Previous Post
Next Post

When Everytown for Gun Safety released its anti-gun Public Service Announcement, the mainstream media dutifully announced its arrival and included links to the ad. The gunblogosphere immediately highlighted the fact that the ad was actually pro-gun – demonstrating a woman’s need to arm herself against domestic violence. Pro-gun YouTubers then swung into gear, producing alternative versions of Everytown’s anti-gun agitprop with a very different outcome. While I’m not sure the parodies got as many eyeballs as the Bloomberg-sponsored civilian disarmament PSA, this battle for hearts and minds shows liberty-loving Americans are no longer disarmed, media-wise. Then again, billionaire Bloomberg’s Everytown isn’t disarmed, either. Or amused. Check this out . . .

Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 9.23.44 AM

Which is why the video above does not include scenes from the original, as did the early iterations. The battle continues . . .

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Another example of that fabled “reasoned discourse” on guns that the antigunners so dearly love…er, pay lip service to…

      • I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it. Clint Eastwood.

    • The videos that you can’t find were pro gun videos that included scene’s from the original Everytown for Gun Safety PSA. They spliced the scenes into their pro gun video and were then removed for copy right claims. The reason why this one isn’t is because the scenes are original, even though they very closely parody the anti-gun PSA

        • That would be fair use, but don’t tell youtube. Nothing to do with guns per se, they are just cowards.

        • If the 1st Amendment does not relate to protection of POLITICAL speech you might be correct.

        • It would be fair use based on the amount of the original material used. A more safe approach would be to re-enact their scene as a parody. That would be much harder for EGS to challenge.

        • This has nothing to do with YouTube. Under DMCA safe harbor provisions, they’re required to take down the videos in response to a properly drafted DMCA notice from Everytown, regardless of whether they believe it is right or not. However, DMCA also provides a way for the author of the video to make a counter-claim (that his work does not infringe anyone’s copyright), at which point Google will reinstate it. If Everytown still believes they are in the right, they can then sue the author directly and hash it out in court.

          Following this procedure absolves Google from any responsibility for the content of the videos that users post. Which they obviously want for good reasons (otherwise they’d be sued into oblivion for copyright infringement a long time ago).

      • Parodies, yes, Jake. But what Cross Shot described, no. Not without permission of the owner of the copyright.

    • Some, but not all of the ones using footage from the Bloomberg Cartel ad have been taken down. I think they have to go through on a one-by-one basis and file a complaint. His Minions don’t seem to be among the sharpest knives in the drawer

  2. Why doesn’t this fall under “fair use?” Seems like a double standard, but I am sure it’s legit because Bloomberg would never use his money and influence to pull strings. I mean, the guy has a free pass to heaven, how bad can he be?

    • Yes, minimally I thought it would be parody. Is anyone making money off of those alternative ending ones? Does the 50% or substantial change metric apply? I dunno, just thinking in this box and wondering.

      • I am not an intellectual property attorney, but there are exemptions for copyright when it is a parody. Maybe the NRA or SAF needs to throw out some $$$ to help the parody creators fight back against Bloomy and his lap-dog Shannon

    • It’s not a copyright issue so much as it’s a case of Youtube not wanting to get involved in a copyright issue. They get a complaint, they take it down. It’s the price you pay for using someone else’s server to host your content.

      • This: “…it’s a case of Youtube not wanting to get involved in a copyright issue.”

        Blomberg and his minions can claim infringement and YouTube will take it down until the original poster can respond that it is Parody and therefore not infringement. Which doesn’t really matter because it was still taken down long enough for the anti-gun crowd to have flitted off to the next whatever shiny thing caught their attention.

        • Youtube has a policy of immediately removing anything that someone makes a copyright claim against, whether justified or not. The review process is so lengthy and complicated that most don’t bother trying to get their videos back up.

        • YouTube cannot make assumptions about the videos. If they want DMCA safe harbor, they have to take it down if the notice is properly drafted, no matter how far-fetched it is. If they look at it and say “well it’s obviously parody” and refuse to take it down, the copyright holder can then take them to court (instead of taking the user who uploaded the video to court). And if they lose, they’re on the hook for damages – not to mention legal fees. Following the take-down/reinstatement procedure to the latter allows them to stay out of the legal fight.

