Classic youtube replies

[MrHappyCyclist]

OK, I received this from YouTube this morning:

Dear MrGrumpycyclist, This is to notify you that we have received a privacy complaint from an individual regarding your content:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Video URLs:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbDwoZ5EcBc

The information reported as violating privacy is at 0.28
-------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to give you an opportunity to remove or edit the private information within the content reported. You have 48 hours to take action on the
complaint. If you remove the alleged violation from the site within the 48 hours, the complaint filed will then be closed. If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube Team and may be removed, pursuant to our Privacy Guidelines (http://www.youtube.com/t/privacy_guidelines). If the alleged violation is located within the video itself, you may have to remove the video completely. If someone's full name or other personal information is listed within the title, description or tags of your video, you can edit this by going to My Videos and clicking the Edit button on the video reported. Making a video private is not an appropriate method of editing, as the status can be changed from private to public at any time. Because they can be turned off at any time, annotations are also not considered an acceptable solution. We're committed to protecting our users and hope that you understand the importance of respecting others' privacy. When uploading videos in the future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal information without their consent. Personal information includes, but is not limited to, National Insurance number, National Identification number, bank account number or contact information (e.g. home address, email address). For more information, please review our Privacy Guidelines http://www.youtube.com/t/privacy_guidelines.

Regards,
The YouTube Team

If appears that the basis for the claim is that you can see the guy's image (though this is not explicitly stated).

The relevant bits in the quoted privacy guidelines are:

How does YouTube determine if content should be removed for a privacy violation?

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable by image, voice, full name, National Insurance number, bank account number or contact information (e.g. home address, email address). Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named. We also take public interest, newsworthiness and consent into account when determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation. YouTube reserves the right to make the final determination of whether a violation of its privacy guidelines has occurred.

What does uniquely identifiable mean?

To be considered uniquely identifiable, there must be enough information in the video that allows others to recognize you. Please note that just because you can identify yourself within the video, it does not mean you are uniquely identifiable to others. A first name without additional context or a fleeting image, for example, would not likely qualify as uniquely identifiable.

I intend to wait for them to review the complaint and see what their view is. It could be argued that public interest makes it OK. I think it will be a useful test case for us. (Not in the legal sense, but in the YouTube policy sense.)

If they do require removal after reviewing (censorship), then I'll re-post with the guy's face blanked out.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

This is my experience.

Back on topic! Magnatom needs our support. Looks like a concerted effort from one of the cruiser forums to have a pop:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RpMG7ZRfU0M

Your weapons of choice? Rules 163 and 167. Directgov guidelines on cycling (up to 1m from the kerb) and gov guidelines on cyclelane width 1.2m wide.

2m wide, and 1.5m absolute minimum if the road isn't busy and traffic is restricted to 30mph.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

OK, I received this from YouTube this morning ... etc.

I have replied to YouTube support with this:

Hello,

Thank you for your message.

I would be grateful if you could review the complaint and the video and let me know what you think, and if possible the reasons for any concerns you still have. If you are still concerned, then I will of course replace the video with a censored version.

I think this can be thought of as a test case for many cycle camera users posting on YouTube, so am anxious to hear the views of your reviewers.

Best wishes.

As an aside, I think it is ironic that I have just received an email from YouTube offering me the opportunity to make advertising revenue from one of the videos concerned.

 

[semislickstick]

I have replied to YouTube support with this:



As an aside, I think it is ironic that I have just received an email from YouTube offering me the opportunity to make advertising revenue from one of the videos concerned.

advertising what? First or a no win, no fee company?

 

[downfader]

I have replied to YouTube support with this:



As an aside, I think it is ironic that I have just received an email from YouTube offering me the opportunity to make advertising revenue from one of the videos concerned.

Everyone gets that ad-rev thing eventually. just takes a certain amaount of views. However you cant accept it because of th InfoCommissioner guidelines iirc (cant be making money out of it, plus is takes away credence from any road safty campaign)

 

[BSRU]

OK, I received this from YouTube this morning:



If appears that the basis for the claim is that you can see the guy's image (though this is not explicitly stated).

I had the same mail twice, because the guy complained twice both times YouTube refused the complaint, my video had a clear image of the driver. I would expect YouTube to reject the complaint on yours also.

 

[downfader]

I had the same mail twice, because the guy complained twice both times YouTube refused the complaint, my video had a clear image of the driver. I would expect YouTube to reject the complaint on yours also.

Also, how has the guy proved that he is the driver concerned? That for me is an issue.When YT allowed people to challenge on digital rights a couple of years back they had a rash of false copyright claims made. This was used as a method to remove a load of athiest vids by the right-wing christian groups.

 

[DrSquirrel]

Also, how has the guy proved that he is the driver concerned? That for me is an issue.When YT allowed people to challenge on digital rights a couple of years back they had a rash of false copyright claims made. This was used as a method to remove a load of athiest vids by the right-wing christian groups.

It's not on the basis that it is "me, that is identifiable", it is "someone, that is identifiable".

Even then, Google(/youtube) don't really care too much for laws since they cannot be expected to know all countries laws, and/or are they bothered about researching it each time.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Everyone gets that ad-rev thing eventually. just takes a certain amaount of views. However you cant accept it because of th InfoCommissioner guidelines iirc (cant be making money out of it, plus is takes away credence from any road safty campaign)

Yes, I've had it before as well. I just thought it was ironic that I received both mesages on the same day in relation to the same videos.

 

[BSRU]

1234Dekka left a message stating the Police are going to prosecute him.

 

[gaz]

im having issues understanding dekka. wtf is he on about.

 

[BentMikey]

OK, I received this from YouTube this morning:



If appears that the basis for the claim is that you can see the guy's image (though this is not explicitly stated).

The relevant bits in the quoted privacy guidelines are:



I intend to wait for them to review the complaint and see what their view is. It could be argued that public interest makes it OK. I think it will be a useful test case for us. (Not in the legal sense, but in the YouTube policy sense.)

If they do require removal after reviewing (censorship), then I'll re-post with the guy's face blanked out.

Just pm the driver, and tell him that if he succeeds in getting YouTube to remove the video, which he well might as YouTube simply want to avoid legal issues, that you'll take every effort to keep the video uploaded, under different user accounts, different video websites, etc.

User rosickyize has one of my videos uploaded again on youtube and vimeo, which I'm quite happy with. Ask him/her to do the same for you. I think it's someone on here, I've no idea though.

 

[BSRU]

I also made a special video with just the image of the driver and some text with my opinions on the driver complaining to YouTube .

 

[SportMonkey]

I do wonder how some people breath. It must be a struggle.

 

[gaz]

User rosickyize has one of my videos uploaded again on youtube and vimeo, which I'm quite happy with. Ask him/her to do the same for you. I think it's someone on here, I've no idea though.

jez......