YouTuber Prosecuted for Copyright Infringement|二次創作電影片段 谷阿莫遭起訴
Internet celebrity AmoGood is famous for the movie recap videos that he posts on YouTube. His videos are popular with the public, but not with movie studios. The studios filed a lawsuit against him and accused him of copyright infringement. On June 7, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office announced that AmoGood violated the Copyright Act by reproducing parts of movies from unknown origins without permission and will prosecute him. Internet celebrity AmoGood has a popular YouTube channel where he recaps movies and provides humorous plot summary voiceovers. His channel is very popular with netizens. However, movie studios say he is guilty of copyright infringement, as the movies he downloaded to make his videos aren't legal copies. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office announced the results of its investigation on June 7. It concluded AmoGood violated the Copyright Act by using parts of movies from unknown sources without authorization, and thus it will prosecute him. The defendant violated Article 92 of the Copyright Act by adapting and publicly transmitting the economic rights of another person without authorization. The criminal intent is different (for the 13 movies) and the conduct is different, so the penalties will be different. Prosecutors said movie studios suffered rights infringement for at least five of the 13 movies, which included "The Imitation Game," "Zootopia" and "Train to Busan." AmoGood previously claimed his videos are "derivative works." All derivative works belong to the person who derived these works. This person has the freedom to decide how to use these works. AmoGood has been criticized for reproducing movies to gain a following for commercial purposes. He created these derivative works from movies to profit. What he did was reassemble, comment and explain movie clips. For the copyright holders, their original creativity was trampled on. His "derivative works" argument may not hold water. Lawyers say AmoGood posted the best parts of movies online, which of course made movie studios angry. However, the origins of his clips are unknown, and the so-called "derivative works" defense is groundless in the eyes of the law due to the alterations made without authorization and copyright infringements.
