5 ms·
Mr. Beast video taken down due to CSS toggle copyright claim
- torartc 3y agoHow is this different than a big brand stealing a design and putting it on a Tshirt? The product in question is a video and it used art without permission.
- LordShredda 3y agoThe difference is that YouTube has a user friendly button to ruin people's channels, while big brands actually need a lawyer to send a C&D
- hmcq6 3y ago"ruin" ohhh puleaze. It turns off monetization for one video. Unless you fuck up 3 times, then maybe it "ruins" your channel. And if it's a fraudulent strike the person who filed the fraudulent strike gets a strike. Meanwhile you can send as many phony C&Ds as you want.
- vanchor3 3y ago> Unless you fuck up 3 times, then maybe it "ruins" your channel. So by "fuck up" you mean having at least 3 videos on your channel which can receive fraudulent claims. Only stupid content creators make the mistake of having more than two videos I guess. > And if it's a fraudulent strike the person who filed the fraudulent strike gets a strike. If only it were that simple. If you try to tell Youtube it's fraudulent you get a response 12 seconds later that they reviewed it and it's valid.
- gammalost 3y agoBut in this case it wasn't fraudulent. So what is the issue?
- nomel 3y agoI think the issue is all the other cases, where it is fraudulent. For example, millions within 6 months [1]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22820318/youtube-copyright-claims-transparency-report https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22820318/youtube-copyrigh...
- hmcq6 3y ago"The 2.2 million incorrect claims represent less than 1 percent of the more than 729 million total copyright claims issued in the first half of this year, 99 percent of which originated from Content ID, YouTube’s automated enforcement tool. When users disputed these claims, the case was resolved in favor of the uploader of the video 60 percent of the time, according to the report." You're using numbers from a completely different issue. This isn't the automated Content ID system this is a manual claim.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fckthisguy 3y agoMost videos like this make the majority of their money in the first few days. If they get demonetized, they're effectively dead. Considering the huge costs involved, that's pretty bad.
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago[dead]
- semi 3y agoThe 'fuck ups' can be retroactive through. So you could do something that was totally fine and make multiple videos of said things, then have all of them individually flagged at some point in the future. Nintendo has done this on multiple occasions.
- reportgunner 3y agoLast time I checked MrBeast was a big brand though.
- yunohn 3y agoThis is more equivalent to a transition image in a video featuring the T-shirt at some stage, and part of the transition is copyrighted, not the shirt itself.
- Jka9rhnDJos 3y agoBecause all public code on Codepen is MIT Licensed? https://blog.codepen.io/documentation/terms-of-service/#your-license-to-us https://blog.codepen.io/documentation/terms-of-service/#your...
- andrewmunsell 3y agoNon-Twitter, archive link: https://archive.is/R2sRo https://archive.is/R2sRo
- josefresco 3y agoNot a lot of context here. Was the "CSS toggle" an image inside a video?
- CharlesW 3y agoYes, it's poorly titled. The copyright was for the image/animation.
- xsmasher 3y agoI still don't understand. What was the topic of the video, and how was the image/animation involved?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rabbits_2002 3y agoit was just used as interstitial animation to show the time of day changed between shots it doesnt really have anything to do with CSS
- xsmasher 3y agoSome video editor is getting fired.
- rabbits_2002 3y agoweird case for sure, but if you run a billion dollar youtube channel you probably should vet your assets for copyright
- hn_shithole 3y ago[flagged]
- unixhero 3y agoNot a fan?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- randyrand 3y agoHere is the link to the CSS code that generated the video animation, afaict: https://codepen.io/jasontyler/pen/qEXzOQ https://codepen.io/jasontyler/pen/qEXzOQ But its not exactly the same, so maybe many other people have altered it.
- aaron695 3y agoExplained properly here - https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/mrbeasts-lost-at-sea-video-hit-with-copyright-claim-over-unlicensed-animation-2254667/ https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/mrbeasts-lost-at-sea-v...
- mock-possum 3y ago*supposedly
- fckthisguy 3y agoTo be clear, the copyright strike is for a small two second animation in the middle of a much larger video. The correct course of action here is for Mr Beast to apologize to the animation owner (AO) and to reupload the video with the animation removed. Or, to license the animation. YouTube should then lift demonization. AO didn't suffer any damage so there's no compensation owed. Legally, AO might be able to chase this but the payout will likely be far less than the court costs. Mr Beast seems to be a pretty upstanding guy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he licensed the animation for a generous price. Ultimately, it was the editor who messed up so the Mr Beast team need to review their processes.
- xethos 3y ago> Mr Beast seems to be a pretty upstanding guy How many people would have said the same about Linus Sebastion before Gamers Nexus' Steve Burke pointed out how they treated Billet Labs? Mr. Beast's actual job is cultivating a public persona. Being good at that doesn't make him a good person.
- lotsoweiners 3y agoHaving watched plenty of both of their videos, if I had to guess which was an asshole I’d have guessed Linus.