| I didn't pay close enough attention to this post originally saying that it was Reed Timmer and Brandon Clement so I waited to comment. I had read Jim's email about it and he had mentioned Timmer, but not Clement, so I wanted to make sure of who it was by confirming with him. As it turns out, both. I emailed both Timmer and Clement tonight the following. Let's see what happens. My name is Christopher Hollis. I run a website called Tropical Atlantic. (http://tropicalatlantic.com/) I am friends with Jim Williams who runs HurricaneCity. (https://hurricanecity.com/) I am sending this same message to both Reed Timmer, Brandon Clement and Jim Williams. (an abbreviated version to Reed Timmer since his form only accepts 2000 characters) I will also likely send another version of this message to Facebook within a few days, depending on the responses I get from you, to determine the steps necessary for Jim to once again post on Facebook. Recently Mr. Timmer and Mr. Clement made copyright claims for content on Facebook that Jim had previously posted within the past few years. Jim has been banned from Facebook as a result of these claims. I would like to see this situation resolved amicably. If you both could withdraw these claims, Jim could remove the content you want removed by either removing the videos, or the part of the videos, that contain your content. After a copyright claim from Mr. Timmer, Jim removed the part of the video from Hurricane Ian that had his content. When Jim reposted the video without the clip, Mr. Timmer filed another copyright claim against the video, even though Jim removed the portion of the video. As a result, Facebook banned Jim for a week. Subsequently, Mr. Clement filed a copyright claim against a video from 2021's Hurricane Ida in which Jim had a clip from Mr. Clement that Jim could have removed if asked. He was not asked and as a result Jim was banned from Facebook. You should be aware that Jim does not make money from any ads on these videos. If reinstated on Facebook, and there are additional videos you have an issue with, you can contact Jim to remove content that is yours. Jim was involved in a serious accident on the way to cover Hurricane Ian in September and in December had a ruptured colon that he is still recovering from. I would very much appreciate you two taking the time to give him the opportunity to work this out without resorting to using copyright claims through Facebook. If he refused to remove the video, I would understand. But he did not refuse. He didn't even have a chance to remove the content because he was not contacted first to remove the videos. He will not use your content in the future again if that is your wish, as it seems it is. This could have been made clear earlier if you had just contacted him. He has only used such content sparingly, so much so that it might be considered fair use. It's not clear how much content you can use from someone under fair use for "noncommercial uses", which could certainly be argued since no one needs to pay to see the videos and there are no ads being run on the videos for Jim to make any profit from. Additionally, it might also apply since "the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material". However, Jim is not trying to claim fair use at this point. He just wants to be able to remove the content you claimed without being banned from Facebook. That seems like a very fair thing to do. I hope you both agree. Sincerely, Christopher Hollis I didn't mention it in the email. but the quotes about fair use come from here: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ Fair use is complicated. Obviously if a television network used footage from these chasers, they would have to pay. When things say they are copyrighted or not for broadcast, it certainly means large corporations broadcasting to millions have to pay. They make money from what they broadcast by running ads. Or when it comes to cable subscribers, those subscribers also have to pay cable companies that pay television networks for making their channels available. But if you use a small amount of copyrighted material and don't run ads on the videos to make any money, I think fair use definitely applies. The problem is that large online media platforms aren't going to stand up for you when it comes to fair use. You may have to hire a lawyer to continue using something. But Jim was willing to remove the content, they just could have asked and could have found that out. Coming at him at the same time, by multiple people filing claims, for content from last year or the year before, didn't have to be the way to do it obviously. We'll see what happens. |