Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim • Hacker News Board

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#21

Post by 8note » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 9:58 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #12

skinkestek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 int…

"creator" is a weird descriptor of a guy who uploaded a public domain video

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#22

Post by johnnyanmac » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:00 PM UTC

labster wrote: post #4

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #3

It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...

That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.

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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#23

Post by fbdab103 » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:05 PM UTC

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

#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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#24

Post by tgv » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #18

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

> 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 i…

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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#25

Post by tkems » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:22 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #18

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

> 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 i…

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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#26

Post by tkems » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:29 PM UTC

fbdab103 wrote: post #23

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

#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.

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?

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#27

Post by michaelbrave » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #18

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

> 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 i…

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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#28

Post by ndriscoll » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

LargeTomato wrote: post #7

wavemode wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 syst…

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.

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.

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#29

Post by tkems » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 10:38 PM UTC

tux3 wrote: post #20

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

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.

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).

Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

#30

Post by throwaway09223 » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 11:04 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #19

tkems wrote: post #14

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 f…

>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 to…

> Thing is most people won't even think to apply.

Good. As intended.