Sundog Pictures & Fabia Martin Wrongfully Censor Our Video That Slams Their BBC Hit Piece (UPDATE 3)

Last month, the BBC aired a hit piece against myself and other manosphere figures in a program called Extreme UK: Men At War, hosted by male feminist Reggie Yates. The program not only distorted my work, but obsessively discussed the false accusation that I was an abuser of women. I replied to the propaganda piece to clear my name through a Youtube video, using fair-use excerpts of the program. Three weeks later, an employee for the production company that produced the BBC program, Sundog Pictures, filed a DMCA takedown order against it. The video was removed from Youtube, effectively censoring my response.

Censorship, British style

On January 9 I logged into my Youtube account to see that my response video against the BBC program was taken down due to a copyright claim by Sundog Pictures

screenshot-www.youtube.com 2016-01-08 17-23-09

screenshot-www.youtube.com 2016-01-08 17-11-27-2

My response video showed short clips of the BBC program, particularly the excerpts that made false or distorted claims about me, along with new commentary I delivered personally on camera. According to copyright law, the commentary that I provided alongside the excerpts falls under fair use.

…a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. [Source: Standford]

The fair use guide on Vimeo also shows that my video is firmly within the realm of fair use:

In other words, does your video alter the original work to give it a new meaning or shed new light on it? Uses that directly appraise or comment on the original work are more likely to be transformative because they add a new meaning or message. On the other hand, are you using the material because you needed to put something in a particular scene and the copyrighted work happens to fit? Such uses will probably point away from fair use.

Your use doesn’t necessarily have to be “transformative” to qualify for fair use (although it definitely helps). Any use that furthers the public interest could potentially tip this factor in your direction. Parody, criticism, news reporting, scholarship, and commentary are all areas where courts have traditionally recognized fair use.

My video was transformative in nature, did not use excessively long clips from the original program, could not be confused for the original, and produced completely new commentary and content. There is zero doubt that my video is legal and does not break any copyrights held by Sundog Pictures or the BBC, yet they still filed a claim against it.

Was the takedown a Sundog Pictures corporate directive or the result of a rogue employee?

The email left on the takedown notice was [email protected] A staff profile on the Sundog site reveals it to be Fabia Martin, a middle-aged woman who works as assistant producer, with no apparent training on copyright or legal issues. Further inspection of her LinkedIn profile suggests she’s a feminist spun from the same cloth as Reggie Yates, hinting towards a motive of leftist censorship instead of a genuine violation of copyright law.

fabia-pic

fabia2

Official title as Assistant Producer… she makes sure the coffee stays hot during filming

fabias-influencers

Influenced by a privileged “feminist” who would be a nobody without rich men to help her

Did the Sundog Pictures leadership command Fabia to wrongfully take down my video or did she act on her own accord? I asked Sundog through their official Twitter account, but have not yet received a response.

Since they have not distanced themselves from Fabia’s actions, we have to assume that the management team agrees with her wrongful takedown of a video that did not violate any established copyright law. Both Fabia and Sundog’s leadership are complicit in this censorship act.

Sundog Pictures took down another video critical to their program

A DMCA takedown request was also used against Diana Davison, who uploaded a video critiquing the production. Like myself, she believes her video falls within fair-use doctrine, and notes that I can certainly claim fair-use since I was responding to my own appearance on the program.

Davison rightfully points out the hypocrisy of Sundog’s mission statement encouraging “social production” and “engagement” while using wrongful DMCA takedowns to silence rebuttals.

“We can take your videos for our big-budget program, but you can’t excerpt ours to defend against false claims”

The Reggie Yates program used extensive clips from my Youtube channel and lecture in order to create their program. I did not charge for the use of these clips in a production that earned Sundog and its staff hundreds of thousands of dollars from the BBC. Yet when I produced a basic video that defended myself against their false accusations, using less than two minutes of clips in a legal manner that is clearly classified as transformative under copyright law, they slap me in the face by wrongfully censoring me and my critiques of their program. That’s the thanks I get for giving them full access to my London lecture and free content for their program.

