Live data from Hacker News

YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

mashable.com

21–30 of 216 posts

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most countries works go into public domain XX years after death of author. Predicting date of death is non-trivial problem.

Who is the author of a collaborative work like a film?

> According to UK copyright law, in order to know if a film is in the public domain you need to identify the following creators:

(a) the principal director

(b) the author of the screenplay

(c) the author of the dialogue, and

(d) the composer of music specially created for and used in the film

> Copyright in the film expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last person listed above dies.

Taken from: https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#22
post #12

In hbomberguy’s recent video about plagiarism, he points out that one of the dumb side effects of YouTube’s content ID policy is that claiming is so common and usually bad that people assume actual serious infringements are benign.

"Oops, just a bug" only goes so far. What's interesting about content ID is that only a select group of large copyright holders have access to protecting their works through it, and we have a growing number of cases where it makes "decisions" that are not in line with copyright law.

So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law?

Inquiring minds in the federal government might want to know.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#23
post #12

In hbomberguy’s recent video about plagiarism, he points out that one of the dumb side effects of YouTube’s content ID policy is that claiming is so common and usually bad that people assume actual serious infringements are benign.

Accurate, but not precise.

I'd imagine they were focused on catching as many violations as possible, at the cost of catching false positives into net.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#24
post #10

If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?

In the UK, it was recently ruled that copyright could only apply to things not designed solely to replicate the original artefact. The context was museums licensing photographs of artefacts while keeping the originals locked away. From what I understand it's not been tested significantly in the US yet, though I could be wrong.

Although it’s somewhat different IANAL but Feist probably at least peripherally applies in that “sweat of the brow” doesn’t give you copyright. So with respect to the photographs, just because you spent days setting everything up to get the perfect reproduction, you probably still can’t get copyright on it.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#25
post #10

If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?

In the UK, it was recently ruled that copyright could only apply to things not designed solely to replicate the original artefact. The context was museums licensing photographs of artefacts while keeping the originals locked away. From what I understand it's not been tested significantly in the US yet, though I could be wrong.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#26
post #10

If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?

In the UK, it was recently ruled that copyright could only apply to things not designed solely to replicate the original artefact. The context was museums licensing photographs of artefacts while keeping the originals locked away. From what I understand it's not been tested significantly in the US yet, though I could be wrong.

There's a similar case in the US - Bridgeman vs Corel - that influenced the UK one. I don't think it forms a universal rule in the US, unlike the more recent UK ruling, but it is influential.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most countries works go into public domain XX years after death of author. Predicting date of death is non-trivial problem.

Third hard problem in computing after the infamous "naming things", "cache invalidation" and "off by 1 errors".

I mean, dying is kinda nature invalidating cache...

You key is evicted buddy, now go back to the big blob of matter.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#28
post #10

If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?

It's like trying to copyright pictures of artwork from a museum - I don't think changing the media matters - taking a picture isn't significant authorship of a painting. Similarly whether on DVD or film reel, there isn't a significant authorship change in posting the same clip from a DVD.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#29
post #12

In hbomberguy’s recent video about plagiarism, he points out that one of the dumb side effects of YouTube’s content ID policy is that claiming is so common and usually bad that people assume actual serious infringements are benign.

"Oops, just a bug" only goes so far. What's interesting about content ID is that only a select group of large copyright holders have access to protecting their works through it, and we have a growing number of cases where it makes "decisions" that are not in line with copyright law. So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Inquiring minds…

> So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law?

Yes. In this case this is certainly because this footage is in Disney's YouTube CMS and set to be auto-claimed. The fact that we are at the whim of an admin doing the right thing and removing that content from their CMS or at the very least changing the policy attached to it is problematic at best.

Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

#30
"Here's my favorite example, here: 1928, my hero, Walt Disney, created this extraordinary work, the birth of Mickey Mouse in the form of Steamboat Willie. But what you probably don't recognize about Steamboat Willie and his emergence into Mickey Mouse is that in 1928, Walt Disney, to use the language of the Disney Corporation today, "stole" Willie from Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill."

It was a parody, a take-off; it was built upon Steamboat Bill. Steamboat Bill was produced in 1928, no [waiting] 14 years--just take it, rip, mix, and burn, as he did [laughter] to produce the Disney empire. This was his character. Walt always parroted feature-length mainstream films to produce the Disney empire, and we see the product of this. This is the Disney Corporation: taking works in the public domain, and not even in the public domain, and turning them into vastly greater, new creativity. They took the works of this guy, these guys, the Brothers Grimm, who you think are probably great authors on their own. They produce these horrible stories, these fairy tales, which anybody should keep their children far from because they're utterly bloody and moralistic stories, and are not the sort of thing that children should see, but they were retold for us by the Disney Corporation. Now the Disney Corporation could do this because that culture lived in a commons, an intellectual commons, a cultural commons, where people could freely take and build. It was a lawyer-free zone."

-- Lawrence Lessig, "Free Culture", OSCON 2002 (https://youtu.be/uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&t=253)

Post reply on HN