Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#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 thus the most money). It might've been only blocked for a day, but it was one of the most critical days. But good news! It was unblocked.
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#3It's been copyright claimed again:
https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#4It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#5It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired).
But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike systems for the content.
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…
That sounds like it should be their problem and they should still be held accountable for not caring enough to disable any automated flagging/filing
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…
If your computer program perjures itself who is liable?
I mean, realistically no one because Di$ney but maybe they should get enough of a wrist slap to update their algorithm to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…
Automated or not it should still be perjury, shouldn't it?
I could argue it is even worse if a company their size who definitely has the legal capacity to know about these issues have actually automated perjury.
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike syst…
It should be negligence to not associate an expiration date in the content ID DB
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#10> 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…
I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.