In the face of actions by Sundog and its employees, who would agree to appear on their programs now? Not only would you have no control about how you are portrayed, you’re not even allowed to publicly respond to the claims they air about you without facing censorious retribution. I sincerely hope that by publishing this article, I can warn others who may be offered an interview for a Sundog production in the future. They have no concern for displaying objectivity or practicing fairness, and will attempt to harm your reputation and silence your speech if it’s convenient for their agenda.

reggie

Reggie Yates, host of the Sundog Pictures program

Sundog and Fabia Martin won this censorship battle

The actions of Sundog Pictures and Fabia Martin show how rigged the game is when you deal with the mainstream media. Not only do they spin and twist your words and ideas, but they will also find a way to bludgeon you upside the head if you try to defend yourself against them. I want to be upset at their censorship, but we all know that their action is part of a desperate last gasp of the mainstream media as they lose control over their carefully constructed narrative.

In five years, Sundog Pictures will go out of business, the BBC will see record low ratings, and Fabia Martin will be waiting in line for food at a soup kitchen while our beliefs will reach a tipping point to begin dominating the culture and causing real pain and retribution for the totalitarian leftists we currently have to endure. They may have won this battle, but we will win the war.

UPDATE 1:

I re-uploaded my original video on another platform. Here’s the video that Sundog Pictures is trying to censor…


Video link: http://dai.ly/x3loypq

UPDATE 2:

Youtube will reinstate my video unless Sundog Pictures files a court order against me. This means that they must state under oath that my video is not fair use. Your move, Sundog.

sundog2

UPDATE 3:

Sundog Pictures has declined to pursue legal action against me, meaning that Youtube has restored my video:

youtube-victory2

This is a great victory for fair use and legal speech. I will always fight against any unjust attacks to my videos and writing.

Read Next: The BBC And Reggie Yates Release Their Hit Piece On The Manosphere

80 thoughts on “Sundog Pictures & Fabia Martin Wrongfully Censor Our Video That Slams Their BBC Hit Piece (UPDATE 3)”

  1. Well Roosh you are obviously on the radar of the system. Congrats. Did you make a backup copy of your video presentation you originally posted? I’m sure there are tons of other places in the net located in other countries where you might find a place to post it, available to John Q. Public.
    Edit: I see you did just that; cool.

    1. “Now, you’re a clown. You sing and dance on stage. I give ideas. So you sit down while the men talk”.
      Unfortunately these clowns are used by children as role models adopting everything from their mannerisms to their beliefs. They are key tools in the brainwashing enterprise.

    1. Good point. The MSM is dying. They used to control the narrative (on everything) but today they have to resort to these junior high school level antics to hold on to their echo chambers.
      Many people are getting to the point where they no longer believe or trust what the MSM is selling.

  2. Great defence of your position Roosh but I don’t see why if you and Davidson haven’t breached the guidelines why YouTube should be honoring sundogs takedown request. Can’t this be appealed? This kind of action appears to be taking place across the board with twitter deverifying Milo Yiannoupolis’ account in am unprecedented attack against a celebrity seemingly for politically motivated reasons. There’s a great opportunity here potentially to make common cause with those equally persecuted by progressive zealots panicking as their house of cards begins to collapse. It’s likely these type of desperate and underhand attempts at censorship are actually the extinction burst of a languishing ideological system. Band together with the other burgeoning stars of the resistance, maybe start to explore the possibility of legal challenges and you might find that what seems like an unassailably powerful foe turns into a david and goliath opportunity to turn the tables

      1. Glad to hear it and hope the decision is in your favour. I think we all know where their sympathies lie but who knows, if they are prepared to abide by their own policies you will win.

      2. I think youtube needs to allow more than 250 characters in the counterclaims. I made my response video to try and better inform them what my case against them is so they can decide whether or not to continue or retract.

        1. Haha “woman beats off attacker.. he didn’t get to rape her but at least he got a wank” Good to see there are some female red piller’s out there.