    • Because the process requires the author to file a counter claim of some sort, telling Youtube it’s ok, and then the legal battles start, and that takes money and time. Theoretically, filing a fraudulent take down claim is perjury, but as far as I know, that has never been pursued, even when big movie studio robots file thousands of completely bogus claims.

  3. Nanny Bloomberg’s efforts, on all fronts, have become so pathetic that it’s comically entertaining to see them shot down like so many orange clay disks at a trap shoot.

    Keep it up, Bloomy! This is fun to watch!

  4. File a fair use dispute. Meanwhile, upload the video to Vemeo, LiveLeak, Facebook and any other video sharing sites. Encourage others to re-upload it, themselves.

  5. Bloomberg can try to hide the truth but he will fail. It’s common sense one needs a firearm to have any hope of survival against a criminal with a firearm.

    • Some people (primarily women) have such a visceral fear of firearms that even being fully cognizant of your self defense truism they will opt to be a victim and dismiss the obvious necessity to arm themselves to resist or overcome a deadly violent predator. Ever hear of the fetal position?

      Neither Herr Bloomberg’s nor the pro-gun videos will have much affect on such people, though the anti gun videos will serve to confirm their fears and fuel their belief that guns should be banned.

    • Yeah, actually that video was ok right up until the very end, when the angry ex screams like a little girl and drops to his knees, at which point it became almost comical. Come on people, do better than that.

    • This video is pro-self defense, anti ten-round magazine limits. It is much less campy, but with a sad ending. Powerful though!

  6. Hang on.

    I don’t specialize in IP law, but…I seem to recall the doctrine of fair use from the IP law class in law school.

    I am not 100& certain, but my recollection of the exceptions to infringement would include parody, criticism, and education. I would think the video would fall under all three of those carve outs.

    But…I am not an IP law expert, so my memory and understanding of the law might be flawed.

    • Then why do you opine on them?

      That aside, the foregoing posts Curtis in Illinois and Chip in Florida are the correct answers here. If the creators want to fight out fair use/parody exceptions, they’re more than welcome to do so in Federal Court. YouTube will have none of it, and just side with the alleged claimant as a default position. Unfair? Sure. But the alternative for YouTube is to ignore Bloomberg and get sued for copyright infringement themselves – they have the deeper pockets.

    • I’m not a lawyer, but I have had a lot of experience with copyright and patent law – having several of each myself. You are right in regard to the three areas for fair use. There are specific tests, as well that are applied and I know one of those is how much of the original you are using. I don’t remember the specifics, though. I am sure that if all the response ads did were to use the original and simply change the ending, there’s a good chance it wouldn’t fall under fair use.

      I do know, YouTube does have an appeal process, as well. If the “knock off” authors believe fair use to apply, they should appeal and try to make their case.

      In any event, the authors should publicize the take-down by Everytown in every venue they can. Everything they can do to paint these guys as foul bullies helps makes even the takedown serve their purpose.

      • Raul, please don’t opine when you don’t know. The most important aspect is not the law but the “chilling effect.” Read up on it.

        Youtube users are bound by a TOS and youtube doesn’t have to explain anything and you cant sue them. If they feel there is a miniscule chance of a copyright issue (and I don’t mean an actual infringement, but their costs in having to defend a possible one) they will takedown the material.

        In this case Bloomberg is violating basic fair use satire, but Bloomberg has a fat wallet and is able to shut down free speech

        • Actually, I’m far from “opining” where I do not know. When I say “not a lawyer” but “have experience” I mean that in the sense of writing up analyses and comparative assessments for the lawyers as a subject matter expert and covered by NDA’s as well as a published author and presenter who has had to take such questions into account. I’ve also had semi/non-professional experience connected with the music and podcasting industries, but since none of that has ever undergone legal review, I consider that area merely “street smarts.” I’m also experienced with SLAPP, as that was a consideration in some of my reviews.

          End of the day, short of overwhelming evidence, whether something would or would not be considered fair use comes down to the mood of the judge when he renders the case as much as anything else. What you or I think doesn’t matter much.

