recording devices could be required to determine if the the image or subject in the selected scene was protected by copyright or was restricted in some way. Anyone attempting to take a photograph of a work of art, something in public venue or some other media or subject that is otherwise protected would find their attempts blocked by the software of the recording device. Even today with little effort and varying success commonly available software can analyze a digital image for content such as in facial or shape recognition or in use for comparison for differences between images.
The future camera loaded with restrictive software would otherwise function normally, but the software would block and spoil the image for the user unless a fee is paid to the owner of the copyrighted subject or an EULA is strictly adhered to.
The recording device would simply not capture an image if something restricted by copyright is anywhere in the image field.
I could understand the use of this technology in protecting works of art, documents, company or government secrets and the like. The extreme power of repeated camera flashes can result in a fading of paint and inks, destroying precious art, movies would be recorded by small cameras in theaters for the purposes of bootlegging and bad people could take photographs of military installations in pursuit of nefarious deeds.
While the technology would be deployed in the interest of protecting intellectual and actual property it would of course be abused rather quickly.
Some legal department somewhere would claim that the image of a Torrey Pine that has existed for centuries on a San Diego bluff in a protected National Park was their intellectual property because a stylized image of it is on their company letterhead. Future DRM would prevent visitors or Forest Rangers from taking photos and documenting the tree for posterity or health management. The legal fight to determine the ownership of the image of the tree could drag through the courts for years. As I was just reminded, something similar actually occurred in regards to a Californian Cyprus tree several years ago.
As actually happened, the Steel Bean sculpture in Chicago was considered copyrighted and no one was allowed to take photos of it. People were routinely harassed and threatened if they posed with or took a photo of the publicly-funded sculpture. Future DRM of the kind required for digital recording devices I have imagined would ensure a poor photo of the sculpture. Unless the tourist forked over a fee to to the City of Chicago to release (temporarily?) the rights to create a special memory then their visit will be disappointing and an unhappy girlfriend will result.
Typically, as history has shown when money is involved, everyone wants a piece of the action. So the software and database would be enforced to extremes and nearly everything would be restricted against general use by the public for some reason or another.
So much for liberty.
We won't always have Paris.
A lovely sunset. Or was it? I let my annual subscription with the Desplay Inc. photo pool lapse!
There are even times when some governments and businesses claim events are copyrighted and cannot be recorded without permission. Of course, they will never allow anyone to obtain that license to reveal the details of any event they wish suppressed.
Imagine how differently some events would have played out in the world media if the future DRM software was available now to stop a bunch of poorly led soldiers from using their cellphone cameras?
Good luck getting that software patch from the government of Darfur.
Genocide? What genocide? You have no proof!
Of course while the blocking software would be a boon to government agencies seeking to control the flow of information to the public, there will always be the inevitable errors and over-enthusiastic application and it is usually to the detriment of mankind. An oversight by failing to obtain the proper licenses will block the Hubble telescope from capturing a once-in-a-billion-year celestial event. Oops! Sorry, the Universe will just have to keep its secrets just a bit longer!
Careless application of the database and poor maintenance will inevitably cause tactical setbacks in the battlefield of tomorrow.
As the role of high technology continues to increase the license database of allowable copyrighted images may not be updated at the same frenetic pace as war operations. Terrorists could list their facilities as copyrighted and international law would not allow the other country to access satellite or public images to plan attacks or mount a defense. The scene as viewed via the digital recording devices of gun cameras and guided missiles may be blocked by the database and the success of the precision air strike would be in doubt. All due to shoddy customer service and failure to renew the licensing subscription by the client.
If the eager cameras cameras of the Paparazzi were to be denied taking photos of copyrighted celebrities then there would be fewer incidents of road rage, mishaps and tragic accidents.
Yet by using the future DRM the publicity-hungry celebrity would gain some control over the use of their image.
Any incident that would possibly gain them positive or or negative publicity would be managed with greater success by restricting the use of the image until a deal is made to send revenue their way or even to stop publication of the image entirely.
The media would love the future DRM and next to the government be the biggest client of the software. Revenue would pour in with the control of their news images as affiliates and websites pay to unlock photos and videos for viewing. That is, until some company or individual decides that a negative story needs to be censored by blocking an image connecting their product to their misdeeds.
Then of course the media would wring their collective hands and cry about censorship, ignoring that they themselves are some of the greatest violators of free speech, open dialog and have long given up any right to claims of journalistic integrity.
As usual, only the average consumer will be inconvenienced in any way. The future DRM that I imagine will of course not hinder the tech-savvy any more than the restrictive attempts on digital media do today. Digital recording devices will be illegally modified and software will be hacked to provide images unhindered by the wishes of the copyright holders. An entire underground movement over being able to freely view the objects of the real world will be created, diligently working in the shadows to bring an unrestricted reality into the light.
