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

81–90 of 115 posts

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

#81

Post by bryanrasmussen »

benj111 wrote: post #77
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 s…

>Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections...That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours.

Define I am not talking about my opinions about stuff, I'm talking about what the legal concepts are regarding copyright in the EU.

The EU is a place that is not America. The EU has more stringent copyright rules for non-corporate copyright holders (where it is 70 years after death of longest living creator, if Steamboat Willie was owned by its creators instead of Walt Disney corporation it would still not be Public Domain in Europe)

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

I do not believe the EU has been influenced by the U.S to make a copyright system that is more strict than the copyright system of the U.S. It makes more sense to suggest their copyright system is more strict because they have a different model of what a copyright system is for that would argue for a stricter system of copyright.

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

#82

Post by PoignardAzur »

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…

> The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views.

Yeah. It wouldn't be too bad in other cases that just uploaded Steamboat Willie as-is as a statement, but in this case Baker actually did his own parody dub, so it's especially egregious.

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

#83

Post by bryanrasmussen »

randomdata wrote: post #74
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 utte…

please see other responses - the U.S model of copyright is not the only one in the world and many other places do not believe the purpose of copyright is to foster human progress.

>Moreover, while your entire story has proved a complete and utter failure

I'm thinking you probably don't know anything about the pricing of short stories?

At any rate in the example given I supposed that a short story can earn higher rates than normal rates for short story publication which might, if you are lucky, be somewhere around a few thousand dollars at publication in magazine form, some more thousands at winning an award, and then in a collection of short stories where it might reliably earn 10000 dollars a year (for its share of the whole collection length of something), note - that would be an extremely successful short story as far as short stories go (without selling media rights)

Obviously this varies depending on where you sell your stuff, and if you earn money for awards.

Let's say you sell to the New Yorker http://quick-brown-fox-canada.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-new-y... so you earn about 7,500 for the short story.

The award that has paid out the most for a short story ever evidently paid 30 thousand pounds https://lithub.com/read-the-story-that-just-won-the-biggest-...

You may not know this but very few stories win awards, awards being structured to be relatively rare. Obviously if someone has not one an award for their short story you may consider that their work has been a complete and utter failure, but even so...

let us consider if someone sold to the New Yorker, which hopefully you will agree is likely to be one of the better paying markets and evidently by your calculation one of the short story markets that publishes things that are not complete and utter failures (because it pays more than others right?), and if they then won the highest paying award ever they would have another 30,000, now assuming this short story is part of a collection of short stories and the author is really popular I think we can say this short story in the collection makes about 10,000 per year.

in 16 years that is - for one of the most successful short stories in the world - 197,500 dollars.

on edit: I really find it amusing that HN of all places really wants to limit how people can make money on what is an entrepreneurial activity - sitting down and writing a story and then trying to sell it.

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

#84

Post by vegadw »

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…

A fee, be it $5 or $1 doubling each year, doesn't work well for a variety of reasons.

1. Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable - Disney may lock things up to claim a catalog even if most, independently, isn't worth much.

2. What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode?

3. Some works exist in much higher quantity. Ie, photography vs video games. A photographer would have to increase their prices dramatically to retain copyright for even a short period.

I am all for copyright reform, but this option doesn't work. I'm a much bigger fan of the idea of everything being public domain PERIOD with the arts being publicly funded - Ben Jordan has a great video defending this idea I can't link to easily while at work.

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

#85

Post by randomdata »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #83
randomdata wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 utte…

please see other responses - the U.S model of copyright is not the only one in the world and many other places do not believe the purpose of copyright is to foster human progress. >Moreover, while your entire story has proved a complete and utter failure I'm thinking you probably don't know anything about the pricing of short stories? At any rate in the example given I supposed that a short story can earn higher rate…

> the U.S model of copyright is not the only one in the world and many other places do not believe the purpose of copyright is to foster human progress.

In democratic places, copyright is extended for the benefit of the population at large. That does not necessarily mean fostering human progress, but it does mean something that benefits the population as a whole. Copyright can be taken away if the people at large don't see some kind benefit.

> I'm thinking you probably don't know anything about the pricing of short stories?

If exchanged for $1 per copy, you have a theoretical ~$8 billion dollar market. $65k is chump change in comparison. Hell, make it 1¢ – that's still $80 million. If you have not captured anywhere close to those numbers, you have either failed to do your work justice in distribution or it is actually worthless. Either way, in that state what is the benefit to you holding it back?

> Let's say you sell to the New Yorker http://quick-brown-fox-canada.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-new-y... so you earn about 7,500 for the short story.

But in that case you can sell the copyright, so they would inherit the copyright cost. Whether or not they see $65k worth of copyright value is up to them. It would no longer be your burden if you return to your minimum wage job after the sale.

> I really find it amusing that HN of all places really wants to limit how people can make money on what is an entrepreneurial activity

I find it amusing that someone, on HN of all places, falls down to basic logic. An idea posted on an internet forum does not imply one's wants or desires.

Moreover, for practical purposes, why would you even talk about what you actually want? The thing you have chosen as your want is where you will have already put in the most thought effort. What more are you going to learn once you have settled on something? The things you don't want are going to provide a much more interesting discussion and opportunities to learn.

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

#86

Post by freejazz »

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…

>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

Often when I see posts like this, I wonder what the posters actually know about copyright.

In order to bring any copyright action in the US, your work needs to be registered, which costs a bit more than $5, and also requires sending deposit copies to the the copyright office to be maintained in the library of congress.

>3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection.

Who cares? Honestly - what difference does it make? Has your macaroni art piece caused unnecessary litigation? are people afraid to make other macaroni sculptures, knowing that you made yours? What have you actually thought about copyright, its incentives, structures, and the creative market, if you are seriously making this assertion in the face of these obvious questions?

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

#87

Post by freejazz »

NewJazz wrote: post #48
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 hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.

All creators maintain copyright in their works, unless its specifically stated that it's a work for hire, or you specifically transfer the copyright in a written document. Copyrights accrue to the creators of things, not the financiers of things. It is often the case that creators of things sell their copyright interest to financiers, so the financiers can capitalize on the exclusive rights the copyright grants.

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

#88

Post by freejazz »

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

You're an attorney and don't know that copyright infringement is a strict liability offense?

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

#89

Post by freejazz »

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.

I'll copy your post verbatim. Sue me.

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

#90

Post by freejazz »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #63
johnnyanmac wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already asserted that this would not expand the public domain. People just won't publicly post as readily as they do now. You have a very charitable interpretation that assumes we would get the exact same code output we do now despite a radical change in how ownership works. >Code by default is usable by anyone. "by default". Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losse…

> Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large. Huh? It's no change at all for someone who wants to retain copyright. They would just need to file to register. > We just have a reference on what NOT to write. You may be confused. This is how it already works. No change.

Do you realize to bring a copyright action you have to register the work? Your theory is not going to change anything, because it's based on false premises.
Post reply on HN