1

2
5/11/11
3

4 To YouTube:
5

7 MY COUNTER-
NOTIFICATION
8

10

11

12 PERTAINING to a
COPYRIGHT
13

14

15

16

17
CLAIM
18

19
by CHRISTINA SAWYER
20

21
in regards to
MY REVIEW of
22

23

“The Decision”
24

25

26

27 formerly posted at
28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_4VCwh6d0

1
 1
This is a counter-notification to YouTube & the accusing party (Christina
2 Sawyer). On May 5, 2011, apparently Christina Sawyer claimed I violated her
3
copyrighted material by showing a short clip of (& commenting upon) a short
4

5 film entitled “The Decision” which she allegedly produced for the 168
6
Christian film festival & contest (& perhaps other film contests as well). My
7

8 initial response to YouTube and at large (I posted a “shout out” on Craigslist

9
& online for Christina Sawyer to contact me as a “fellow Christian”
10
(I presumed she and others who entered films in the 168 film competition
11

12 were doing so for Christian, evangelical purposes, because every film is

13
required to integrate scripture into it, and they pray at the film festival and
14

15 talk about principles of faith and reaching the world, etc), but have not heard
16
from her.
17

18
HOW I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT & ATTEND the 168 FILM FESTIVAL
19

20
Second, I first stumbled upon the 168 film festival in the Spring of 2010. I

21 came across an ad about it and being a Christian & evangelical, and having
22
my own ministry (Mustard Seed Ministries) I wanted to find out more & so I
23

24 attended the all-day Saturday session and took notes and pictures and some
25
short video clips. Also, I recall reading an general“invite” (in one of their
26

27
pamphlets or advertisements) by the 168 film team to “take lots of pictures”
28 which suggested they and the film-makers wanted to be promoted,

2
 1
commented upon, and to become “known’ but more importantly wanted the
2 Christian kingdom to be promoted.
3

4
WHY I BELIEVED IT WAS A CHRISTIAN FILM CONTEST &
5 ASSUMPTIONS I MADE in 2010 BASED UPON SUCH GOOD FAITH
BELIEF, but AMENDED MY ASSUMPTIONS, in part, in 2011
6

7 I do NOT recall “copyright” claims at the end of the films at the 2010 festival,
8
but did see some at the 2011 festival. Also, after the 2010 festival because I
9

10
received one angry objection from “In the Hands of Sinners” producer & also
11
from somebody who objected to a child being shown on YouTube, I decided to
12
NOT show any video clips from the 2011 festival (only the awards ceremony).
13

14 I suppose the founders of 168 film festival (John Ware1 & Paul Leubbers)
15
have no way to determine whether the film teams are truly Christian
16

17 evangelicals doing what they do for the sake of the kingdom versus doing what
18
they do to win some cash, cameras, OR recognition. I myself attended a small
19

20
Christian college and periodically it became clear that some people applied to,

21 and were accepted, to our Christian college for other purposes than its
22
Christian character (i.e. they wrote insincere professions of faith with their
23

24 applications).
25

26

27
1
I personally met John Ware for the first time at an all-invited 168
28 film wrap-up party that was held at the home of a film producer on
Saturday, May 7, 2011

3
 1
I SAID I did NOT WANT A COPYRIGHT ACCUSATION
but at the SAME TIME DO NOT BELIEVE MY REVIEWS of
2 THESE 168 FILMS ARE COPYIGHT VIOLATIONS
3
Anyways, on the YouTube postings from the 2011 festival I included a
4

5 repeated comment that I “dare not” post any video clips this year because I do
6
not want to lose my 15,000+ video YouTube site if somebody makes a
7

8
copyright claim. However, at the same time, I do NOT believe my postings of

9 tiny segments of the film actually constitute true copyright violations,

10
(regardless of whether or not the producers include “all rights reserved”).
11

12
The PURPOSE of MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL &
13
OTHER VIDEO & BLOGGING WEBSITES
14
First, let me explain that my YouTube channel has evolved into having
15

