[HN Gopher] Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube co...
___________________________________________________________________
Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
Author : freedomben
Score : 95 points
Date : 2024-01-07 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mashable.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mashable.com)
| genter wrote:
| > After being hit with the claim, Baker's upload became
| demonetized, meaning the YouTuber could not make any money off of
| it. The claim also blocked the ability to embed the video on
| third-party websites. In addition, the YouTube video was given
| limited visibility, including being blocked from view entirely in
| certain countries.
|
| The first several days after a video is released is when creators
| get the most views (and thus the most money). It might've been
| only blocked for a day, but it was one of the most critical days.
| But good news! It was unblocked.
| goda90 wrote:
| I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost
| revenue over a wrongful demonetization.
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| It's been copyright claimed again:
|
| https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...
| labster wrote:
| That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or
| UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
| wavemode wrote:
| From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on
| content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it
| has expired).
|
| But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely
| these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube
| and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat
| Willie-related content from its Content ID database and
| Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike systems for
| the content.
| edgyquant wrote:
| That sounds like it should be their problem and they should
| still be held accountable for not caring enough to disable
| any automated flagging/filing
| LargeTomato wrote:
| If your computer program perjures itself who is liable?
|
| I mean, realistically no one because Di$ney but maybe they
| should get enough of a wrist slap to update their algorithm
| to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| Computer programs don't perjure themselves, LLM's aside.
|
| The company that is running the offending program should
| be liable.
|
| But who knows, I'm no lawyer.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| It seems like someone in the legal department ought to be
| responsible, up to the chief legal officer. If the
| company is developing or purchasing a program to automate
| legal documents, it ought to be a legal executive's
| responsibility to ensure that program is not breaking the
| law on their behalf. Someone approved using the program.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Automated or not it should still be perjury, shouldn't it?
|
| I could argue it is even worse if a company their size who
| definitely has the legal capacity to know about these
| issues have actually automated perjury.
| freedomben wrote:
| I agree. In fact, this is an important thing we need to
| establish. If your automation violates somebody's rights
| with a decision, that needs to be held to the same
| standard as if a human did it.
|
| Failing to enforce this, while clearly pragmatic, has
| IMHO led us to the somewhat dystopian current-world where
| AIs falsely flagging people have led to accounts being
| suspend/revoked, small businesses ruined, etc.
|
| Whether intentional or not, Disney should be liable to
| this Youtube channel for _damages_. They should have to
| pay a penalty for abusing the system, and also compensate
| the creator for the lost revenue.
|
| Companies like Disney sure thought it was important to
| "make an example" of copyright violators (pirates) in the
| past. What's good for the goose is good for the gander,
| and we should not stand for the double standard.
|
| IANAL, but if such is possible to win, I'd like to see
| this Youtube creator start a lawsuit.
| 8note wrote:
| "creator" is a weird descriptor of a guy who uploaded a
| public domain video
| JCharante wrote:
| It should be negligence to not associate an expiration date
| in the content ID DB
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| > It should be negligence
|
| Are you gonna be the one to operate all the websites
| which monitor for the deaths of all those creators? Did
| we learn NOTHING from Abe Vigoda???
| caconym_ wrote:
| IIUC, "Content ID claims" are not actual DMCA takedown
| notices (or similar) and thus filing them in bad faith
| isn't perjury. Youtube's T&Cs likely shield them from
| liability to a large extent. You might be able to get
| flagrant repeat offenders on fraud, but I assume it would
| be a very uphill battle.
|
| The actual legal DMCA stuff starts when you dispute the
| claim and the claimant doubles down with a takedown
| request, which (again IIUC) _could_ be considered perjury--
| though, again, likely a very steep hill to climb.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Hanlon's razor. Disney disputed it because it disputes 1000
| things everyday. They realized they screwed up (totally not
| because they hit someone with 1M subscribers who can probably
| fight), and reverted it.
|
| Now, independently, UMG is going through the same thing. I
| don't know why nor how, but it's no secret that at this point
| that DMCA claims are rampant, with litte consequence for a
| false positive.
| frereubu wrote:
| This seems like something different though - it's the audio
| this time and the screenshotted email doesn't mention Disney
| this time, so I wonder if he's used some music in it (there's
| some at the beginning) which is still under copyright? The
| original article made it sound like he'd created all the audio,
| but I presume he didn't create that music.
