the article didn't seem to have it (?) so here's the video in question:
YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
121–130 of 216 posts
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was actually a dispute between Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and the British National Gallery over this - the UK working similar to Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_...
Actually the UK works like the USA, there was a recent court case on this that made it very clear. Photographs of public domain works, of any quality, are public domain as well unless they contain some original expression of their own (say, if you're taking a selfie in front of a famous picture, you probably have copyright over it - but not if a museum takes a high-res, excellent lighting photo to reproduce the paint…
There are some more details on the UK system and its historical changes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#New_(Europea...
UK law is very clear in the sense that in 2023, an appeals court judgement explicitly stated that in the UK, no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork.
UK law is not very clear, in the sense that it took an appeals court judge to reach that determination, and it only happened in 2023 :)
And presumably if people like Disney were so inclined they could make sure every new DVD release had slight adjustments to colour grading, a remastered audio track, and things like that, muddying the water by introducing more elements of human creativity.
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Burninating the countryside, Burninating the peasants, Burninating all the peoples" (Trogdor) From one monster to another, cheers =)
Haha! Thanks, man! Back in high school, I bought their CD. [0] I wish I still had that thing. The packaging was hilarious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Bad_Sings_(and_Other_...
I'm in high school now and I bought their sbemail DVD boxset
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.). And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.
A corporation is a collection of people. If these people are doing immoral actions, so is the corporation. Everything that happens by human action is moral or immoral.
How do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders?
I don’t think you can.
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#125This article is misleading, since it omits very important information. See the screenshot provided by the YouTuber regarding the Content ID claim? Look at the far right of the screenshot. There’s a “Select Action” link. I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be d…
I've worked in digital rights management for YouTube media, and (dare I say) it is far from being pretty good. Claimers can basically deny revenue to uploaded videos for months at a time while the dispute process is occuring. This period is a killzone as many content creators often rely on both the timing and month-to-month revenue to pay bills (content creation doesn't pay well to begin with). The end effect is that…
This is a powerful indictment and should not be missed.
I recently read an article about how video games shops don't need to worry about any kind of copying. The reason is that most video games make the lion share of their money in the first few months, and then it tapers off significantly. So, you can copy ideas, styles, and whatever, but it won't dampen opportunities for the original work to make money, so don't worry about it. This is good for the industry and for the creative world and for commons.
If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws.
There should be an amendment where a claimer should have to pay damages to the creators if they abuse this. I would love for Disney to pay when they file a claim in bad faith.
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody should keep their children far from morals? What?
The moral of the story for quite a lot of these stories is... a bit effed up. Like, try getting a coherent one out of The Little Mermaid.
The little mermaid is Hans Christian Andersen rather than brothers grimmm.
The messaging is about curiosity and exploration.
The moral is about accepting when things fail to go as you want, and choosing to avoid harm to others for your own benefit.
There is an anime adaptation that is faithful to the original story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_Andersen%27s_...
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#127This article is misleading, since it omits very important information. See the screenshot provided by the YouTuber regarding the Content ID claim? Look at the far right of the screenshot. There’s a “Select Action” link. I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be d…
I've worked in digital rights management for YouTube media, and (dare I say) it is far from being pretty good. Claimers can basically deny revenue to uploaded videos for months at a time while the dispute process is occuring. This period is a killzone as many content creators often rely on both the timing and month-to-month revenue to pay bills (content creation doesn't pay well to begin with). The end effect is that…
Your observation that the process can be excessively drawn-out is accurate. I think should be changed.
I disagree, however, with your conclusion that the drawn-out process is a financial “killzone” for creators. I talk regularly with other successful YouTubers, and I don’t know anyone for whom the majority of their revenue comes from sporadically-released new content. Yes, it sucks if revenue from a new release is held up in Content ID escrow, but for me and for the other YouTubers I know well, that wouldn’t wreck our overall earnings during the escrow period.
If someone is reliant on month-to-month revenue from single-release videos to pay their bills, that sounds more like a personal financial planning issue than a problem caused by Content ID.
Would you talk a bit more about “claimers bully the industry far beyond the scope of legally binding terms”? I don’t know what you are referring to, and I’d like to hear more.
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#128Maybe because in some countries (like Germany) it is not yet in public domain.
In Germany there is no public domain, so it never will be. It will be "gemeinfrei" , which is a different thing, somewhen after 2036. Probably even only after 2058, because one of the composers of the music lived till 1988. EDIT: German Wikipedia says 2042.
What are the practical differences between US public domain and German gemeinfrei?
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#129This article is misleading, since it omits very important information. See the screenshot provided by the YouTuber regarding the Content ID claim? Look at the far right of the screenshot. There’s a “Select Action” link. I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be d…
I also make my living from Youtube and I would strongly disagree that it is fair. On the absolute most simple basis, false claims can be damaging to the creator but the same false claims are completely risk free to the issuers. The problem shown in the OP is an additional layer of complexity where another company is contacting the creator on behalf of Disney which muddies the waters on who exactly is filing the claim…
>I also make my living from Youtube and I would strongly disagree that it is fair
>The only thing in the Content ID system that is built in favor of the creator is if the claim issuer doesn't progress the counter claim and it is automatically dismissed.
Fairness doesn’t mean that the system should be stacked in favor of anyone who uploads a video. I get that copyright is a controversial subject, but both Content ID and the DMCA have mechanisms that are intended to balance the rights of copyright holders against the rights of people who create content using others’ works.
>This doesn't even get into the likely diminished recommendations the video will get after being flagged
My personal experience is that Content ID claims have no impact on video performance. Do you have any evidence that a claim negatively impacts search and discovery?
>the unfair revenue splits that can result if the creator did make an honest mistake
If the result of unintentional copyright infringement is a revenue split, that sounds to me like a very pro-creator outcome. They could take the video down. Or even sue you.
Re: YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim
#130I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. Is that because they partner with big movie/music industries? Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up.
Social media sites have so many users/viewings that fixed costs for serving all their content don't really matter to them, but since ads don't pay much per viewing, they have to cut the marginal costs of hosting and serving content to the bone to stay profitable.
For every million pieces of user-generated content hosted, they get a certain number of copyright complaints, so handling those complaints is a marginal cost. Since the kind of uploaded content YouTube target is particularly prone to being a significant violation of copyright (e.g. entire films), handling the complaints cheaply is a particularly big concern for them. Handling them effectively and with common sense would require human processing of each complaint, but the effect of that on marginal costs wouldn't fit with the business model, so they go with a low-marginal cost, error-prone system instead.
Since the consequences for the business of wrongly failing to take down copyrighted content can be very bad, but the consequences for the business of wrongly taking down uncopyrighted content are negligible, if the system must be error prone, they want their users to be on the wrong side of any errors, not the complainants.
Any American rival to YouTube would have the same problem and would resolve it a similar way.