16 MORE than one purpose and theme, despite falling, in general, under the
17

18
main theme of promoting the Kingdom (of Christ) & the fruits & gifts
19 of the Spirit. While promoting the good news is definitely my ultimate purpose
20
in life, I also simply report the news (daily news items) on a periodic basis and
21

22 also do “reviews” of sorts. In conjunction with the YouTube site I have several
23
different blogs where I can further elaborate and comment upon the YouTube
24

25
videos (because YouTube’s “subject” & “description” boxes are limited in #of

26 words, etc) (see www.TheDailyNews4U.posterous.com, among others) I also

27
have several Audio Bible blogsites (in different languages) , which, when a
28

4
 1
YouTube video gets a lot of views, I include a link to the Audio Bible with the
2 hope that people will ‘tune in’ (see www.HearingTheWORD.posterous.com,
3
among others).
4

5
IF OTHERS DO NOT EMBRACE the CHRISTIAN IDEA OF
6
“CHRISTIAN SHARING” FOR the SAKE OF the KINGDOM,
7 I STILL HAVE A FAIR USAGE RIGHT AS A CITIZEN TO
8
REVIEW, CRITIQUE, COMMENT, etc.

9 Thus, on the one hand, assuming a “Christian film-maker” decides he or she

10
does NOT want to others to “share” the good news using parts of their film, or
11

12 does not grant a “creative commons” license to others (see

13
http://creativecommons.org/ ) as I almost ALWAYS do with the videos I post
14

15
myself (another popular video site I extensively use, which I won’t name here

16 for fear of further sabotage, allows members to decide for each video
17
whether they want “all rights reserved’ or more of a sharing license i.e.
18

19 “creative commons” …i.e. to be used for other non-profit purposes, in part, or

20
whole, which can be further differentiated by “with request only” or all
21

22 permission granted), their films still are subject to critique, comment, review
23
etc as is anything else. I can drive down the street and take a picture or video
24
clip of a house and post it online & say “I like this house. It is a red & white
25

26 house with a big tree in front” I cannot film the interior, backyard, etc of the
27

28

5
 1
house without permission, otherwise I am trespassing (i.e. copyright violation
2 to take the whole thing without permission ).
3

4
I do NOT BELIEVE this is a SINCERE COPYRIGHT CONCERN but a
5 SABOTAGE ATTEMPT by an ANTAGONISTIC PERSON
6
Apparently, however, I am being TARGETED by somebody who does NOT
7
want me to use her “alleged” film in part or whole for any non-profit or
8

9 Christian purposes, or any reason at all, and apparently does not even want
10
me to critique, review, or comment upon it (maybe she doesn’t even care if I
11

12 am alive or dead tomorrow).

13

14 Apparently, I have an enemy who for one reason or another (political, racial,
15
religious?) does NOT like me (even though we’ve never met) and definitely
16

17
does NOT want me commenting upon “her” film, let alone showing a brief
18 clip of it on YouTube. I assume this person (Christina Sawyer) is antagonistic
19
because she made NO ATTEMPT to first contact me in a friendly way and
20

21 dialogue with me or simply ask me to remove the video. I also assume that this
22
may be an INTENTIONAL ATTEMPT to sabotage my account because, as
23

24 noted above, I posted (on the 2011 168 film festival YouTube reviews) that I
25
dared not post any video clips this year for fear of my YouTube site being
26
suspended if I get another copyright accusation.). I suspect that Christina
27

28 personally saw this (or somebody else familiar with 168 or involved with 168

6
 1
saw this and alerted her) and decided to make a FRIVOLOUS copyright
2 claim with the intentional purpose of SABOTAGING my account.
3

4
Re FALSE or FRIVOLOUS (i.e. VEXATIOUS) FLAGGING:
5
COPYRIGHT CLAIMS that LACK MERIT & HAVE OTHER
6
HIDDEN AGENDAS or NO AGENDA AT ALL
7
Subsequently, online I found SEVERAL FORUMS that discuss “Fake
8
flaggers” and other related aspects of YouTube account sabotage. Here’s one:
9

