4 ms·

How 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 ago
The 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 ago
      But in this case it wasn't fraudulent. So what is the issue?
      - nomel 3y ago
        I 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 ago
    Most 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 ago
    The '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 ago
  Last time I checked MrBeast was a big brand though.
yunohn 3y ago
This 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 ago
Because 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...

LordShredda 3y ago

The 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 ago
    But in this case it wasn't fraudulent. So what is the issue?
    - nomel 3y ago
      I 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 ago
  Most 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 ago
  The '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 ago
Last time I checked MrBeast was a big brand though.

yunohn 3y ago

This 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 ago

Because 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...