I'm not sire we need mainstream movies from popular shared universes if it comes to this...
A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#12Backrooms is a cultural artefact that was created in the commons. The idea of any degree of ownership is nonsensical and it's ludicrous they tried.
I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course). I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic…
I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they can explain what they've changed to make sure it never happens again, it's not resolved.
This is pointlessly hostile and counterproductive. They expressed a positive position and intention, which is wildly more just (as in justice) than what we get from the vast majority of producers in any medium, and is ten times more practically significant than whether or not they have a mechanism to prevent false positives from happening even ephemerally .
To parent's point, A24 is expressing respect for the community, but with no further commitment to do anything about it.
We use to point the finger at youtube channels uploading whole movies with a "no copyright intended, this isn't my work" as an expression of no ill intention in the description. I'd see this case as basically equivalent in regards to what they say their intentions are, and what they're actively doing.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they can explain what they've changed to make sure it never happens again, it's not resolved.
This is pointlessly hostile and counterproductive. They expressed a positive position and intention, which is wildly more just (as in justice) than what we get from the vast majority of producers in any medium, and is ten times more practically significant than whether or not they have a mechanism to prevent false positives from happening even ephemerally .
And yet not even half of what we deserve, which is the neutering of the ability of these automated systems to crush fair use and the enabling of them to actually help small creators who are having their rights trampled.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course). I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic…
I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.
it's called a "jury."
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#16"Yesterday we were made aware of an automated claim submitted to Redbubble on behalf of A24 and Backrooms movie. We immediately began the process to reverse it and reinstate the listing." It was a bug and has been resolved.
They got caught and made up an apology. And the fact that people believe it is why there's never any fear from companies about trying these things.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they can explain what they've changed to make sure it never happens again, it's not resolved.
This is pointlessly hostile and counterproductive. They expressed a positive position and intention, which is wildly more just (as in justice) than what we get from the vast majority of producers in any medium, and is ten times more practically significant than whether or not they have a mechanism to prevent false positives from happening even ephemerally .
As far as I can tell, the whole point of the backrooms meme is pointlessly hostile and counterproductive petty arguments about ideas of what "backrooms" means and who owns those ideas.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#18Allegedly Kane Parsons is stepping in and stopping this nonsense https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyr...
He's signing on to become part of the A24 slop machine now. I'm not as intrigued by his story as I was at first. He's doing their damage control.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#19Backrooms is a cultural artefact that was created in the commons. The idea of any degree of ownership is nonsensical and it's ludicrous they tried.
I mean, this but all IP.
The Trollface guy did apparently get a copyright upheld and tbh that was one of the things that put me off copyright.
Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie
#20These companies hire out third parties who are very aggressive and often use half-assed automated systems with no oversight to find "infringing" content. They don't care about the accuracy of their notices. They know most people won't know how to combat this or won't risk the fallback from the platform if they try to fight it. The platforms themselves make their process convoluted and automated because they don't want to pay a person to deal with the flood of DMCA notices or the complaints from their users who are getting screwed over by them. It's very telling how often these things only get resolved once it's publicly posted about on social media. Support shouldn't be something users can only get if their complaints get enough likes/views/upvotes on other platforms.
The companies carelessly sending out DMCA notices just want big numbers they can put in reports to the people paying them. "Look how many takedowns this month! Your copyrighted works are so popular and everyone is trying to steal from you! Better keep paying us for protection!"
Actual DMCA notices are sent "under penalty of perjury" and with a "good faith belief" of accuracy, but nothing happens when they do this shit anyway. Platforms can act on any request even if it's not a proper notice under the law just because it's easier for them. Until copyright holders start seeing severe consequences for abusing copyright law this is just going to continue because it's profitable for them to screw over the artists whose works get attacked.