10 “ 3/29/11 Hey guys, aH0tunicorn also said he would false flag me and get my account
terminated which it did. I had 25,803 subscribers and 7 million upload views so
11
obviously I’m annoyed. The videos he flagged were recorded by me so there was no
12 copyright to anyone as they were 100% my work. I tried filing a counter claim but to
no avail. Unless I’m doing something wrong? My new account is www.youtube.com/
13 RSPproductionsHD sp please pm me and offer any help or advice you have on how i
14
can get my channel back. …”

15 http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?
tid=5db731de655edf9e&hl=en
16

17 ALSO SEE:

18 http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=2e174696bf972a1d&hl=en
19
In my case, the “FALSE FLAGGING” is not of the same nature as that person complains
20
about above (“100% my work” he says). I do NOT claim “The Decision” is my work,
21

22 NOR in any way attempted to lead anybody to believe it was my work. I

23
believe it was CLEARLY a review of a film I saw at the 168 film festival.
24

25
And I claim that it is a FALSE FLAG because of other reasons which I will discuss.
26

27
Certainly, there are ‘PIRATES’ out there who STEAL people’s intellectual property and

28 the hard work they did for their own profit and at the expense of the property owner, but

7
 as YOU WILL SEE, I am NOT one of those pirates and make NO PROFIT off of other
1

2 people’s property, but I think it will also become clear that “The Decision” is not/was not

3 made FOR PROFIT and even though non-profits creative works can have copyright
4
protection, they do not fit necessarily in the same category of copyright claims as the
5
“major motion pictures” and popular music online, etc.
6

7
I WILL PROCEED with MY COUNTER-CLAIM under the
8 ASSUMPTION that this is a SABOTAGE ATTEMPT;
9 I CONTEND This is NOT A SINCERE COPYRIGHT CLAIM and has
NO LEGITIMATE MERITS.
10

11 So I am NOW RESPONDING and WILL PROCEED under the assumption that Christina

12 Sawyer is FLAGGING ME with a insincere or illegitimate copyright claim for the purpose
13
of sabotaging my account, rather than for legitimate concerns about her “intellectual
14
property” being used either at her expense (diminishing any potential financial profits,
15
fame, glory, etc. ) and/or for my gain (financial profit, fame, glory, etc)
16

17
GIVEN this is an ATTACK, I ASSUME the OTHER PARTY IS
18
“NON-CHRISTIAN” or ACTING UN-CHRISTIAN-LIKE, & WILL HAVE
19 TO PUT ON a ‘DIFFERENT HAT” to PROCEED:
20
ie. LEGAL RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CITIZEN

21 GIVEN such assumption I am NOW RESPONDING with a counter-notification, stepping

22 out of my usual persona as friendly Christian, especially fond of, supportive of,
23
encouraging of, and friendly towards fellow Christians, and putting on my “hat” as a
24
person who comments & critiques current events, shows, events, sports, etc. And apart
25

26 from my claim that I had/have a good faith belief that 168 & its filmmakers wanted

27 promotion for the SAKE OF THE CHRISTIAN KINGDOM, I am now additionally

28
claiming that even if a minority of the filmmakers do NOT actually want their film

8
 promoted for the sake of the kingdom & to glorify God, I STILL have a “FAIR RIGHTS”
1

2 claims to comment upon their film.