          What’s more important are the areas where we agree — which is actually on almost all points. (Actually, I think you may be conflating my comments with those above mine.)

          None of my comment at any point suggested you could sue YouTube. Yes, they reserve the right to pull pretty much what they want and they will pull something on even a sniff of copyright infringement. We agree completely. But those TOS also provide for an appeal. That is what I suggested the parody authors do.

          I personally believe the satirists would lose that TOS appeal and for more than simply the fat wallet of Bloomberg, though that is certainly a factor. But I would make the appeal regardless. And I would publicize it as broadly as possible to any friendly ear. Reminding the general public just what a bully Bloomberg is – and how thin-skinned his organization is – can make even having the clip taken down a victory for our side. It’s a variant of the principles of Kenpo (a martial art) — use the opponent’s energy against them.

  7. copyright law….zzzz

    the point is, an Army of Davids is punching back, twice as hard. And mockery is whats working.

    We are inside your OODA loop, Mikey. Ask your Monsanto PR maven and faux mommies what to do next…

  8. Thanks for posting this one. I noticed that he paid google some money to get the old videos taken down yesterday on your facebook page (for those who don’t know how youtube copyright works, you bitch about a video and pay them and then they take down whatever you want assuming you have a contract with them)

    • No payment is necessary. Youtube will yank any video that has a copyright claim against it, regardless of the legitimacy of the claim. It’s their version of lawsuit insurance.

  9. Did anyone get the parody video downloaded? Knowing it wouldn’t last long I tried twice and didn’t work.

    Better yet, a mirror somewhere. Was a good job of splicing Blimpberg’s bilge and the hotgal/Gunny Glock video.

  10. I understand it’s supposed to be a little bit funny, but come on. When you point a gun at someone, they will either flee or fight. Probably twice as likely to fight in a case like this because the attacker has personal knowledge of the victims personality and how likely they are to fire, which is statistically not very likely, and this video does nothing to remedy that situation. If you’re not willing to fire your gun, you’re better off not producing it at all. This video goes well past the point where she should have blown a hole in the attacker, but I also understand that is hard to portray in a low budget film. Also, rack your shotgun before approaching trouble, not after.

  11. Ya know, if Bloomers hadn’t made the copyright complaint, Glock probably would have at some point. But it was good while it lasted. And the whole brouhaha has essentially ruined Bloomer’s big anti-gun bombshell production. Bloomie’s previous high-pofile effort, that over-inflated “74 school shootings” report, also came a cropper when the whole narrative turned into whether the report was credible or not. Now the only people who refer to it are the gun-grabbers themselves, and the occasional clueless mom who can’t deal with the fact that kids like to play “guns”. The whole gun-grabber movement fronted by Bloomie and his ninny-nanny “moms” is really pretty much the blind leading the blind, and not surprisingly they keep falling into the ditch.

  12. A small point here: I don’t recall seeing a copyright statement in the Midget’s video. Does anyone know?

    Posting without may put it into the public domain.

    • Posting without may put it into the public domain.

      Exactly the opposite, in fact. Under US Copyright law, the act of posting the video constitutes “fixing” the work, which confers on it all of the rights afforded under the Copyright Act.

      Explicit copyright notices are not required. Once a work is in a fixed medium, it is copyrighted.

  13. If Utube policy is to pull a video for any copyright complaint, what keeps someone from complaining that the original bloomberg video violated a copyright?

    • It’s not really YouTube policy so much so as US law (DMCA).

      What keeps it is the ability of the uploader to contest the take-down. YouTube will then reinstate the video, but to contest you have to provide your name etc, and that gets passed to the person claiming to be the copyright holder whose copyright was infringed. So then they can take you to court.

  14. Is you didn’t watch the “I will stop this” video full screen you may have missed the text near the bottom of the screen at the end.

    Nice touch, I thought.

  15. Good video. However, an ever better version would have had the ex-whatever say, “The cops took my guns but that won’t stop me”, followed by the woman drawing her own gun, replying, “This will”, and shooting him.

Comments are closed.