Page:Code Swaraj - Carl Malamud - Sam Pitroda.djvu/149

Note on Code Swaraj video online in 2008 after the National Technical Information Service sent me a videotape to digitize, and it had received over 80,000 views. The National Park Service even had a page about the film and pointed to the copy I had placed on the Internet Archive, encouraging teachers to use it in their classes.

The takedown came from a Washington socialite, who was the producer’s daughter and was running the company after he had passed away. She was adamant that we were defiling the work by showing a poor copy online, it was only meant to be shown in theaters run by the National Park Service, and she accused me of taking money out of the pockets of the National Park Service by placing it online for free.

I looked carefully at the closing credits, which said it was produced and directed by Guggenheim and “Presented” by the National Park Service. I completed my Copyright School, and removed the video from public view both on YouTube and the Internet Archive, and apologized for any misunderstanding. But, I was perplexed.

I noticed that Guggenheim Productions was selling this video on Amazon, so I ordered myself a copy, then sent a note to David Ferriero at the National Archives and he evidently sent it to his motion picture division, because after about a week I got a note from a senior archivist. He enclosed a copy of the contract between the National Park Service which clearly stated this was a work for hire and the filmmaker “retains no rights in the work.” Not only that, the production company had been paid $325,000 in taxpayer funds to make this film and, as best as I could tell, had also received a gift from American Express to aid in the making of the film. They were also selling it on Amazon and were asserting copyright and pocketing the proceeds.

In other words, the takedown notice they sent me was null and void, there was no copyright. Before YouTube would accept their initial takedown, the producers had sworn under penalty of perjury that they were the rightful owners of the film. They swore under oath they were aware they could face legal penalties if they submitted a false takedown notice. Indeed, they had to check five checkboxes, each containing a legal oath, in order to claim I was violating their copyright. Perhaps they were just being stupid, but they caused a lot of trouble by calling me a criminal. I did not appreciate it.

In addition to sending me the contract, the National Archives said they’d send me a high-definition video file. I made the YouTube and Internet Archive videos I had go live again and grabbed the Amazon DVD and ripped that and posted it.