4 Re UNITED STATES CODE: LIMITATIONS on EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS:

FAIR USE
5

6 IN ORDER to discuss “fair rights” I am posting a copy of “United States Code, Title 17,

7 107: Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use, which was passed by Congress on or
8
around February 1, 2010
9

10 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

11 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
12 phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
13
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
14 copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
15 (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
16
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
17 (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
18 (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
19
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
20 such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
21
There are several parts of the Fair Use Act which I contend pertain to my
22
usage of a clip from “The Decision” allegedly by Christina Sawyer ( I say
23

24 “allegedly” because I do NOT find much information online about Christina

25
Sawyer or anybody else involved with the production of “The Decision” and
26

27 so far have not heard personally from Ms. Sawyer. Whether it is solely her
28
property I do not yet know. )

9
 1
First, limitations to exclusive copyright includes usage of a PART (not whole)
2 for “comment” and “news reporting” among other things. As mentioned, in
3
addition to telling the GOOD NEWS I also simply THE NEWS (sports,
4

5 community, current events, violence, crime, religion, etc), mostly on a blog,

6
but also on YouTube. Apart from hoping to promote the GOOD NEWS being
7

8 told at the 168 film festival, for those who object, I am simply telling THE
9
NEWS. I tell the news for the sake of telling the news (keeping myself and
10
others informed about what is happening in the world, including the world of
11

12 art & entertainment. I also have a “Hollywood blog” at

13
www.hwblog.posterous.com) .
14

15
EVEN if CHRISTINA SAWYER DECIDES SHE DOES NOT WANT HER
16
MATERIAL SHARED WITH OTHER CHRISTIANS FOR CHRISTIAN
17 PURPOSES, I CONTEND I STILL HAVE A LIMITED
“FAIR RIGHT” USAGE AS A CITIZEN
18

19 If Christina Sawyer is EXEMPTING herself from the Christian emphasis of

20
sharing the Good News and/or allowing others to report a unique perspective
21

22 on the good news which she allegedly created in “The Decision” (along with
23
the help of many others I presume), then I contend I STILL have a FAIR
24
RIGHT use to comment upon & show a BRIEF clip OF what I am
25

26 commenting upon for the sake of news reporting, educating, keeping others
27
informed (all non-profit, by the way) . In addition to the above, the Fair
28

10
 1
Rights Act mentions that some of the following is relevant when making a
2 determination of Fair Rights:
3

4
“The Purpose & Character of the Use” (i.e. whether it is commercial or non-
5
profit). In this case, I believe it is, or was, a fair good faith assumption &
6

7 belief, that the 168 film festival is/was non-profit (i.e. 501(c3) ) and that the
8
film-makers are expected to be entering the contest for purposes other than
9

10 solely making or winning money or other material prizes, secular fame &
11
glory, etc. But even if they did NOT sign a profession of faith and they reject
12

13
any counter-claim of “Creative commons” for the purpose of sharing the

14 faith, there is a certain amount of Fair Rights even to non-profit material

15
(actually more so) in terms of reporting, commenting upon, etc.
16

17
Re NATURE of the COPYRIGHTED WORK; There’s NO SUGGESTION or
18
INDICATION that CHRISTINA SAWYER MADE “The DECISION” for
19 COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (for-PROFIT) nor that SHE OR ANYONE
20
ELSE IS ATTEMPTING TO PROMOTE THIS SHORT FILM FOR
PROFIT or ANY OTHER REASON WHICH MY REVIEW IMPACTED
21

22
We see movie “reviews” in the newspapers every day, mostly of secular

23 commercial endeavors (i.e. for-profit) maybe not including a video clip but
24
always a discussion of plot, characters, actors, actresses, etc. And on talk
25

26 shows we often see video clips provided by the studio, and that is usually
27
SOLELY for commercial purposes, with permission granted by the studio.
28

11
 1
Thus “nature of the copyrighted work” must be discussed. In the case of “The
2 Decision”, it is definitely not clear that Christina Sawyer is/was trying to make
3
a financial profit off of this short film based on a Bible verse (contrary to the
4

5 them of the 168 film contest & Christian purposes in general) and no
6
indication online one year later that it is being promoted in any commercial
7

8 way. It seems clear that “The Decision” had a limited run at either one or
9
more Christian film festivals in 2010 and that was it.
10

11
Re “AMOUNT & SUBSTANTIALITY of the PORTION USED in RELATION to
12 the COPYRIGHTED WORK as a WHOLE”: i.e. HOW MUCH of the VIDEO
13
was USED is an IMPORTANT FACTOR:

