Both Vevo and YouTube operate as intermediaries who are responsible for transmitting the videos to the intended audience; VEVO is an intermediary that provides high quality music videos from record labels to the online community and YouTube is an intermediary in which users upload all kind of videos. YouTube is a big and one important example of intermediaries. While offline intermediaries such as television networks act like Doormen who face strict copyright rules in order to release a video, online intermediaries act like bouncers. For instance, YouTube faces different rules; video creators have more freedom to upload their videos thanks to the “upload first, ask questions later” approach. However, this does not mean that everything can be uploaded, if any copyrighted content is uploaded on YouTube, the copyright owner can file a “notice-and-takedown” and the video will be disabled while the problem is resolved. The person who uploads the video on YouTube is entitled to file a “counter-notice” to demonstrate why the complaint has been filed erroneously. After the counter notice is sent, the copyright owner has about two weeks to respond; otherwise the video will be restored without fear of being sued.
YouTube’s approach to copyright infringement offers its users an opportunity to show creativity and find an audience, involving the users after a complaint rather than being consulted before hand. Fred Von Lohmann shows us two ways people can deal with uncleared copyrighted content; one is to consider if the video will be exempted by the law under the “fair use doctrine” which allows the court to evaluate whether the nature and character of the use, the nature and character of the work used, the amount and substantiality and the effect of the use on the market. And the second way is to do some research and find out who the copyright owner is and how they have reacted towards a similar work in the past.