2017-04-2603:00
COMIC RELIEF AmoGood’s parodic movie reviews are often offbeat and irreverent critiques. However, two firms see nothing funny about them, claiming they lost revenue/ Staff writer, with CNAAmoGood （谷阿莫）, a Taiwanese YouTuber known for his irreverent movie reviews, has found himself in a legal battle after being sued for copyright infringement.Video streaming platform KKTV Co and film company Autoai Design on Monday said that they are suing AmoGood for infringing on their intellectual property rights by using images from their films without notifying them in advance.KKTV executive Yang Chih-kuang （楊志光） yesterday accused AmoGood of reproducing and spreading unauthorized content and for failing to give attribution when using images from the South Korean TV series W, which it distributed in Taiwan.AmoGood has knowingly spread unauthorized content on YouTube, Facebook, Weibo and other online platforms, Yang said.Yang declined to comment on the amount of damages sought, saying that the case has entered judicial proceedings.Autoai Design said AmoGood has used images from at least four films that it has distributed and has affected the films box office receipts by making them “sound boring.”AmoGood, whose YouTube channel has more than 987,000 subscribers, produces short videos using scenes from films while he sums up the plot, often in an offbeat and irreverent manner.AmoGood on Monday defended his videos online, saying that he believes they do not violate the principle of fair use under copyright law, which allows people to use copyrighted materials for commentary, research, news reporting and other purposes without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder.The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office yesterday said that it has started an investigation and that police searched AmoGood’s company on Wednesday.Chang Chung-hsin （章忠信）, a academic who specializes in intellectual property law, said that if AmoGood新北市 設計網頁’s short videos are intended to mock and ridicule the original film, then he has a better chance of arguing that his vi新北市 貢寮 網路廣告deos are in line with Article 52 of the Copyright Act （著作權法）, which stipulates that, within a reasonable scope, works can be quoted where necessary for comment or other legitimate purposes.“However, if the videos are merely short film synopses, it will be harder for the YouTuber to claim fair use,” Chang said.新聞來源：TAIPEI TIMES
台北 內湖 網站優化
F41F839AB0C78FB7
留言列表
