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

101–110 of 115 posts

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

#101

Post by majewsky »

vegadw wrote: post #84
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 ga…

> Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable

$1 doubling each year would be over $1 million after just 20 years, and over $1 billion after 30 years. Out of the big catalog of circa 30-year-old Disney content, maybe The Lion King still brings in enough revenue to justify a billion dollar yearly copyright fee, but most other stuff from that era sure won't.

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

Now this is the billion-dollar question (pun absolutely intended).

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

#102

Post by bryanrasmussen »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #100
benj111 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

a propos the Lord Dunsany thing - I just wait for 2027 no big thing, the big thing for me is when I think I know something is public domain spend some time to start on it and realize no wait - maybe it isn't. For example I was sure Dunsany was public, I saw he was I started and then I happened to come across a notice that it might not be. I was surprised - I thought he died in the 1940s.

In the context of reusing parts of movies it is difficult to figure out if it is in PD or not because the +70 years applies to major creators - is that director, producer, major actor?

I have a great use for Beat The Devil - that's in public domain in U.S because copyright not renewed - but not sure if that is really the case in European countries. Everything I do to research suggests it is - but... it's too much of a mess to realistically be absolutely certain. Probably is because surely the copyright must have been owned by United Artists so 70 years from 2023 at worst - maybe... but I mean John Huston died in 1987, in some places it was released in 1955 - so if 70 years from public release that's 2025? If 70 years from Huston's death forget about it.

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

#103

Post by freejazz »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #97
freejazz wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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

It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop...).

>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.

Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.

>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.

You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.

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

#104

Post by throwaway09223 »

freejazz wrote: post #103
throwaway09223 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit. It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop... ). >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 n…

> It is

It is not, as explained by your own link. You should read your own link. Registering makes it enormously easier and nearly everyone will register prior to bringing a suit, but it is absolutely not required -- again, as your link clearly explains.

Furthermore, your point is academic because what people do in practice is simply register just prior to bringing a suit (after the infringement takes place)

> Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.

Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.

> You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.

The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.

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

#105

Post by freejazz »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #104
freejazz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit. It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop... ). >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 n…

> It is It is not, as explained by your own link. You should read your own link. Registering makes it enormously easier and nearly everyone will register prior to bringing a suit, but it is absolutely not required -- again, as your link clearly explains. Furthermore, your point is academic because what people do in practice is simply register just prior to bringing a suit (after the infringement takes place) > Servic…

>It is not, as explained by your own link. You should read your own link. Registering makes it enormously easier and nearly everyone will register prior to bringing a suit, but it is absolutely not required -- again, as your link clearly explains.

Oh so you're making a point about the narrow exceptions that generally don't apply? I'm not going to engage in a bad faith conversation like this. If you are suing over a US work, the only way to bring suit is to have a registration, been refused a registration, or, as you seem to think is an incredibly important distinction, is a VARA work. Do you litigate copyrights? Where exactly are you coming from on this?

>Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.

No, they wont in the absence proof of ownership of a work which is conventionally reflected in a registered copyright.

>The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.

No, it doesn't.

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

#106

Post by antasvara »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #46
antasvara wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference. Having an easily accessible registry of copyrighted code would make it easy to "patent troll" any open source projects. The reverse is also true, but open source projects have much less money to dedicate to legal battles.

No, this isn't true at all. Because everything is presumably under copyright already we already have such a database. It's simply "everything" The difference here is that the vast majority of works would suddenly be free from this system and unavailable for any type of IP litigation.

What's easier to search: the entire internet, or a database of copyrighted code tagged with the owner of said code?

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

#107

Post by chottocharaii »

freejazz wrote: post #88
chottocharaii wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In ‘orphan work’ situations as long as a person had made a good faith effort to locate the copyright owner, and therefore isn’t infringing someone’s copyright wilfully; criminal liability won’t apply. The worst you’ll realistically face is an after the fact civil suit

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

#108

Post by chottocharaii »

andreareina wrote: post #67
chottocharaii wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You willing to have your clients rely on your advice as counsel to do that?

Riskier legal plays have been made

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

#109

Post by chottocharaii »

coldacid wrote: post #71
chottocharaii wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area

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

#110

Post by freejazz »

chottocharaii wrote: post #107
freejazz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

In ‘orphan work’ situations as long as a person had made a good faith effort to locate the copyright owner, and therefore isn’t infringing someone’s copyright wilfully; criminal liability won’t apply. The worst you’ll realistically face is an after the fact civil suit

Lol who on earth is talking about criminal prosecution of copyright? Copyright is a strict liability civil offense.
Post reply on HN