The Alex Mauer YouTube DMCA Debacle

[EricKei]

Big kerfluffle that has been building up for some time exploded over the weekend:

• - A composer (Alex Mauer) was hired to write music for a game, Starr Maserr DSP (sp?) by Imagos Films/Imagos Softworks
• - She says she was not paid for the full contract (after she was released from it early); Says she was shorted about ten grand
• - She claims that the music she wrote (this was a work-for-hire contract) is copyrighted to her; the company says otherwise
• - In response to being allegedly shorted cash, she could (and probably should) have decided to address her grievances in court with the company...
• ...Instead, she issued roughly seventy (70) DMCA takedowns to any YouTuber she could find who was using her music from SM: DSP in any way (apparently without stopping to consider Fair Use potential first); it has recently come out that she has issued as many or more claims to Twitch streamers for the same reason.
• This appears to have gotten at least one YT channel and one Twitch streamer's accounts summarily deleted, and put dozens more of each in jeopardy of the same.

...And here's the rub: Her reason for doing this was to try and get these content creators to complain to her contracted former employer on her behalf (while also saying openly that they are stupid and none of them have real jobs...yes, even the ones who were making thousands of dollars a month before this). In return, she would rescind her DMCA strikes (an offer which she has now renegged on). In other words, blackmail.


She has now expressed her utter shock and amazement that none of her targets were willing to play along with her "request." She complained far and wide, unable to comprehend that the people she issued these strikes to were complaining to her instead of to Imagos.


For more details from folks who know much more about the sitch: Go to YT and look for videos by SidAlpha, Total Biscuit, and copyright attorney Leonard French (note: he has agreed to work as Imagos' attorney in this matter; he is in Mauer's home jurisdiction) -- see his livestream from this Sunday for his feelings on the matter from *before* he actually came on board as an attorney for Imagos.


Side notes:

• According to French, Mauer never had the copyright anyway; not that it would have mattered, as she still would not have the right to abuse YT's DMCA system in this way
• Imagos offered to give Mauer the copyrights just to get her to shut up, go away, and rescind all of the Strikes; she refused
• Imagos has had to pull the game off of Steam until they can get a new soundtrack written for it
• Mauer has been pleading her case on the Steam fora recently -- with her position basically being "YT/playing games and streaming isn't a real job and those who do so are idiots. So, idiots, why the hell aren't you on my side, here???"
• YT'ers have noted that some of the scummier denizens of the interwebs have been doxxing Mauer, sending death threats, and the like. As usual, completely inappropriate (and arguably illegal). If you hear of anyone doing so, please try to get them to grow up and knock it the hell off; they're not helping.

So....as many of my few threads here begin....


Thoughts?

[TheHuckster]

I did some looking into this. Here are some other key points:

Mauer was the one who backed out of her contract, for health reasons. Ergo, the company paid for work done. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

In such a contract (as is often standard practice), Imagos is the owner of the IP created by Mauer. So, her copyright claims are unfounded.

She sounds like a rather petulant child throwing a tantrum over things that didn't go her way. She couldn't sue because she had no grounds to sue, so instead she went on a rampage and is wondering why everyone is blaming her for it.

[EricKei]

Agreed. The copyright lawyer I mentioned, among others, pointed out that even if she actually had the copyright, it would still be considered either Misuse of a DMCA claim or perjury, depending on who you ask (YT says it's perjury). Not good either way.

On another side note: She had the soundtrack up on BandCamp for a short while -- for a piddly one thousand dollars per copy O_O ...that is, until Imagos filed a DMCA claim against her for doing so. She has reportedly since posted it elsewhere, for free, and they decided not to bother with going after her for that.

[EricKei]

New details :

Wed AM

- In the court case, it seems that Imagos is only asking for the Court to formally lay down who owns the copyrights. No money demands save for their attorney fees.

- Mauer sat down for an interview in which it became clear that she doesn't understand quite how the YT copyright strike system works (either that, or they've quietly changed it so that multiple strikes from one source count as just one strike)...and then promptly sent the interviewer a copyright strike for using a single photo of her in the video -- one which is easy to find online.

- Mauer has emailed SidAlpha -- with some "rationalization" not worth repeating -- with more than one rather overt death threat. There have already been several people saying that they're concerned about her mental state, but this is....Wow. >_< It has been reported to the police, just in case.

Wed PM

- YouTube has agreed to escalate all of the videos claimed that the owners have filed disputes over -- in other words, they're having actual people look them over, and much, much sooner than usual. TB sent them a list of known targets to facilitate this.

