"I am pleased to announce that two of my videos recently suspended on YouTube, In Search of the Highgate Vampire and In Search of the Truth have now been restored following an investigation into a ‘copyright infringement’ claim submitted by one [Bishop] Sean Manchester." — David Farrant
.
.
I did rather more than submit a claim via the online form provided by YouTube. Due to my objection to material I own being hijacked by an extermely hostile source to supplement what I absolutely know to be fraudulent claims in two self-aggrandising videos, I filed two legally-binding DMCA notices which oblige the receipient, YouTube, to act upon them, and I did so on pain of perjury if what I claim is false.
The videos were disabled. Mr Farrant contested this action and to my amazement the videos reappeared. It was not explained why this happened by either YouTube or indeed Mr Farrant who did, however, have this to say on his blog yesterday: "The ‘copyright infringement’ of which [Bishop] Manchester was apparently complaining was not precisely specified by YouTube, although they naturally had no choice but to suspend both videos until they had conducted their own investigation in accordance to policy."
YouTube, of course, did have a choice. If they felt I had no case they could have ignored my complaint, but they disabled the videos because I made a declaration that images had been reproduced from a book of which I am the author. The question arises how Mr Farrant could counter-claim when he apparently had no idea what he was specifically counter-claiming about.
When I received YouTube's notice of a counter-claim having been made, I sent them attachments of the precise pages in my book where the images infringed in the two videos uploaded by Mr Farrant occur. That I thought would be an end to it, but Mr Farrant is one of those people who persist with something for the sake of it and, in this case, it would certainly seem without any of the salient facts.
The above photograph (second image) of a bricked-up tomb appears in Mr Farrant's video in violation of my copyright. It is found on page 61 of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire. It is found thirty minutes into Mr Farrant's video. There can be no doubt whatsoever that my picture has been illegally reproduced. The same picture is also found on page 91 of the second edition of The Highgate Vampire.
A minute or two later in the same video another photograph in violation of my copyright appears. It is of a Victorian house with tree branches in the foreground. The house was demolished while Mr Farrant was still serving a five years' prison sentence. This image, unlawfully reproduced by Mr Farrant, is found on page 114 of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (shown above) and also on page 128 of the second edition. The proximity of the tree branches to the building make this photograph easy to identify.
The same picture of the Victorian house with tree branches in the foreground found in my copyright protected book is infringed again by Mr Farrant half an hour into a second video uploaded onto YouTube. There can be no doubt that the above photographs have been illegally copied and used without consent in the two videos I have reported and filed DMCA notices over. So why has YouTube ignored these legally binding notices and permitted the material to be published on their service?
.
The videos were disabled. Mr Farrant contested this action and to my amazement the videos reappeared. It was not explained why this happened by either YouTube or indeed Mr Farrant who did, however, have this to say on his blog yesterday: "The ‘copyright infringement’ of which [Bishop] Manchester was apparently complaining was not precisely specified by YouTube, although they naturally had no choice but to suspend both videos until they had conducted their own investigation in accordance to policy."
YouTube, of course, did have a choice. If they felt I had no case they could have ignored my complaint, but they disabled the videos because I made a declaration that images had been reproduced from a book of which I am the author. The question arises how Mr Farrant could counter-claim when he apparently had no idea what he was specifically counter-claiming about.
When I received YouTube's notice of a counter-claim having been made, I sent them attachments of the precise pages in my book where the images infringed in the two videos uploaded by Mr Farrant occur. That I thought would be an end to it, but Mr Farrant is one of those people who persist with something for the sake of it and, in this case, it would certainly seem without any of the salient facts.
The above photograph (second image) of a bricked-up tomb appears in Mr Farrant's video in violation of my copyright. It is found on page 61 of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire. It is found thirty minutes into Mr Farrant's video. There can be no doubt whatsoever that my picture has been illegally reproduced. The same picture is also found on page 91 of the second edition of The Highgate Vampire.
A minute or two later in the same video another photograph in violation of my copyright appears. It is of a Victorian house with tree branches in the foreground. The house was demolished while Mr Farrant was still serving a five years' prison sentence. This image, unlawfully reproduced by Mr Farrant, is found on page 114 of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (shown above) and also on page 128 of the second edition. The proximity of the tree branches to the building make this photograph easy to identify.
The same picture of the Victorian house with tree branches in the foreground found in my copyright protected book is infringed again by Mr Farrant half an hour into a second video uploaded onto YouTube. There can be no doubt that the above photographs have been illegally copied and used without consent in the two videos I have reported and filed DMCA notices over. So why has YouTube ignored these legally binding notices and permitted the material to be published on their service?
If it of any help, Bishop Manchester, the U tube re Robin Hood that Farrant and Hartley cobbled together, is full of such copyright infringements and nonsensical spin also. The banned Red Monkey film clips appear for a start! These were "banned" by David Hepworth in 2005, he being some kind of spokesperson for the late Lady Armytage to do her bidding with the annoying people out there, eg the YRHS----BUT LO AND BEHOLD David Hepworths name appears in the credits of this ludicrous film. I might add that Farrant had every intention of using the stolen YRHS film he requisitioned from drew hartley of bafta fame--- but due to the fact that it was so badly filmed by Drew Hartley he could make no use of it--must have been a great disappointment after getting his mucky dawks on it through bamboozling that simpleton. However, David Hepworth denies all knowledge of the matter and states he is not in collusion with Farrant-- (why on earth would he be, other than to defame the YRHS as he has been doing for many years while in the late ladyships "employ"--though he had no official role as far as I am aware.) Still his esteemed name is there on that rubbish for all to see! He said he would make a complaint to u tube about the farrant rh film but haven't seen it yet, in fact since we rumbled hepworth over the alleged ley line investigation he has had nothing to say for himself. Just to conclude, we have 2 e mails from the brighouse gala committee stating that farrant was never invited, yet he persists in saying he was, while offering no evidence, that is e mails or letters---just saying a secret member of the committee secretly invited him--which is absurd!
ReplyDeleteThese instances of hoaxes and indiscrimmate use of everything and everybody where he can get away with it, also make me continue to doubt the issue of his happy-ever-after--saga with the delectable della.
If any of this is of any use in your situation, I will be happy to forward on to you,
With best wishes
Barbara Green Yorkshire Robin Hood Society.
Dear Bishop Manchester,It is highly suspect that this man,Farrant ,should be allowed to use pictures,which are,by rights other peoples property.He did this without permission,and i am very surprised that he has ,apparently got away with it?Work that someone else has done,has,in this respect,been infringed upon.No-one should use others images from films or their books-apparantly he makes a habit of this sort of thing?
ReplyDeleteI've only just stepped into all this. However I have a fair understanding of YouTube and it's broken system.
ReplyDeleteIt's well known by most users of the site that the videos in question are not at all viewed by an actual person and that anyone with any understanding of algorithms can manipulate the system to their own ends. YouTube uses algorithms in these situations, although they claim otherwise. You now know yourself, that no human being actually reviewed anything. A simple algorithm decided the out come. Once the counter claim was sent, the algorithm (or bot) decided to put the video back up. There is nothing you can do in this situation unless you're willing to be dishonest and exploit the algorithm with key words and phrases that it searches for. Given your position in the church, I can guess that wouldn't be an option.
Hope that helps
It is not clear how anyone with a mind to do so could possibly exploit the algorithm with key words and phrases once the outcome has been decided following a fraudulent counter-claim.
ReplyDelete