4 ms·

Only if you're using other people's work. Make your own original content and there isn't nearly as much of a problem. Who says everyone should have the right to

Only if you're using other people's work. Make your own original content and there isn't nearly as much of a problem. Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? especially one that's only considered good because of all the money spent on marketing it.

caf 7y ago
If you don't consider Every Frame A Painting to be original work, then I think this is just one of those situations where there is so little common ground between two sides that there can never be any agreement.
- wtallis 7y ago
  I'm not sure you should even bother framing things in terms of "common ground" or "two sides" when it's clear that one party is trying to define original work so narrowly that it's doubtful anything could qualify.
autoexec 7y ago
> Only if you're using other people's work. Many people have had their videos censored without violating any copyrights at all. Many many more have had their original content removed for what would clearly fall under fair use. I haven't seen a case where a large media company has ever been meaningfully punished for blatant abuse of the DMCA. > Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? Who says someone should be able to buy the rights to profit off someone else's work and then continue to profit on it indefinitely? It's in our power to choose what copyright means. Right now we've ceded that power to media companies who have bribed their way into getting the laws they want passed and into positions of power within our government itself. They've used that power to turn a good idea (limited protections to give creators a chance to profit from their works) into the broken system we have now where copyrights are perpetually extended and creators are routinely screwed over by massive corporations who want to act as gatekeepers.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  A lot of people seem to be reading something else into my comment so this is sort of a reply to all of them. The images in Every Frame a Painting are almost entirely other people's work. I'm not saying it's not legal fair use or that they didn't add their own creative and hard work on too, but it's still other people's work. They could have made their own movie scenes but that would probably be too expensive so they used someone else's. There are other creators who do make their own images and music, and they won't be struggling with copyright for the most part. Maybe people are defensive because EFAP is so obviously and heavily using copyright protected work and they feel the need to point out that it's also got original material too in case people think it's just a bunch of random movie clips. I've heard a lot of Youtube creators complain about copyright detection but in every case that I can recall, they really did use somebody else's work and the algorithm correctly detected it. It might not have correctly judged fair use, that's not my point. Interesting cases of raindrops are exceptional and I'm sure are not a normal concern at all. As for indefinite copyright, that's a separate point, but why not? Copyright protection doesn't prevent anybody else from doing anything as long as they don't copy your work. So in the worse case, it's as if you never made the protected work in the first place. That's not like patents which can be for important non-creative inventions that can't necessarily be done just as well some other way. It's all creative work and there's nothing stopping somebody else from making something just as good without copying it.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > They could have made their own movie scenes but that would probably be too expensive so they used someone else's. That's like saying when you copied part of the previous comment[1], you could have written your own quote instead. EFAP's whole point is analysing the movies we have seen; creating their own scenes is not just more expensive, it would be missing the point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20388320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20388320
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > I've heard a lot of Youtube creators complain about copyright detection but in every case that I can recall, they really did use somebody else's work and the algorithm correctly detected it Then let me help you: https://www.eff.org/takedowns https://www.eff.org/takedowns
Ygg2 7y ago
You can upload sound of rain and it will get a YouTube strike. A sound. Generated by nature. Produced uniquely at your own location. Is copyrighted. What are you even on about?
scrollaway 7y ago
I can't tell if you're trolling. EFAP is incredibly high quality original content that analyzes film and tv. Obviously it has to use other people's work, as that work is the subject of the video.

caf 7y ago

If you don't consider Every Frame A Painting to be original work, then I think this is just one of those situations where there is so little common ground between two sides that there can never be any agreement.

wtallis 7y ago
I'm not sure you should even bother framing things in terms of "common ground" or "two sides" when it's clear that one party is trying to define original work so narrowly that it's doubtful anything could qualify.

autoexec 7y ago

> Only if you're using other people's work. Many people have had their videos censored without violating any copyrights at all. Many many more have had their original content removed for what would clearly fall under fair use. I haven't seen a case where a large media company has ever been meaningfully punished for blatant abuse of the DMCA. > Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? Who says someone should be able to buy the rights to profit off someone else's work and then continue to profit on it indefinitely? It's in our power to choose what copyright means. Right now we've ceded that power to media companies who have bribed their way into getting the laws they want passed and into positions of power within our government itself. They've used that power to turn a good idea (limited protections to give creators a chance to profit from their works) into the broken system we have now where copyrights are perpetually extended and creators are routinely screwed over by massive corporations who want to act as gatekeepers.

lopmotr 7y ago
A lot of people seem to be reading something else into my comment so this is sort of a reply to all of them. The images in Every Frame a Painting are almost entirely other people's work. I'm not saying it's not legal fair use or that they didn't add their own creative and hard work on too, but it's still other people's work. They could have made their own movie scenes but that would probably be too expensive so they used someone else's. There are other creators who do make their own images and music, and they won't be struggling with copyright for the most part. Maybe people are defensive because EFAP is so obviously and heavily using copyright protected work and they feel the need to point out that it's also got original material too in case people think it's just a bunch of random movie clips. I've heard a lot of Youtube creators complain about copyright detection but in every case that I can recall, they really did use somebody else's work and the algorithm correctly detected it. It might not have correctly judged fair use, that's not my point. Interesting cases of raindrops are exceptional and I'm sure are not a normal concern at all. As for indefinite copyright, that's a separate point, but why not? Copyright protection doesn't prevent anybody else from doing anything as long as they don't copy your work. So in the worse case, it's as if you never made the protected work in the first place. That's not like patents which can be for important non-creative inventions that can't necessarily be done just as well some other way. It's all creative work and there's nothing stopping somebody else from making something just as good without copying it.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > They could have made their own movie scenes but that would probably be too expensive so they used someone else's. That's like saying when you copied part of the previous comment[1], you could have written your own quote instead. EFAP's whole point is analysing the movies we have seen; creating their own scenes is not just more expensive, it would be missing the point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20388320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20388320
- icebraining 7y ago
  > I've heard a lot of Youtube creators complain about copyright detection but in every case that I can recall, they really did use somebody else's work and the algorithm correctly detected it Then let me help you: https://www.eff.org/takedowns https://www.eff.org/takedowns

Ygg2 7y ago

You can upload sound of rain and it will get a YouTube strike. A sound. Generated by nature. Produced uniquely at your own location. Is copyrighted. What are you even on about?

scrollaway 7y ago

I can't tell if you're trolling. EFAP is incredibly high quality original content that analyzes film and tv. Obviously it has to use other people's work, as that work is the subject of the video.