- The main commenters (SA, TB, and French) seem to be more and more of the opinion that this lady may have some mental issues going on.

[Andrew B]

It has gotten worse. She has sent death threats to SidAlpha.

[s_stabeler]

There's basically three issues.(aside from the death threats)
1. is she owed money under the contract. That isn't entirely clear. (basically, it would need a provision in the original contract, or a specific agreement between her and the company to let her off the rest of the contract in exchange for no further billing. Theoretically, they could both be in breach of contract.)
2. The copyright. It's...complicated. It's not as simple as "hire someone to make something and you get the copyright"- Work For Hire is more "Your employer owns the copyright for your work" as I understand it. However, it's all but universal that contracts of the type she would have include assignment of copyright anyway. I suppose theoretically if they were in breach of contract, but that's reaching somewhat.
3. the DMCA abuse. you DON'T use the DMCA that way.

[TheHuckster]

There's basically three issues.(aside from the death threats)
1. is she owed money under the contract. That isn't entirely clear. (basically, it would need a provision in the original contract, or a specific agreement between her and the company to let her off the rest of the contract in exchange for no further billing. Theoretically, they could both be in breach of contract.)

I've done contract work in the past (in software engineering, slightly different from creative work, but similarly a work-for-hire situation). Every single contract I've signed said payment was conditional on work completed. If work I did was incomplete, typically the arrangement is I'm paid pro-rated based on the previous completed milestone. Meaning, if I got certain parts of the software done (say, a proof of concept, or it made it to a testing phase), I'd get paid for that work. But I won't get paid for the unfinished work after that.

That's only if the contract is on a task basis (e.g. I charge a set price based on an estimate and scope of work, everything I do within that scope is for that price, regardless of time spent). If it's on an hourly basis, then I'm paid right up until I say I don't want to continue the contract anymore. Although the client would likely have grounds to sue me for at least partial repayment if they felt I did so unjustifiably.

2. The copyright. It's...complicated. It's not as simple as "hire someone to make something and you get the copyright"- Work For Hire is more "Your employer owns the copyright for your work" as I understand it. However, it's all but universal that contracts of the type she would have include assignment of copyright anyway. I suppose theoretically if they were in breach of contract, but that's reaching somewhat.

IANAL, but the only realistic scenario that I could see is if the hired artist went out and said "this contract is hereby null and void" which means they'd get no compensation for any work created, but theoretically it also means the artist is free to do with the work as they see fit. Then again, it might mean the work is in a state of limbo where neither the artist nor the commissioning customer is entitled to the copyright. I'm really not sure how that would work.

[EricKei]

Latest: Full story here -- video by attorney Leonard French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryWjMNVb3sI

TL;DW (didn't watch) version:

- She's sent him overt threats as well; he's juuuust a bit stressed out as a result...and it shows
- The case is going forward; French is working for half his usual rate. A GoFundMe has been set up for it, and reached its goal in 2 days. Any leftover funds will go to the Child's Play charity once it's done. (He waxes a bit emotional -- in a good way -- over this)
- French (among others) has been working (in some way that he is not currently free to discuss) to get Alex "some of the help that she needs" -- in other words: He's implying "help" of the psychiatric variety.
- He explains, briefly, some of the steps to be taken as far as the case itself is concerned -- among which: He will try to obtain a court order to keep her from issuing any more Strikes

[EricKei]

Well, this explains why Mme. Mauer has been quiet -- Her ex wife (Mauer is Transitioning, MtF) had her committed O_O;> Alex was released after 5 days and pretty much picked up where she left off, even doubling down in her threat to Turner Broadcasting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnLZVmMLM3M

edit/update:

(news starts at 2:33 or so) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUEECgeBMg0

It just keeps getting more and more...something; not sure anymore which word to use. Now Mauer has tried to DMCA a game on Steam, and has referred to Valve's actually checking things out (with an actual person) before flagging/banning the game as being a "hiccup" in their system. Upon being stymied, she threatened *that* game's developer, telling him that she would up the pressure on the YT vids if he didn't voluntarily take the "offending" game down. She also sent a DMCA to BandCamp regarding said game.

Bonus: Near the end: A message from French talking about the legal precedent that establishes the ownership of the music -- namely, with Imagos, NOT with Mauer.

[Andrew B]

If this was someone's customer on CS, we'd be recommending it for a war story. If anyone believed it.

[TheHuckster]

If this was someone's customer on CS, we'd be recommending it for a war story. If anyone believed it.

Suddenly, Vinegar Boy seems so much more credible now.