| tkems wrote:
| Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it
| should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an
| optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it
| would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to
| apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and
| provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would
| solve issues such as
|
| 1) when copyright ends for a work and a source to compare claims
| against
|
| 2) Orphaned works without known owners that are nearly unusable
| until expiration
|
| 3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of
| time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade
| need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but
| I understand that the newest movies need some protection.
|
| 4) Archiving of expired works would be easier
| bilsbie wrote:
| Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.
| danaris wrote:
| > rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a
| small fee, let's say $5/work)
|
| This would _drastically_ change our current copyright regime.
|
| As it stands, everything you write has automatic copyright, and
| doesn't require even the smallest, brokest artist to do
| anything--or _pay_ anything--in order to ensure that _their
| creations cannot profit others without their consent._
|
| Requiring every work to be registered in order to be eligible
| for copyright would essentially change our system from a
| default of "assume anything you find is under copyright, get
| permission from the creator to use it" to "assume anything you
| find is free for the taking, and if the creator did register it
| they'll have to come after you."
|
| In other words, it would mean that anything belonging to big
| corporate media like Disney and Hasbro would be near-
| automatically protected, while small, independent artists would
| be _massively more_ screwed than they are today, with their
| creations basically being assumed to be available for anyone
| capable of monetizing it against its creator 's will, medium,
| large, or megacorporation, to profit off of to their shriveled
| hearts' content.
| tgv wrote:
| Many react to copyright with the image of a greedy, large
| corporation in mind. Unfortunately. While they are a bit of a
| problem (although mostly nuisance), solutions that attack
| them will not help the millions and millions of small
| creators and starting artists. Lawyers will see to that.
| tkems wrote:
| I can see the issue with larger corporations having an easier
| time protecting works they create, I think a system where
| registration is simple would solve most of the issues. Patent
| applications are a complex process and I don't think we
| should base any new copyright system on that. We have the
| tools today to improve the registration system.
|
| I also think that some compromise needs to be made. Saying
| that all small, independent artists would be "massively more
| screwed" doesn't give them much credit. Having their work
| protected and documented as such should give them more
| protections if someone infringes on their work. A fast and
| simple process can be designed to allow everyone to register
| their works without limiting it to large corporations.
| michaelbrave wrote:
| Maybe something of a compromise then, first time making it
| creates a 20 year copyright, any additional years have to be
| applied for with a fee that increases the more years it's
| kept.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders
| to be required to apply for copyright
|
| Thing is most people won't even think to apply. That's why the
| copyright is granted automatically, with an option to renew for
| a longer term afterwards. An important distinction from
| patents. this was one of the earliest revisions to to protect
| he unaware, since consulting a lawyer under the original system
| would be too late.
| tux3 wrote:
| Patents are also very broken, the patent trolling ecosystem is
| the demonstration of that.
|
| Copyright is several times too long, but making it more like
| patents wouldn't help at all. On the contrary.
| tkems wrote:
| I agree that patents are very broken, but I think that
| copyright and patents are different for these reasons:
|
| 1) Patents can cover broad topics. Copyright doesn't have a
| similar standard (from what I've seen). You can't just
| copyright all images of a sunset, but your specific image can
| be copyrighted. See the EFFs article for examples of broad
| patents: https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-
| victims
|
| 2) Patents have a complex application process. Copyright
| shouldn't require this level of complexity as the technology
| exists to detect similar or exact copies and can be
| streamlined for everyone (think of a simple web form with
| your information, copy of the work, etc).
| fbdab103 wrote:
| #2 is so frustrating. I have heard multiple reports of parties
| who were interested in remaking a game, only to discover that
| due to multiple mergers/acquisition/re-licensing deals over
| time, nobody is sure who retains the rights. Rather than engage
| in the legal quagmire, the remake does not happen.
| tkems wrote:
| Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family
| photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the
| copyright holder, often times old photos with no known
| information can cause some issues with publishing or
| archiving.
|
| A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos
| (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and
| noticed that several have small stickers marked with
| copyright notices of the small town photography company that
| took them. I asked my family members and they said the
| company is no longer in business, but I worry that those
| photos will never be able to be published until after well
| over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the
| copyright for such photos?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-07 23:01 UTC)