  3. Fabia seems somewhat embarrassed in that photo, as if she fears everyone will guess how that topknot helped her get her job.

    1. Topknot. Check
      Nose ring. Check
      Leather necklace (no doubt with something “meaningful” hanging on it). Check
      Loose, hippy, wool sweater. Check.
      I bet she’s wearing tight black jeans, with tears in the knees with boots and multiple rings and several wrist bands to complete the ensemble.
      It shows how “individual” she is.

  4. Move your content to another platform and send your followers there. Problem solved. YouTube has demonstrated repeatedly that a) it supports the SWJ agenda and b) it could give a shit about your speech and complaints, so why not hit them where it hurts by reducing their traffic and taking money out of their wallet?
    Vimeo and Dailymotion are much better platforms anyways. Hell, hosting on a porn website would probably be more beneficial and the payout is probably better anyways.

  5. When dealing with corrupt government and peoples in power well IF they can’t beat you with good arguments they work to censor out what you have to say. Typical losers in play.

  6. I will gladly mirror it on my YouTube page if you like.
    I am sure you can get dozens of guys here to do the same. Let them come after us all.

  7. Since Fabia used her official work email, it could potentially be argued that she acted as an official representative of Sundog. Since Sundog removed your legal response to their piece, a piece which used clips from your YouTube channel without permission, would it be possible to directly sue them for some violation of common sense hypocrisy law? I’m guessing it would be a stretch, but definitely worth the inquiry.
    In a related note, how difficult is it to get one of these complaints to be acted upon? Could an army of us barrage their channels to get their clips taken down in righteous retribution?

    1. The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.[1][2] As founders of the Labour Party in 1900, the Fabian Society has influenced British policy to the present day, from the postwar creation of the modern welfare state to the election of Tony Blair. Later members of the Fabian Society included Nehru and other leaders of new nations created out of Britain’s former colonies, who used Fabian principles to create socialist democracies in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and elsewhere as Britain decolonized after the second World War.
      The Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1895 “for the betterment of society,” now one of the leading institutions in the world, an incubator of influential politicians, economists, journalists, prime ministers and liberal billionaires.
      Today, the society functions primarily as a think tank and is one of 15 socialist societies affiliated with the Labour Party. Similar societies exist in Australia (the Australian Fabian Society), in Canada (the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation and the now disbanded League for Social Reconstruction), in Sicily (Sicilian Fabian Society) and in New Zealand.

  8. “In five years, Sundog Pictures will go out of business, the BBC will see record low ratings, and Fabia Martin will be waiting in line for food at a soup kitchen” This is very accurate, as more and more viewers are abandoning the mainstream media because if this clear bias. The BBC is a dinosaur funded directly by the British Government that still believes in the rather patronizing notion of “educating the masses”. This had merit in the past, but, people of all backgrounds and views are much more clued in today to the notion of being manipulated through smug ideologies and selective production techniques than their parents and grandparents generations ever were.
    The BBC is going the way of all dinosaurs in a world where people will be able to tune into channels on the TV and Internet that tells the news”as it is”. There’s a growing demand among educated people for ideology free viewing, even to the point where people like myself will pay a subscription to a news channel that’s not soaked in a conceited narrative of telling you what you should think. The fact that these clowns had the response to the program removed from Youtube is evidence, if ever, of their lack of professionalism and integrity. This is an own goal if ever there was one, and it shows the ordinary tax paying citizen the type of weak and comprised organisation that it has now evidently become.
    Goodbye Auntie.

  9. Serve them in court with a slander / libel suit. Put your own servers up, host your own videos. Stop begging youtube and vimeo to host your stuff …if they are stupid enough to sue you, you have them by the short hairs.

  10. You’ve got to stop putting that picture of Reggie Yates in touch with his socially deconstructed feminine side…it stays in your mind like a dark camp ghoulish imprint of where you could end up if you start doing what your girlfriend tells you.

