I received this email from YouTube today:
Hi Frank Report:
Due to a copyright takedown notice that we received, we had to take down the following videos from YouTube:
Video title: Keith Raniere teaches Loretta Garza Rainbow Cultural Garden baby philosophy
Video url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xjKbhsB-A8
Takedown issued by: Keith Raniere
Video title: Lauren Salzman: ‘misconceptions about Albany NXIVM untrue
Video url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnLxzYNUgJc
Takedown issued by: Keith Raniere
Video title: Nicki Clyne top 10 reasons people ask questions in Vanguard forum
Video url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcHauRQjcKE
Takedown issued by: Keith Raniere
Video title: NXIVM slave Lauren Salzman wishes Keith Raniere happy birthday
Video url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25nE5AEhdB4
Takedown issued by: Keith Raniere
Video title: Emiliano Salinas and Lauren Salzman in Masks
Video url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNgURcm6A00
Takedown issued by: Keith Raniere
This means that your video can no longer be played on YouTube.
You received a copyright strike
You now have 1 copyright strike. If you get multiple copyright strikes, we’ll have to disable your account. To prevent that from happening, please don’t upload videos containing copyrighted content that you aren’t allowed to use.
View details
What to do next
If you believe you’re not at fault in one or more of the instances above, you can appeal this takedown by submitting a counter notification. Keep in mind that there may be severe legal consequences for submitting a counter notification with false information.
You can also contact the party that removed your video and ask them to retract their takedown.
************************************************************************************
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
It appears the use of the video clips , as used in this blog, could be considered as fair use. The copyright laws seem rather murky in this area, not exactly black and white.
I wonder how long Keith has been seething over the use of his video clips on Frank Report? I think the video clips have been up several weeks…Maybe some even longer than that, but suddenly he has issued a warning to Frank. At least we all know for sure that Keith is reading the Frank Report, and we know he’s enjoying our insightful comments and reader’s opinions, too. So let’s keep Keith entertained. Lol.
Personally, I really think he got pissed over the latest comments on PREA and the ass implant vs natural ass debate, and now he’s having a little temper tantrum.
How much money do his tantrums cost the Bronfman sisters?
Surprised he didn’t try getting “Allison Mack cries” taken down.
He has to prove the videos were filmed with his camera or his company’s equipment, since he does not own any of these companies, that is going to be hard to claim he has rights to any of the copyrights, correct?
This is where Mr. Smarty Pants doesn’t keep his lies in order. He can’t have his cake and eat it too. You can’t say you not part of a business and than come in and complain when something isn’t going your way.
To be fair KR does a lot of sketchy things, but at least here, he is completely right. These are clips, which got produced by or with him. Proving who’s equipment was used is completely unnecessary as he could have payed for it or the camera man might have handed over his rights to KR.
The main issue is Frank copying these videos from KR’s homepage without adding anything. ABC’s or Mr Ross’ documentaries on the other hand are something different as they contained their work and only short clips/pictures of Raniere.
Typically, you file copyright violations for reproduction of your content because you are losing money or have the potential to lose money from something you have produced. They are either taking away from your album sales, your internet hits, your movie receipts, etc. Is Frank doing that? I doubt it. I think VanDouche has done that well enough for himself by his own mouth and actions.
That is not the point. Most companies use it to protect their market but the copyright law is more. I work more with patents to be honest, but whenever you create some piece of art, be it music, film or whatever this is automatically protected by the copyright laws.
This means you are not allowed to reproduce it for commercial and in most cases public use. This means you are allowed to take a picture of a piece of art in a museum for instance, but not necessarily publish it.
Same thing happens when you downloaded these ‘masterpieces’ from youtube. You can watch, but not publish them without allowance. The tricky thing with copyright laws is that you are allowed to published an altered video, for instance a documentary of some kind as this was created by Frank.
In case that would have a market and would make money he might have to royalties for KR for using parts of his work.
So getting it removed from youtube is completely fine and absolutely legal. No sane person would bring that up in court. That would be a case KR wins within minutes. Nevertheless, he is a moron. Let us fight them when it comes to topics that are actually of importance.
Who cares about a copyright strike when you look at the greater picture and see what was achieved over the last 6 month alone. There are simply bigger fish to fry.
Actually it is one of the major points of the copyright law. That being said, I have posted a number of videos on the YouTube that contain copyrighted material and only a few have been requested to be taken down. While VanDouche is in his rights to request them to be taken down, the reason obviously isn’t for what the law intended. That is all I was trying to say.
He’s trying to intimidate you. Those videos have been up for a while, too. Maybe those ass photos were just the straw that broke the camels backside.