"Live & Recorded Media Use" Policy to be added to the Rules of Conduct

As many of you know, Glimesh has been the unfortunate target of rebroadcasted sports streams, and other private live event type content. While our DMCA policy applies for any types of copyrighted content, this content is very harshly and frequently enforced world wide. However completely confirming the infringing stream does not have rights to the media is impossible, as these streams can contain content from many countries, regions, leagues, and networks. Investigating and proactively reaching out to rights owners across the world is impossible at our current size. It’s also a slippery slope to shut the streams down for copyright infringement while letting other users slide on “less impactful” copyright infringement.

Due to these complications and the possible issues Glimesh could have in the future supporting this type of content, we’ve decided to completely ban any media of this type unless the content is pre-approved by the Glimesh team.

Below is a draft of a new policy to be added to the Rules of Conduct. In addition we’d be removing the section titled: “Event Streaming”

Live & Recorded Media Use

Streaming sports, pay-per-view content, concerts, or other similar live or recorded media without prior authorization from the organizer or copyright holder is a violation of our Terms of Service. This type of media includes, but is not limited to:

  • Concerts
  • Movies
  • Television Shows
  • Sports Matches

Glimesh requires that streamers submit proof of licensing prior to streaming this type of content. If proof of licensing has not been submitted, the stream will be taken down without prior notice. Proof can be submitted to Glimesh at support@glimesh.tv. Streamers who repeatedly attempt to broadcast this content without submitting proper documentation are subject to our Repeat Infringer Policy.

Give it a read and let us know your thoughts. If anything needs to be clarified, please let us know here!


Very clearly stated, and covers what we’ve seen as an issue to date. Looks great!

1 Like

it is clear to me what is being targeted by this amendment, but what about fair-use like news or legal commentary? would it still be permitted to play short clips for the purposes of commentary? - I’m thinking of the scenario of a “morning coffee” talkshow type stream. For this reason I prefer mixer’s old definition of “non-original content” (ie. anything you did not produce yourself). Are the glimesh staff able to recognize what proper “proof of licensing” even looks like?

It should also be made clear that a DMCA takedown notice would still require the stream to be taken down, even if “proof of licensing” has been provided to glimesh


I agree with @Cykotiq in that we may need to clarify our definition of what needs special permission. For instance, live gaming conferences often allow blanket restreaming without prior approval. Also, government content like NASA TV and parts of CSPAN generally do not require a license to redistribute. Perhaps we can add a carve-out like “where the content in question does not carry a blanket public license” or something similar.

1 Like

While I agree with this approach it also opens up the Glimesh staff to need to be experts to hunt down all those open broadcasting rights. I’d suggest these types of content still requires approval, even if they approval is a link to the page that advertises the ability to restream the content.

1 Like

In general, I agree with what you’re saying, but this is the part that would require clarification, I think. The definition of “non-original” would definitely have to be substantiated. For example, the morning coffee talk show is very much original and I agree with that. But what about the lazy guys who put up a movie, speed it up slightly by a few frames, and up the voice pitch, then offer a link in the chat to hear the correct audio? (don’t laugh, this happens on Youtube all the time). These kind of “content creators” claim originality, as they’re not showing it “as is.” Granted, DMCA would probably deal with this, but it is something to think about.

You are right, it could be argued that is “original content”. Legally it is considered a derivative work, and is not protected under fair-use, just like remixing a song.

In its proposed form, this would also require permission to stream big buck bunny - a copyright free movie

We should also remember this is the ROC not TOS, so we shouldn’t get into too much legalese

Two thoughts here, you could easily provide provide proof of licensing by emailing support and linking us to the proof of licensing at Big Buck Bunny » About

Maybe in addition, we could modify the policy to include allowing licenses to be published in the about section of your stream, making it a bit easier to run a Glimovies type channel with proper licensing and attribution.

1 Like

I just wanna say I really miss Glimovies

I was thinking more along the lines of “if I even want to do a quick test stream, I’d need to provide proof every time just to use buck bunny” vs a glimovies type channel

that would remove any license checking by GCT, which would essentially circumvent the whole process.

maybe we just keep a short whitelist? The amount of copyright-free content is relatively small

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Same rules would apply, but the GCT could check the about section for any obvious licenses. Compared to checking their email for the same thing.

I assumed that requiring someone to send proof of license meant the GCT had to say, “ok this is valid”, before you were allowed to do the stream

Yes, that’s how the policy is written. However I do expect 99% of people who violate this rule to not email us the proper licensing first and instead just get shut down, and then either provide licensing, or no longer stream that content.

Realistically, this would work out the same way as emailing first.

The GCT is getting ready to push out these changes now. Here’s the version that will go live on the site sometime soon:


identical to the original proposal then.

I still think it should be made clear that providing proof of licensing does not protect your stream from being taken down in response to a DMCA takedown notice. The DMCA takedown process does not allow glimesh to advocate on behalf of streamers - if a takedown is received the stream must be taken down