    1. That picture of Yates disgusts me to no end. As a man, why would you subject yourself to that just to appease females? And especially to older, fat and ugly females. Geez!

  11. Check out the Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case (recently affirmed by the 9th Circuit on 9/14/15), which held that copyright owners must consider fair use BEFORE issuing a DMCA takedown notice. I highly doubt Sundog Pictures considered your fair use – it appears they acted in bad faith. You might have grounds to sue Sundog for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim.

    1. back then there was a deeper sense of conservative chivalry.
      I would say there’s less white knights than in 1930

      1. yes, but chivalry is manly. white knighting is a form wussiness where men suck up to women b/c they think it makes them more likeable…but really just more servile. anyways, my point was in the link–this book will open your eyes.

    2. In those days, many women deserved the provision and protection of their male leaders.
      Nowadays, many women deserve to be placed in situations of extreme deprivation; it may be the only way to save them from themselves, even.

  12. Always a lone SJW behind the scenes, pulling the strings. They are like a vindictive wife, running amok with the husband’s credit card at the mall.

  13. Roosh,
    One thing you should consider, in the future, if you permit media into your lectures, etc., is to have them execute an agreement that permits you to make “fair use” of whatever they produce for the purposes of commentary of the type you made on the BBC video. They will still try to censor you, but you will have more ammo to fight back with.

      1. Every so often, I get one right. /grin.
        Really, you should be entitled to ‘fair use’ anyway, under the circumstances which you used parts of the BBC piece, but why not get it in writing? There’s something magic in a piece of paper. I don’t litigate anymore, but when I did there were few things more devastating than having a witness read from a document, say an email that they had written, that completely undermined the other side’s case. When you can forward an email to the PTB at youtube or wherever that shows the Other Team acknowledging your right to fair use, that should be done/dusted w/r/t their “Hey, no fair issuing a truthful rebuttal to our hit piece!”

  14. The BBC. You know, they are just a good wholesome corporation.
    They knowingly harbored the likes of Jimmy Saville for years.

  15. Well, they notice you! As long as they don’t shut everything down, it’s fine. In fact, I admit I sort of like seeing them steam.

  16. Please these people have to be punished and held accountable for censoring and distorting other people’s message to control the narrative.
    They are beneath contempt. They must answer for it.

  17. Lawyers get paid to send out threatening letters. That doesn’t always mean they would get a judge to agree with them, or that they would even take you to court. If you aren’t located in UK and never desire to travel there its difficult to imagine they could do anything to you personally.

  18. At this point, I don’t expect professional or moral integrity from the leftists and feminists, and see no point in going to their shows or being interviewed by them, except for gathering evidence on how they mischaracterize and slander, and keep you from saying your piece.

  19. Right on, Dailymotion is still not quite where YouTube is on fascist censorship tactics, but sadly they’ve been cracking down on a few things too as of late.

  20. Of course it’s censorship! It’s SJWs after all. SJWs don’t see rules and laws as a system for justice; they see them as tools to abuse to silence others.

  21. I notice in your takedown that fabia claims, as in mine, that the content is not from youtube. That’s a blatant lie. They deleted their full length videos of the documentaries shortly before DMCAing us.

  22. Because of issues like this, important content is slowly-but-surely moving from the US-owned YouTube to the foreign-owned DailyMotion. Think about what that means. The USA is now becoming the place you have to leave to avoid censorship.

  23. MSM are run by sociopaths. Propoganda used to put a “spell” on us the sheeple (the use of language was considered magic, thats why we learn to ‘spell’ etc). I wouldn’t be surprised if feminists practice witchcraft.

