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

41–50 of 115 posts

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

#41

Post by fbdab103 »

johnnyo wrote: post #40
GuB-42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. S…

My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest. “WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.

Some shows have aired with the music replaced. I recently re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the iconic closing music (Fly Me to the Moon) was replaced with something else entirely.

We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.

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

#42

Post by przemub »

GuB-42 wrote: post #34
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 know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. S…

May you dm me the novel? I'm curious if I've had a chance to read it!

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

#43

Post by antasvara »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #38
johnnyanmac wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all. Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright. What really improves her…

> What really improves here? With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain. > It doesn't even benefit open source development. Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

>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.

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

#44

Post by GuB-42 »

przemub wrote: post #42
GuB-42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. S…

May you dm me the novel? I'm curious if I've had a chance to read it!

It was a french translation of the visual novel "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni" by 07th Expansion. The other one that didn't complete was "Umineko no Naku Koro ni".

That's the one: https://www.senscritique.com/contact/Saffran_Prod/507351

Note that an English translation of both games exist under the name "When they Cry", available on Steam, among others. It is actually a reedition of the game and not translated by the same person.

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

#45

Post by bdw5204 »

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 says that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and specifically requires that copyrights be for a limited time.

In other words, we basically had that and politicians created the current system of copyright out of it thanks to 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

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

#46

Post by throwaway09223 »

antasvara wrote: post #43
throwaway09223 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What really improves here? With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain. > It doesn't even benefit open source development. Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

>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.

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

#47

Post by randomdata »

blagie wrote: post #33
bilsbie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."

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?

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

#48

Post by NewJazz »

tkems wrote: post #26
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.

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.

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

#49

Post by jdlshore »

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.

It’s very common for portrait photographers to retain the copyright for photos they take, or at least it used to be.

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

#50

Post by johnnyanmac »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #38
johnnyanmac wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all. Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright. What really improves her…

> What really improves here? With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain. > It doesn't even benefit open source development. Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

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 losses are that large.

> registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

Sounds like a good recipe for more Oracle vs Google battles in my eyes. We just have a reference on what NOT to write. Now there will be discretion on if you just happened to write this kind of code or if you took X+1 lines of a code base when X is allowed. Very useless metrics for a productive piece of software, but the kind thst will absolutely be used by courts.

Post reply on HN