31–40 of 216 posts
I assume content id database entries have expiry dates
In most countries works go into public domain XX years after death of author. Predicting date of death is non-trivial problem.
Of course, the real problem is that the system is not seriously designed with the idea that false positives are a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
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?
For example, in the US there have been cases where high quality reproductions of old public domain paintings did not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright. Remastered audio recordings with adjustments such as equalisation and sound editing were ruled to be eligible for copyright in 2016, then the ruling was overturned in 2018.
On the other hand, under German law digitised versions of public domain paintings are entitled to new 'Leistungsschutzrecht' copyrights, reflecting the effort and expertise necessary to create the reproductions.
A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.
It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match , which it very…
- If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers.
- If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers.
So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules?
i.e. each digitally remastered re-release essentially extends that versions protection another 85 years. =)
YouTube could choose to continue to honour Disney's copyright forever. Yet another reason to get away from centralised platforms. YouTube could have been good. It could have spurred a copyright revolution. But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry so that a few execs could be in the top 1% of humanity during their short existence.
> But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry you mean youtube tried to obey the law? You cannot just unilaterally decide not to obey copyright laws. > It could have spurred a copyright revolution. I am not in favour of vigilantism - the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. For example, if enough people joined the Pirate Party ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite…
What YouTube does instead, which is absolutely unacceptable and far beyond what the law requires, is put the purported copyright holder in charge of judging the video poster's appeal, and naturally they tend to say "no". No counter-notice mechanism, video doesn't go back up.
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.
If you have XX years, you can update the expiration date when the author dies. If the author is still alive, expiration is safely decades in the future. Of course, the real problem is that the system is not seriously designed with the idea that false positives are a problem.
I would know because I'm on the tail end of cleaning up affairs from a recent family death.
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…
It's neither of those. Content ID is an automated detection system that Google/Youtube voluntarily put in place to help make peace with big copyright holders like Viacom to stop the lawsuits: https://archive.is/Awz5k
Basically Youtube created a win-win deal: when our content scanner finds a pirated upload matching with your content, you can choose to share in the monetization revenue we get from ads or you can remove it.
In contrast, the DMCA copyright strike takedown mechanism is the more heavy-handed attempt at "copyright enforcement".
EDIT add to reply: >So to be more direct: Google is exhibiting non-transparent, cartel-like behavior
I can't speak to any invisible back room behavior but as one datapoint... you can be a small independent musician on a small distributor like CDBaby or DistroKid and partipate in Content ID. Example: https://support.distrokid.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013534874...
The initial motivation for Content ID fingerprinting was placating the big players like Viacom but it has since been opened up to others.