Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

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

#31

Post by johnnyanmac »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #30
johnnyanmac wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"as intended" means nothing changes for corporations, a race to copyright before releasing anything for the creators who know better, and unaware creators (likely, lower income underprivileged, young) having their ideas stolen by the former 2 the moment they post.

I don't see how this improves on the current model.

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

#32

Post by blagie »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #31
throwaway09223 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"as intended" means nothing changes for corporations, a race to copyright before releasing anything for the creators who know better, and unaware creators (likely, lower income underprivileged, young) having their ideas stolen by the former 2 the moment they post. I don't see how this improves on the current model.

It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively.

I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.

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

#33

Post by blagie »

bilsbie wrote: post #16
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…

Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be:

- Trivial for Microsoft

- Painful for a typical HN contributor

- Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage

I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."

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

#34

Post by GuB-42 »

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.

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author.

Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. So the translator had to find a way to get in touch with all of the rights-holders and negotiate a license for the translation with each one. Because he is just one man, it was simply too much work and he abandoned the project.

It is actually a rather common situation. It may result in cancelled projects, changing the music with a varying level of success or just removing it altogether.

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

#35

Post by redeeman »

tkems wrote: post #26
fbdab103 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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…

if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts

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

#36

Post by johnnyanmac »

blagie wrote: post #32
johnnyanmac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"as intended" means nothing changes for corporations, a race to copyright before releasing anything for the creators who know better, and unaware creators (likely, lower income underprivileged, young) having their ideas stolen by the former 2 the moment they post. I don't see how this improves on the current model.

It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively. I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.

Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all.

Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright.

What really improves here? It doesn't even benefit open source development.

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

#37

Post by paholg »

redeeman wrote: post #35
tkems wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts

So just illegally publish them anyway?

The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.

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

#38

Post by throwaway09223 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #36
blagie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively. I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.

Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all. Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright. What really improves her…

> What really improves here?

With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain.

> It doesn't even benefit open source development.

Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

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

#39

Post by chottocharaii »

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.

I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered

1) It might be hard for the rights holder to assert their copyright at a later stage, if they lack the evidence to do so at the outset 2) any damages awarded might be mitigated by the attempts to search for the rights holder, especially if the ‘true’ owner was contacted at some stage. Seems more likely they’d be compensatory as opposed to punitive

I know this isn’t the prevailing legal practice, but as a lawyer, the lack of a willingness to be bold in these legal situations has always surprised me

Perhaps the tail risk of being slapped down is just too large

I’ve always wondered about a business model of searching for such works, undertaking a bona-fide effort to find the owner, and then just selling it as your own if one can’t be identified. (Perhaps with a war chest kept in reserve for the rare instances licensing fees are demanded later). ‘Copyright squatting’ if you will

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

#40

Post by johnnyo »

GuB-42 wrote: post #34
fbdab103 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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.

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. S…

My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest.

“WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.

Post reply on HN