14 Had I taken Ms. Sawyer’s alleged film and posted the ENTIRE thing online
15
and ridiculed it or claimed it was my work or did not give credit where credit
16

17 was due that would be one thing. However, I believe I DID give credit to the
18
film festival and some of the names of those involved in the making of the film
19

20
(that I saw in the program) & I believe I either praised the work or was

21 neutral, but definitely did NOT ridicule nor negatively criticize anything, but
22
even if I did, there’s nothing under the Fair Use Act that suggests it’s only fair
23

24 if you are praiseworthy.Furthermore, since I cannot see the clip or what I said
25
online at the moment because my account is suspended I can say that I
26

27
KNOW the clip was LESS than 60 seconds.
28

12
 1
Re “EFFECT of the USE UPON the POTENTIAL MARKET”
2

3 And that there’s NO INDICATION that my TINY YouTube clip (less than 60
4
seconds of a 15-30 minute (?) movie or more; had any negative effect on her
5
property (“the effect of the use upon the potential market”), and IF
6

7 ANYTHING, would most likely only serve to INCREASE interest in her

8
movie & her as a filmmaker ( I don’t recall exactly what I wrote about “The
9

10 Decision” but believe I was generous and kind and positive or at least neutral
11
towards all the 168 films because I wanted to promote the Christian kingdom)
12

13
and I definitely did NOT profit financially off of it (I get NO revenue from

14 YouTube).
15

16 THUS, I AM FILING A COUNTER-CLAIM

17

18 Hence, for ALL of the ABOVE REASONS I am, in GOOD FAITH, making this
19
COUNTER-CLAIM to the COPYRIGHT ACCUSER, CHRISTINA SAWYER. I repeat
20
that I am NOT a INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PIRATE and do NOT attempt to use
21

22
other people’s property for my own personal financial gain nor at their expense and

23 contend that, if anything, because of my CHRISTIAN CHARACTER and endeavor to ‘act

24
Christian” in all that I do and say (I’m NOT perfect, but keep trying to be) my
25
“reviews” are usually generous and kind and help promote other people’s material, event,
26

27 artistic endeavor, etc., (especially if and when it is intended for Christian purposes) but

28 even if I am occasionally unfairly critical, under the FAIR RIGHT ACT there is no

13
 requirement that a comment, review, report, etc must be positive. That’s just something I
1

2 TRY to emphasize because I am a Christian. And I believe I was kind and fair to ALL the

3 168 films I reviewed. Occasionally, if I offend somebody I always hope that the person
4
would attempt to contact me first and converse with me and I am ALWAYS GLAD to
5
change or even remove anything I post for the sake of keeping the peace. I don’t do
6

7
what I do to make enemies, but friends. FOR THE KINGDOM: LOVE, JOY,
8

9 PEACE, PATIENCE, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, MERCY… !

10 [Christina, please contact me. I hope we can work this out peacefully & graciously]
11
Sincerely
12

13
(John) Philip A. (Vander) KOK (vanderkok@gmail.com)
14

15

16 COPY OF THE EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM YouTube

17
---------- Forwarded message ----------
18
From: "YouTube" <no_reply@youtube.com>
19
Date: May 5, 2011 1:09 AM
20
Subject: VANDERKOK - Video removed - Copyright Infringement
21
To: "VANDERKOK" <VANDERKOK@gmail.com>
22

23

24

25

26
Dear VANDERKOK:
27
We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from
28 Christina Sawyer claiming that this material is infringing:

14
 "THE DECISION" @ 168 FILM FEST based on 1 Timothy 6.20-21
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_4VCwh6d0
2
This is the third notification we have received alleging copyright infringement in one of
3 your postings. Consequently, your account has been terminated.
4
If one of your postings has been misidentified as infringing, you may submit a counter-
5 notification. Information about this process is in our Help Center.
6 Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly
7
materially misrepresents that material was disabled due to mistake or misidentification
may be liable for damages.
8
Sincerely,— The YouTube Team
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15