4 ms·

It sounds a bit like saying that any classic painting was 90% created from materials provided by other companies: canvas, oil colors, various chemicals, and pai

It sounds a bit like saying that any classic painting was 90% created from materials provided by other companies: canvas, oil colors, various chemicals, and painter just used those, but then took all the credits. The thing is that the value comes from the uniqueness of the final work, and painter and in this case the streamer are the only ones who provide that crucial element. Without them there's nothing, viewers wouldn't watch it, so you can fully argue that streamers are in fact the creators of the original content streamed. Re-uploaders on the other hand create derivative work, and there are strict and well-established rules on that.

dleslie 7y ago
Classic painters often mixed their own paints; or had a team of understudies who would do it. They didn't simply pop on down to the general store and buy some paint. As to your argument; the re-uploaders create additional value of their own, and it's no less derivative or valid than the work of a streamer.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  OK, imprecision on my side, under "any classic painting" (note "classic", not "classical") I really meant just "a painting" in a usual sense of it, not some post-modern "thing" or performance or whatever... however for my point it really doesn't matter who painted it, let's presume it was my grandma, who just finished watching some Bob Ross videos on youtube, popped down to the general store to buy some paints and brushes, and painted some still life for her own pleasure. It's still 100% her original work, not paint manufacturer's, nor Bob Ross's. Derivative work is well, derivative, and it's regulated by the law, whether it's a translation or sampling of music or video compilation. Depending on the country/state the definition by law differs, but generally you're allowed to use only small portions of other people's work and there's a requirement to create something that is significantly different to the work used, so that it can be considered as an original piece. So re-uploading is very fringe activity in the eyes of the copyright law.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    Streamers are also creating derivative works; few would be as popular if their streams could not feature gameplay footage, and their use of such stretches well beyond short clips for review or parody. Re-uploaders pare down lengthy streams, edit multiple streams together, and engage in other content modifying behaviour. Their work, though derivative, should be tolerated if we're going to tolerate the behaviour of streamers. Streamers argued for this tolerance, after all.

dleslie 7y ago

Classic painters often mixed their own paints; or had a team of understudies who would do it. They didn't simply pop on down to the general store and buy some paint. As to your argument; the re-uploaders create additional value of their own, and it's no less derivative or valid than the work of a streamer.

ivanhoe 7y ago
OK, imprecision on my side, under "any classic painting" (note "classic", not "classical") I really meant just "a painting" in a usual sense of it, not some post-modern "thing" or performance or whatever... however for my point it really doesn't matter who painted it, let's presume it was my grandma, who just finished watching some Bob Ross videos on youtube, popped down to the general store to buy some paints and brushes, and painted some still life for her own pleasure. It's still 100% her original work, not paint manufacturer's, nor Bob Ross's. Derivative work is well, derivative, and it's regulated by the law, whether it's a translation or sampling of music or video compilation. Depending on the country/state the definition by law differs, but generally you're allowed to use only small portions of other people's work and there's a requirement to create something that is significantly different to the work used, so that it can be considered as an original piece. So re-uploading is very fringe activity in the eyes of the copyright law.
- dleslie 7y ago
  Streamers are also creating derivative works; few would be as popular if their streams could not feature gameplay footage, and their use of such stretches well beyond short clips for review or parody. Re-uploaders pare down lengthy streams, edit multiple streams together, and engage in other content modifying behaviour. Their work, though derivative, should be tolerated if we're going to tolerate the behaviour of streamers. Streamers argued for this tolerance, after all.