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

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

#71

Post by coldacid » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

chottocharaii wrote: post #39

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’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 contact…

>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

In a sane, rational world that would probably be the case. Too bad we don't live on one!

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

#72

Post by freedomben » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 1:48 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #21

freedomben wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you actually watch the video? He didn't just "upload" it. He made a substantive artistic change. He added voices and sound effects

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

#73

Post by PM_me_your_math » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 1:48 PM UTC

[dead]

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

#74

Post by randomdata » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 1:49 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #52

randomdata wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?

OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentia…

> OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold.

Right, so where's the social value in it? The work has proven to be of little value. What's in it for the people who extend copyright to keep giving it to you even though they don't really care for what you have to offer?

Moreover, while your entire story has proved a complete and utter failure, what if just one page of your story has tremendous value for the next author who knows how to add a more compelling page 2? Why do we want to hold back that human progress so you can sit on something that doesn't even make you any money?

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

#75

Post by Mindwipe » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #10

genter wrote: post #2

> After being hit with the claim, Baker's upload became demonetized, meaning the YouTuber could not make any money off of it. The claim also blocked the ability to embed the video on third-party websites. In addition, the YouTube video was given limited visibility, including being blocked from view entirely in certain countries. The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views (and…

I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.

> I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.

No chance, the YouTube terms give them huge carte blanche to not pay out for any reason. You could maybe sue Disney but the result would be so small it would cost you a lot, lot more to hire a lawyer to do so.

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

#76

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:10 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #60

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? OR one can make an argument that has nothing to do with any of the things I commented and tick an item off the HN scorecard! >Further, you are still free to take that risk Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating so…

>Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever…

I don't know if it's specifically 16+ years down the line. However, my understanding is that the model for most writers (i.e. those who don't become famous) is to keep writing books and develop a fanbase over time and/or gain a little over time from each book in the hope that eventually the aggregate is enough to switch to writing full time.

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

#77

Post by benj111 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #61

benj111 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever…

>And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line? Life + 70 is based on the concept of copyright outside of the U.S which doesn't think copyright exists to promote the arts but rather because if you create something you have a right to how it is disposed.…

Yes because the US had no influence on the current copywrite system...

>Outside the U.S pay 1 dollar to own something you made is nonsensical

Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections.

This is the issue with intellectual 'property' it isn't property, it doesn't require an owner, you aren't deprived of the use of your work if I 'steal' it. You will always own a book in the sense that if somebody copies it, they need to give you credit. That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours.

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

#78

Post by bryanrasmussen » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

blagie wrote: post #62

benj111 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever…

You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. However, a mechanism which works for Star Wars and Mickey Mouse, but not for a short story, a play, or a specialized piece of software written by a single individual which e.g. generates $20k / year, doesn't work for me. The length of the copyright shouldn't be proportional to the effort invested in the work. If a book my parents wrote…

>You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70.

although I'm not agreeing with them they are not really beating up a strawman - in the EU it's life+70, because it has a different motivation for copyright than the U.S - this means that you may think something is in public domain but then you find out it isn't really because the person who made it in 1925 died in 1970.

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

#79

Post by bryanrasmussen » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #55

whenever copyright comes up a bunch of engineers come up with suggestions for fixing copyright that seem to be based on the idea that every country has the same theory of copyright as the U.S. Well I would suggest that the best fix for copyright would be to bring international Non-US standards in line with U.S or some sort of compromise between the two. The main problem I find with copyright is seeing something is in…

Luckily Steamboat Willie copyright was held by corporation thus it was 70 years after publication, otherwise it would be 70 years after longest living creator in Europe - Ub Iwerks died in 1971.

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

#80

Post by benj111 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

blagie wrote: post #62

benj111 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever…

You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. However, a mechanism which works for Star Wars and Mickey Mouse, but not for a short story, a play, or a specialized piece of software written by a single individual which e.g. generates $20k / year, doesn't work for me. The length of the copyright shouldn't be proportional to the effort invested in the work. If a book my parents wrote…

I not wedded to this system.

My personal standpoint is that copywrite should be the minimum necessary to encourage and allow people to create works.

That would suggest to me somewhere south of 10 years, possibly varying with the specific art form.

The doubling fee thing is somewhat appealling because it acts as a tax on valuable works.

If Disney wants to spend millions to protect Mickey mouse then there is that option, yes the public domain loses, but the tax acts as compensation for that.

I don't see why this doesn't work for the little guy. If they want to pay the fees they can, the point is people are only going to pay fees if it's worth it. That applies to Disney or Joe blogs. If it isn't worth $1/$2/$4 why should you get to stop everyone else using it?