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

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

#91

Post by bryanrasmussen » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 5:40 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #85

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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.

OK, well thanks for the confirmation.

>I find it amusing that someone, on HN of all places, falls down to basic logic.

Hey! Me too! We do have something in common after all!!

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

#92

Post by randomdata » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 6:03 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #91

randomdata wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> 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. OK, well thanks for the…

> OK, well thanks for the confirmation.

Glad we both recognize that short stories are effectively worthless. Even the most recognized short story I know of sold for, according to your figures, basically nothing. Why are we trying to keep that under a super important lock and key again?

> Hey! Me too! We do have something in common after all!!

I know. You already told us in the previous comment that you were amused by it. Thanks for telling us again, I guess.

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

#93

Post by anticensor » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 7:59 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.…

OK then, perpetual moral rights (excluding the right to revocation, which should also be limited to 21 years) but only 21 years of economic rights, that would solve the problem you brought forward.

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

#94

Post by benj111 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 7:59 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #81

benj111 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well we both seem to disagree with the current system, as we're talking about alternatives

So in the hypotheticals we're discussing, why are you pointing out it isn't compatible with the legal concepts of the current system, unless you want to keep those concepts?

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

#95

Post by anticensor » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 8:01 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…

surreptiously loses the copyright guid for the work, slipping stuff to the public domain

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

#96

Post by joquarky » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 8:22 PM UTC

bdw5204 wrote: post #45

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…

Originally, US copyrights were 14 years with an optional 14 year renewal and you had to register it with the government and deposit a copy of it in the Library of Congress [0]. Copyrights were also limited to Americans because the purpose of the law was "the encouragement of learning" not allowing corporations to profit off of stuff they made a century ago. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution also s…

At one point, an IP lobbyist tried to push the interpretation of "limited time" to "forever minus a day".

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

#97

Post by throwaway09223 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 8:39 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #90

throwaway09223 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit.

Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.

Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.

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

#98

Post by blagie » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 12:39 AM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #80

blagie wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 optio…

Honestly, I think it depends on the form of the work.

* I'd be supportive with 10 years for software, articles (newspaper or scientific journal), and similar things which go out-of-date quickly.

* I would be supportive of 10-20 years for things which make most of the profit in the first few years, such as movies.

* I'd be supportive of 20-30 years for music, where it often really does take a while to build up an audience and to cover costs.

* I'd be supportive of the lesser of the authors' life and 50 years for things like books. A lot of books take a long time before they begin generating any sort of reasonable returns.

The little guy won't be able to afford this for more than 7-11 years. The big guy will be able to do so much longer. I'd actually rather flip it around so the little guy has longer copyright than megacorps.

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

#99

Post by turquoisevar » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 4:18 AM UTC

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.

The short answer: it depends.

The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement.

Slightly longer answer:

In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive).

Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).

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

#100

Post by bryanrasmussen » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 8:15 AM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #94

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Well we both seem to disagree with the current system, as we're talking about alternatives So in the hypotheticals we're discussing, why are you pointing out it isn't compatible with the legal concepts of the current system, unless you want to keep those concepts?

OK well I guess I think your hypotheticals are

1. Even if only limited to U.S extremely unlikely to ever be implemented.

2. because of EU and other regional differences regarding copyright's purposes your hypothetical has actually no chance of ever being enacted outside the U.S

3. if your hypothetical was enacted inside U.S but not outside it would not solve the issue I find most irritating, near impossibility for people who do not have a team for dealing with these things to figure out if something is actually Public Domain or not?!?

I recently had Google tell me it thought a video was copyrighted but it is definitely public domain in U.S but they might be right because hey some of the people who worked on the movie the video was taken from died in 1960s - so when does it run out of copyright well I can't track that down so I better not use that for what I want to do with it.

Lord Dunsany died in 1957, I have a lot of uses for his stuff lined up but I better not do anything about it until 2027.

My hypothetical is bring systems better in alignment - hopefully making EU more limited like U.S and thus people who want to use something to make art etc. can figure out exactly if it is in PD or not simply. Because that is the real copyright problem holding back small creators.