[EricKei]

If this was someone's customer on CS, we'd be recommending it for a war story. If anyone believed it.

*gasp* Are you suggesting that there might be some epic stories over at CS that might not be 100% accurate? For shame! Such a scandal! That could never happen!

Juuuust kidding. Indeed, you are probably correct. At least this one has backup for it in the form of written documentation -- most of which was supplied by Mme. Mauer herself Have no fear, our bullshit detectors are, for the most part, reasonably functional.

======================================

Latest stuff in the happy fun time case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXhx7r1nqgI

Summary:

- Mauer has been formally served court papers as of last night/this morning; she has 21 days to formally respond (she asked what that means/how to do so)

- French (the attorney for the Plaintiff who is suing her, Imagos) has offered (presumably on their behalf) to drop the case in exchange for immediately reversing ALL of the copyright/DMCA strikes she has issued (and presumably a written promise to knock it the hell off going forward).

- French strongly recommended that Mauer seek legal representation. She said that she will be representing herself. Probably not a wise move on her part.

- At least one YT channel has now been confirmed to have been wiped off of the map because of all of this, buuuuut...

- YT has finally wised up, and sent Mauer at least one warning that they suspect that a recent DMCA claim on her part may be fraudulent. She has 7 days to respond before getting her account summarily terminated. They have also, to their credit, decided NOT to comply with the 7 or so additional DMCA claims she filed in the past few days.

[s_stabeler]

To be fair, I'm 99% sure YT can restore the channel. DMCA notices don't result in the video's page being removed- the video itself is replaced by the notice the video's not available. That doesn't mean the file is gone- it'll just be flagged to not be displayed in whatever countries are at issue. However, I don't know if channels are handled a similar way- they may be irretrievable.

[EricKei]

Perhaps I should clarify.

When we're talking about DMCA *notices*, what you said is 100% correct. Under these, a video can either be taken down, or the video can remain up, with the money from any ads possibly going to the claimant. (This may have recently been changed to a "money goes into escrow until the facts are settled" arrangement, I am unsure -- under the old system, it meant that the claimants could get 2-3 weeks of free ad money even without any proof beyond their word).

The thing is, Mauer has issued DMCA *strikes* instead. These are much more severe, and having three of them at once normally results in a channel automatically being banned and deleted. Mauer issued the strikes knowing that this could be a potential consequence of her actions. Note, also, that strikes require that the issuer e-sign a document saying that they are the actual copyright holder, under penalty of perjury if they're not telling the truth.

In both cases, if the video producer disputes the claim (meaning, "a Notice or a Strike"), the claimant has a certain amount of time to respond with proof (2-3 weeks?) before the video is restored as normal. In the "notice" case, the claimant still keeps the money (unless this has changed to escrow style).

As for restoring a deleted account -- Yeah, I certainly hope YT DOES have a way of backing up the account before deletion, but, I've never heard of them actually doing so. Due to the severity of international copyright laws, YT basically has to err on the side of caution, resulting in the video producers being considered "guilty until proven innocent" so that YT *themselves* won't end up in legal trouble for failure to enforce the DMCA provisions.

TB's take on YT DMCA Strike Abuse. from some time back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0
==================

Today's update:

At least one channel's strikes have been reversed, which Mauer says she called for. Dunno about the other 70+. SidAplha video below. The vid also includes a (text only) update saying that Mauer has now threatened to sue SidAlpha himself -- Also, Mauer either sent him a Strike, or threatened to do so, over him having a video with a redacted email that had a redacted image of her birth certificate that she, herself, sent out publicly (and it's a public domain document anyway).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq8zd82MqwU

[s_stabeler]

Note, also, that strikes require that the issuer e-sign a document saying that they are the actual copyright holder, under penalty of perjury if they're not telling the truth.

actually, a DMCA notice ALSO requires you declare under penalty of perjury that you are the actual copyright owner (or at least that you have a good faith belief you are)

As for restoring a deleted account -- Yeah, I certainly hope YT DOES have a way of backing up the account before deletion, but, I've never heard of them actually doing so. Due to the severity of international copyright laws, YT basically has to err on the side of caution, resulting in the video producers being considered "guilty until proven innocent" so that YT *themselves* won't end up in legal trouble for failure to enforce the DMCA provisions.

that's not actually strictly true. the DMCA requires you take down the content on receipt of a valid DMCA notice, yes, but deletion of the account is a matter of Youtube policy. They are required to follow their copyright policy though. (that is, if they say they will delete accounts that receive 3 DMCA strikes, they have to. If they change the policy, they no longer have to.