  24. Just finished watching your original piece with Reggie and I’m quite happy with what I saw. Let me explain. The slant was apparent from onset that you were to be promoted as a rapist, with a determined outlook to prove that you weren’t. He listed no real explanations for why you should be a rapist aside from statements you made in the public domain. Funny thing about the public domain, what you do becomes the story of what the women did too. If any of this were rape, it isn’t as if you can hide their silence or retract statements. This extrapolation was none more thorough than a college student hungry for a regurgitated pre-approved thought.
    He denigrates your viewing of an assault with him as a desperate attempt for approval when if the same woman did this to any other celebrity or politician or even Reggie himself, she would have been hit with a stun gun, and brought down with a swift knee pressed on her back and hand-cuffed. Yet he stated it in the light of this poor conspiracy riddled rapists.
    Slight fun fact, he admits there is a problem by not admitting it. Why does he keep mentioning his teenage brother reading this? If he and all of his righteous glory had a way of teaching his brother how to be a man, why would his brother look to any other for influence? It is clear his “little brother” is a mock defensive strike to suggest protecting children. Thankfully he never portrayed himself as a true combatant against what you were showing because it is clear from jump he was coming from the mindset of, I have genetics, I have good looks, and I get girls with my status. He was pre-disposed to not think about anything and will behave no different than a feminist.
    On his sexuality, I have no doubt he is bisexual.
    I’m loving this Roosh!! When it is all said and done You’ve gone prime time! And you’ve even done an interview with one of favorite anti-feminists, Karen! I’ll post this here for anyone who is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRKixCSxUno

  25. The only reason one censors is when they know their arguments can’t stand on their own merits. In one way it is a loss, but it is also a victory. It proves they know they are beat and they must resort to dirty tactics to win. Eventually the truth always comes out. They’re just delaying the inevitable.

  26. Not this, but the reaction to the blatant censoring of islamic violence and blaming islamic aggression on native men will drive many men to the right. The only reason most men are leftist is because they have never really thought much about what they believe.

  27. How often do you think Reggie Yates analy intrudes himself each week? When he’s sitting around places, and bored is he looking around for things to shove up his ass?

  28. The BBC is very fragile because of its achilles heel, the TV licence. The BBC forces £3 billion per annum from the pockets of the British public in order to numb the same public with propaganda.
    But unknown to much of the same British public, the TV licence is easy to avoid paying and many people are not paying it, to the terror of the BBC.
    The below links describe how to avoid paying the TV licence.
    http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info
    http://www.bbctvlicence.com
    http://www.lime-marmalade.net
    Also, many people have legally stopped paying by watching on catchup services as shown in the link below:
    http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/05/17/1000-people-day-are-opting-out-paying-tv licence
    In the 1990s, in New Zealand, a major non-payment campaign against the TV license there resulted in it being abolished, as described in Ian Wishart’s “Beating Big Brother”, reviewed at the below link.
    http://www.lime-marmalade.net/wishart.html

  29. Glad I caught your rebuttal before they went all Pol Pot.
    The scene featuring Reggie ‘wow, just wow[ing]’ as if he’s going to cry is heave worthy. He betrayed your good will and hospitality (unless he’s fighting the censorship behind the scenes – ha!).
    The lack of honor, honesty, even basic decency is complete. From crying over out of context words to violating every tenant of civility. The hypocrisy is maddening.

  30. I think pieces like this are a good example of why we should be against “public” media. Which is pretty obviously just dildos and a left-wing narrative.
    “Journalism” in a true sense with interviewing both sides and trying to be impartial is dead. To anyone who is even remotely intelligent you’ll realize it never really existed. All of the BBC, NPR, PBS (is okay with non-political shit), and whatever it is are a joke by now. A bunch of crunchy, milquetoast, dinosaur, white liberal Babyboomers juxtaposed with in-your-face, rude, retarded, blatantly biased, left-wing Millenials.
    I consider it a sign of someone being partially redpilled if they don’t own a television or cable. I could understand owning a television for watching movies or a few select programs, but ultimately the more one uses it, the dumber they become. They don’t call it the “idiot box” for nothing.
    Let the fire of liberalism burn itself out and don’t fund these vultures in media and “””higher education”””.

  31. Roosh, a media outlet you could try is London Real. They had Krauser on there a few years ago and they portrayed him in a pretty good light. Hell, they even went on the pull with him in London during the day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *