13 ms·

YouTube demonetizes public domain 'Steamboat Willie' video after copyright claim

342 points by dragonbonheur 3y ago

adaml_623 3y ago
A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  This isn't really an issue with YouTube's copyright system but in copyright laws.
  - orra 3y ago
    No, there's a problem with both. This was a Content ID complaint, not a DMCA takedown.
    - that_guy_iain 3y ago
      Why is the content id system there? Oh right to make sure they don't get sued to shit.
      - orra 3y ago
        Content ID is not required for YouTube to be protected by Safe Harbor.
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers. I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        You didn't claim anything. You implied that the content id system is created to make a former CEO money and in an illegal scheme. Which is complete nonsense and treated as such.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        I claimed that the reasons behind the existence and structure of the Content ID system are more complicated than just "avoiding lawsuits". I also pointed out that the primary source for that explanation is a CEO who is already known to have engaged in illegal cartel-like behavior. Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match, which it very obviously should. My experience on public domain English hymns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892.
  - wolframhempel 3y ago
    I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers. - If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers. So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      Design is driven by incentives.
    - chrismorgan 3y ago
      Content ID’s problem is that it’s unbalanced: the power to terminate your Google account (not just your YouTube channel!) is given to any unscrupulous actor. (I dunno, maybe they have some checks in place, but I’ve heard enough of nobodies managing completely fraudulent claims that I’m confident that if they intend such checks, they’re fallible.) There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices. The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly). And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse. —⁂— ¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.
nubinetwork 3y ago
It got caught right after they uploaded it. Basically content ID hasn't been updated yet. I would contest it.
kzrdude 3y ago
I assume content id database entries have expiry dates
- terramex 3y ago
  In most countries works go into public domain XX years after death of author. Predicting date of death is non-trivial problem.
  - ClassyJacket 3y ago
    Who is the author of a collaborative work like a film?
    - terramex 3y ago
      > According to UK copyright law, in order to know if a film is in the public domain you need to identify the following creators: (a) the principal director (b) the author of the screenplay (c) the author of the dialogue, and (d) the composer of music specially created for and used in the film > Copyright in the film expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last person listed above dies. Taken from: https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/
      - Snow_Falls 3y ago
        Interesting that the actors aren't taken into account, you would think so considering the large impact they have on the final product. Certainly more so than the music director. Maybe that last one is just a result of the powerful music lobby.
        daveoc64 3y ago
        I think it would be difficult to truly list all of the actors in a particular film, let alone establish when they all died. Do extras count? Many of them aren't going to be listed in the credits. Perhaps you could only count those actors listed in the credits at the end of the film and nobody else?
littlecranky67 3y ago
Maybe because in some countries (like Germany) it is not yet in public domain.
- ruune 3y ago
  YouTube forces everyone, independent of local laws, to work under the US's fair use laws, they could at least be consistent and not care if some country has other laws on copyright. Which is what they do mostly. If Germany was the problem, they'd make the upload inaccessible in Germany and leave it untouched for everyone else. Content-ID marking it globally is clearly an issue on YouTube's end
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    > YouTube forces everyone, independent of local laws, to work under the US's fair use laws No they don't. You must work under the fair use laws of every territory the content is available in. The US has a significantly wider fair use law than almost any other country on Earth. > If Germany was the problem, they'd make the upload inaccessible in Germany and leave it untouched for everyone else. They do - it is extremely common for items to be blocked to Japan especially, as Japan has very tight fair use provisions in particular.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  In Germany there is no public domain, so it never will be. It will be "gemeinfrei", which is a different thing, somewhen after 2036. Probably even only after 2058, because one of the composers of the music lived till 1988. EDIT: German Wikipedia says 2042.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    What are the practical differences between US public domain and German gemeinfrei?
    - anticensor 3y ago
      None, apart from the fact you cannot gegemeinfreien your work voluntarily.
d--b 3y ago
> A one-off mistake or a sign of copyright battles to come over Mickey Mouse? Or a stunt by a clever youtuber to make himself some free attention?
globular-toast 3y ago
YouTube could choose to continue to honour Disney's copyright forever. Yet another reason to get away from centralised platforms. YouTube could have been good. It could have spurred a copyright revolution. But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry so that a few execs could be in the top 1% of humanity during their short existence.
- chii 3y ago
  > But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry you mean youtube tried to obey the law? You cannot just unilaterally decide not to obey copyright laws. > It could have spurred a copyright revolution. I am not in favour of vigilantism - the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. For example, if enough people joined the Pirate Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party), such laws could be changed. It's just that most people dont give a shit about copyright, and this is the democratic outcome.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    > you mean youtube tried to obey the law? To be clear, YouTube's goal is not to obey the law, but to minimize their loss. This is why they entirely disregard key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke. Their implementation harms creators and redirects their earnings to companies that were never legally, contractually or morally entitled to it. > the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. Unless there is going to be fines for not allowing copyright unencumbered content to be displayed and monetized, no change of law is going to help here. Copyright law is twisted because of companies like Disney, but the underlying problem is that YouTube will only ever care about avoiding expensive litigation.
    - trogdor 3y ago
      >[YouTube] entirely disregard[s] key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke. I make my living from YouTube, and I am very familiar with their policies surrounding copyright. I think your characterization of YouTube in relation to copyright is totally off base. YouTube is covered by the DMCA, and YouTube responds to DMCA takedowns because if they don’t, they could be liable for contributory copyright infringement. The DMCA provides safe harbor to online service providers (OSPs) who follow its notice-and-takedown procedures. Those procedures don’t allow OSPs to make subjective decisions about whether fair use might apply in relation to a copyright claim. Nevertheless, YouTube sometimes does exactly that. YouTube responds to some DMCA takedowns by, instead of promptly taking the video down, requesting additional information from the claimant in support of their claim. As I understand the DMCA, that is YouTube going well-beyond their legal obligations - to their potential (albeit unlikely) detriment. So that’s the DMCA takedown process. Now let’s talk about Content ID. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with the option to provide a brief explanation of why the uploader believes the claim is invalid. If the dispute is rejected, that’s still not the end of the story. The uploader can press the dispute further. Doing so forces the claimant to either abandon their claim, or ‘upgrade’ it to a formal DMCA takedown. If a takedown is issued and the uploader believes their work is not infringing, they can respond with a counter-notification, which forces the claimant to either (a) sue the uploader within ten days, or (b) lose the dispute. In the latter case, the video goes back up and any escrow revenue - along with all future revenue - goes to the uploader instead of the copyright claimant. I am making two main points here: (1) I believe that YouTube does try to comply with the law. Whether they do so out of civic duty or “to avoid expensive litigation” is irrelevant. (2) Although the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions don’t allow OSPs to make subjective evaluations regarding fair use (while retaining their safe harbor), YouTube often does exactly that, when they feel it may be relevant. In fairness, I think part of that is because of they were emboldened by the recent-ish decision in Business Casual v. YouTube, but whatever the reason, it happens. And YouTube was doing that long before the decision in Business Casual. (Which held, in part, that YouTube can’t be liable for infringing the copyright of any content that is uploaded on YouTube, since their TOS include a provision that essentially grants YouTube a license to do whatever they want with the work. Crazy stuff.) There is more to copyright on YouTube, and I like to think that I am very familiar with how it all works. If you think I’m wrong about anything I wrote above, I am interested in hearing why. Similarly, if you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer them.
bni 3y ago
If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?
- japanman185 3y ago
  [dead]
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  In the UK, it was recently ruled that copyright could only apply to things not designed solely to replicate the original artefact. The context was museums licensing photographs of artefacts while keeping the originals locked away. From what I understand it's not been tested significantly in the US yet, though I could be wrong.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Although it’s somewhat different IANAL but Feist probably at least peripherally applies in that “sweat of the brow” doesn’t give you copyright. So with respect to the photographs, just because you spent days setting everything up to get the perfect reproduction, you probably still can’t get copyright on it.
  - vasco 3y ago
    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
  - yetanotherloser 3y ago
    There's a similar case in the US - Bridgeman vs Corel - that influenced the UK one. I don't think it forms a universal rule in the US, unlike the more recent UK ruling, but it is influential.
- LegitShady 3y ago
moomin 3y ago
In hbomberguy’s recent video about plagiarism, he points out that one of the dumb side effects of YouTube’s content ID policy is that claiming is so common and usually bad that people assume actual serious infringements are benign.
- safety1st 3y ago
  "Oops, just a bug" only goes so far. What's interesting about content ID is that only a select group of large copyright holders have access to protecting their works through it, and we have a growing number of cases where it makes "decisions" that are not in line with copyright law. So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Inquiring minds in the federal government might want to know.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    > So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Yes. In this case this is certainly because this footage is in Disney's YouTube CMS and set to be auto-claimed. The fact that we are at the whim of an admin doing the right thing and removing that content from their CMS or at the very least changing the policy attached to it is problematic at best.
    - safety1st 3y ago
      Intent is significant, it can determine outcomes in court rulings. So here we have this content ID system which Google claims exists to help some Google partners manage their copyright claims. One would think that would mean it helps them determine which claims are valid and which aren't. But it didn't appear to help Disney with that in this case, rather it enabled Disney to swiftly make an invalid claim after the film entered the public domain. So Google's tool in this case didn't help their partner manage valid copyright claims. Its just helped Disney suppress some other publisher. We've known for many years that Steamboat Willie would become public domain in 2024. If you were really trying to help your partners manage copyright claims wouldn't you build some notion of this into the system? Whereas if you were trying to kowtow to larger publishers in exchange for favors - maybe you would leave details like public domain out of your implementation. So what was Google's intent here? Of course they will have arguments like "it was a bug" or "that would be too hard," but finding out if those things are true is what you do discovery for.
fermigier 3y ago
"Here's my favorite example, here: 1928, my hero, Walt Disney, created this extraordinary work, the birth of Mickey Mouse in the form of Steamboat Willie. But what you probably don't recognize about Steamboat Willie and his emergence into Mickey Mouse is that in 1928, Walt Disney, to use the language of the Disney Corporation today, "stole" Willie from Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill." It was a parody, a take-off; it was built upon Steamboat Bill. Steamboat Bill was produced in 1928, no [waiting] 14 years--just take it, rip, mix, and burn, as he did [laughter] to produce the Disney empire. This was his character. Walt always parroted feature-length mainstream films to produce the Disney empire, and we see the product of this. This is the Disney Corporation: taking works in the public domain, and not even in the public domain, and turning them into vastly greater, new creativity. They took the works of this guy, these guys, the Brothers Grimm, who you think are probably great authors on their own. They produce these horrible stories, these fairy tales, which anybody should keep their children far from because they're utterly bloody and moralistic stories, and are not the sort of thing that children should see, but they were retold for us by the Disney Corporation. Now the Disney Corporation could do this because that culture lived in a commons, an intellectual commons, a cultural commons, where people could freely take and build. It was a lawyer-free zone." -- Lawrence Lessig, "Free Culture", OSCON 2002 (https://youtu.be/uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&t=253 https://youtu.be/uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&t=253)
- skummetmaelk 3y ago
  Take what you can, give nothing back. Apparently.
  - troupo 3y ago
    That has been Disney's motto since forever. The "golden age if Disney" is all public domain works and fairy tales.
    - HlessClaudesman 3y ago
      Public domain for thee, but not for me.
kitsune_ 3y ago
From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better balance between profit and public responsibility? Is it really just about money, status and working on "cool tech"? I see a lot of submissions about FAANG companies "doing wrong" on here but I rarely see a discussion about us software developers being active participants in this sort of behavior.
- thelastparadise 3y ago
  It's about the money.
- kriops 3y ago
  Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.). And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.
  - zanellato19 3y ago
    A corporation is a collection of people. If these people are doing immoral actions, so is the corporation. Everything that happens by human action is moral or immoral.
    - kriops 3y ago
      How do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders? I don’t think you can.
      - nsagent 3y ago
        It seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared, e.g. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism.
publiccopy 3y ago
it became public domain in the US. Disney still holds copyright elsewhere and Youtube must adhere to all national copyright laws in countries which have access to youtube
- saaaaaam 3y ago
  Not only this, but the musical works contained within the video may not be public domain. I can’t tell whether he has replaced all of the audio or dubbed his version on top of existing music.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  Pretty sure YouTube/Google have a notion of region and can selectively enforce copyright if they choose to.
  - saaaaaam 3y ago
    Yup, correct. And interestingly the article says it was in fact blocked from view in some territories. Which makes me think that the copyright claim is not actually about the video content but likely audio. So perhaps they have blocked in territories where the video is not yet public domain and there’s a copyright claim in the territory (USA) where some other copyright controlled element is causing an issue.
Joel_Mckay 3y ago
"Play stupid games... win stupid prizes." Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? i.e. each digitally remastered re-release essentially extends that versions protection another 85 years. =)
- trogdor 3y ago
  >Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? No. A 2018 9th Circuit decision held that remasters are not eligible for copyright protection because they lack originality. The case was ABS Entertainment Inc. v. CBS Corporation.
  - Joel_Mckay 3y ago
    "Burninating the countryside, Burninating the peasants, Burninating all the peoples" (Trogdor) From one monster to another, cheers =)
    - trogdor 3y ago
      Haha! Thanks, man! Back in high school, I bought their CD. [0] I wish I still had that thing. The packaging was hilarious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Bad_Sings_(and_Other_Type_Hits) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Bad_Sings_(and_Other_...
      - _chu1 3y ago
        I'm in high school now and I bought their sbemail DVD boxset
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jokoon 3y ago
I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. Is that because they partner with big movie/music industries? Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up.
- daveoc64 3y ago
  > I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. As others have noted, the Content ID system is in place to show that YouTube is proactively trying to do something about piracy - this makes the movie studios and record labels less likely to sue Google. > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video hosting and streaming on the scale of YouTube is expensive and probably can't be profitable. YouTube allows anyone to upload an unlimited amount of 4K video, make it available to everyone in the world - all free of charge. Advertising revenue won't cover everything, and of course, quite a few people are blocking ads. Services like Vimeo compete to some extent, but they acknowledge the expenses involved, so only cater for niche market segments. Things like PeerTube offer an alternative model, using peer to peer bandwidth to keep the costs down - but the federated nature of it makes it less likely to catch on in the mainstream like YouTube has.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Their main reason is to not get sued to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video is expensive. But competitors do pick up, just in different ways. TikTok and Twitch are strong competition, but they have a focus on different style of experience.
- stg22 3y ago
  Social media sites have so many users/viewings that fixed costs for serving all their content don't really matter to them, but since ads don't pay much per viewing, they have to cut the marginal costs of hosting and serving content to the bone to stay profitable. For every million pieces of user-generated content hosted, they get a certain number of copyright complaints, so handling those complaints is a marginal cost. Since the kind of uploaded content YouTube target is particularly prone to being a significant violation of copyright (e.g. entire films), handling the complaints cheaply is a particularly big concern for them. Handling them effectively and with common sense would require human processing of each complaint, but the effect of that on marginal costs wouldn't fit with the business model, so they go with a low-marginal cost, error-prone system instead. Since the consequences for the business of wrongly failing to take down copyrighted content can be very bad, but the consequences for the business of wrongly taking down uncopyrighted content are negligible, if the system must be error prone, they want their users to be on the wrong side of any errors, not the complainants. Any American rival to YouTube would have the same problem and would resolve it a similar way.
ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
Wire fraud?
KHRZ 3y ago
Disney also claimed copyright to my upload of Steamboat Willie to Facebook on January 1st. They have 1 week to review my dispute.
trogdor 3y ago
This article is misleading, since it omits very important information. See the screenshot provided by the YouTuber regarding the Content ID claim? Look at the far right of the screenshot. There’s a “Select Action” link. I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with the option to provide a brief explanation of why the uploader believes the claim is invalid. There’s even a radio button to select if you believe the material is in the public domain. If the initial dispute is rejected, that’s not the end of the story. The uploader can press the dispute further. Doing so forces the claimant to either abandon their claim, or ‘upgrade’ it to a formal DMCA takedown. If a takedown is issued and the uploader believes their work is not infringing, they can respond with a counter-notification, which forces the claimant to either (a) sue the uploader within ten days, or (b) lose the dispute. In the latter case, the video goes back up and any escrow revenue - along with all future revenue - goes to the uploader instead of the copyright claimant. Behind the “Select Action” link is the option to initiate the dispute process I just described. Which the uploader almost-certainly already did. Also behind that link, IIRC, is the option to contact the claimant via email. That can be an equally-effective path toward resolution, as it provides the opportunity for a more casual, professional dialog, outside of YouTube’s formal process. In fact, on one occasion I developed a positive and ongoing business relationship with another media outlet after being contacted by them regarding a claim that I had made in error. When Content ID first rolled out in 2007, it could be easily abused. And it was. But that was almost 17 years ago, and the way it works today is - dare I say - pretty good. Like any enormous system it has its problems, but on the whole it’s pretty fair. Edit: There is one other option behind the “Select Action” link. It’s irrelevant in this case, but I might as well include it here for completeness. If the claim involves only a portion of the video, or the audio in the video, the uploader is given options to (1) excise the claimed section of their video, (2) silence the audio in the claimed section, or (3) replace the claimed audio with music from YouTube’s (huge) library of free music. If the uploader chooses any one of those options, it immediately resolves the claim in their favor, since the claimed material is no longer present in their upload.
bertil 3y ago
Nothing says that YouTube (Google or Alphabet) cares a little too much about automated processes and not enough about making sense of what’s happening than they not have pro-actively removed that IP from their content recognition system—having implemented a way to do that systematically, even. This is the canonical piece of culture whose entry into the public domain was expected and celebrated. It’s the touchstone of copyright extension. If you work at YouTube, please get a couple of intelligent people to parse WikiData to flag those, ask rights-holders if they still want to extend strikes, and avoid getting egg on your face in straightforward cases.
zzzeek 3y ago
the article didn't seem to have it (?) so here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI
merdaverse 3y ago
Everyone and their grandmother knows that the video is public domain now. How is it possible that Disney and Youtube don't? How are people so incompetent calling the shots?

342 points by dragonbonheur 3y ago

adaml_623 3y ago

A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass/fail unit test on YouTube's copyright system.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
This isn't really an issue with YouTube's copyright system but in copyright laws.
- orra 3y ago
  No, there's a problem with both. This was a Content ID complaint, not a DMCA takedown.
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    Why is the content id system there? Oh right to make sure they don't get sued to shit.
    - orra 3y ago
      Content ID is not required for YouTube to be protected by Safe Harbor.
      - that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers. I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.
        that_guy_iain 3y ago
        You didn't claim anything. You implied that the content id system is created to make a former CEO money and in an illegal scheme. Which is complete nonsense and treated as such.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        I claimed that the reasons behind the existence and structure of the Content ID system are more complicated than just "avoiding lawsuits". I also pointed out that the primary source for that explanation is a CEO who is already known to have engaged in illegal cartel-like behavior. Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.
chrismorgan 3y ago
It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match, which it very obviously should. My experience on public domain English hymns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892.
- wolframhempel 3y ago
  I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators going to go instead? There is no video platform, long form or otherwise, that even remotely offers the level of revenue sharing that Youtube offers. - If Youtube, on the other hand, allows copy right infringing content to stay up , they risk multi million lawsuits by companies that make a living of selling and defending their rights, such as major labels or publishers. So, it's sort of a no-brainer for Youtube. If there's any non-zero chance of copyright infringement - take it down.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    Design is driven by incentives.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    Content ID’s problem is that it’s unbalanced: the power to terminate your Google account (not just your YouTube channel!) is given to any unscrupulous actor. (I dunno, maybe they have some checks in place, but I’ve heard enough of nobodies managing completely fraudulent claims that I’m confident that if they intend such checks, they’re fallible.) There’s already a system in place for removing infringing content: DMCA takedown notices. The only argument in favour of what Google has implemented is that it’s more gradual, allowing things like claimers to get ad money out of it instead of the poster, should claimers choose to. But you know what? They could have applied that extra logic to their DMCA process (and leave it all manual! That’s all the law requires!) or applied DMCA’s counternotice technique¹ to Content ID (still favouring claimers, but not so unfairly). And so I maintain: Content ID is broken by design, being designed for abuse. —⁂— ¹ Roughly, and from memory (exact numbers may not be correct): notice means take the content down and notify the user it was taken down; they can then file a counternotice, which will be passed to the taker-down, who then have two weeks to file suit in a court and notify the service provider to keep the thing down, or else after that two week period the provider must reinstate the content. Note that even a fraudulent notice will still result in the content being removed for two weeks.

nubinetwork 3y ago

It got caught right after they uploaded it. Basically content ID hasn't been updated yet. I would contest it.

kzrdude 3y ago

I assume content id database entries have expiry dates

terramex 3y ago
In most countries works go into public domain XX years after death of author. Predicting date of death is non-trivial problem.
- ClassyJacket 3y ago
  Who is the author of a collaborative work like a film?
  - terramex 3y ago
    > According to UK copyright law, in order to know if a film is in the public domain you need to identify the following creators: (a) the principal director (b) the author of the screenplay (c) the author of the dialogue, and (d) the composer of music specially created for and used in the film > Copyright in the film expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last person listed above dies. Taken from: https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/
    - Snow_Falls 3y ago
      Interesting that the actors aren't taken into account, you would think so considering the large impact they have on the final product. Certainly more so than the music director. Maybe that last one is just a result of the powerful music lobby.
      - daveoc64 3y ago
        I think it would be difficult to truly list all of the actors in a particular film, let alone establish when they all died. Do extras count? Many of them aren't going to be listed in the credits. Perhaps you could only count those actors listed in the credits at the end of the film and nobody else?

littlecranky67 3y ago

Maybe because in some countries (like Germany) it is not yet in public domain.

ruune 3y ago
YouTube forces everyone, independent of local laws, to work under the US's fair use laws, they could at least be consistent and not care if some country has other laws on copyright. Which is what they do mostly. If Germany was the problem, they'd make the upload inaccessible in Germany and leave it untouched for everyone else. Content-ID marking it globally is clearly an issue on YouTube's end
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > YouTube forces everyone, independent of local laws, to work under the US's fair use laws No they don't. You must work under the fair use laws of every territory the content is available in. The US has a significantly wider fair use law than almost any other country on Earth. > If Germany was the problem, they'd make the upload inaccessible in Germany and leave it untouched for everyone else. They do - it is extremely common for items to be blocked to Japan especially, as Japan has very tight fair use provisions in particular.
weinzierl 3y ago
In Germany there is no public domain, so it never will be. It will be "gemeinfrei", which is a different thing, somewhen after 2036. Probably even only after 2058, because one of the composers of the music lived till 1988. EDIT: German Wikipedia says 2042.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  What are the practical differences between US public domain and German gemeinfrei?
  - anticensor 3y ago
    None, apart from the fact you cannot gegemeinfreien your work voluntarily.

d--b 3y ago

> A one-off mistake or a sign of copyright battles to come over Mickey Mouse? Or a stunt by a clever youtuber to make himself some free attention?

globular-toast 3y ago

YouTube could choose to continue to honour Disney's copyright forever. Yet another reason to get away from centralised platforms. YouTube could have been good. It could have spurred a copyright revolution. But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry so that a few execs could be in the top 1% of humanity during their short existence.

chii 3y ago
> But instead it just bowed down to the copyright industry you mean youtube tried to obey the law? You cannot just unilaterally decide not to obey copyright laws. > It could have spurred a copyright revolution. I am not in favour of vigilantism - the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. For example, if enough people joined the Pirate Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party), such laws could be changed. It's just that most people dont give a shit about copyright, and this is the democratic outcome.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  > you mean youtube tried to obey the law? To be clear, YouTube's goal is not to obey the law, but to minimize their loss. This is why they entirely disregard key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke. Their implementation harms creators and redirects their earnings to companies that were never legally, contractually or morally entitled to it. > the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. Unless there is going to be fines for not allowing copyright unencumbered content to be displayed and monetized, no change of law is going to help here. Copyright law is twisted because of companies like Disney, but the underlying problem is that YouTube will only ever care about avoiding expensive litigation.
  - trogdor 3y ago
    >[YouTube] entirely disregard[s] key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke. I make my living from YouTube, and I am very familiar with their policies surrounding copyright. I think your characterization of YouTube in relation to copyright is totally off base. YouTube is covered by the DMCA, and YouTube responds to DMCA takedowns because if they don’t, they could be liable for contributory copyright infringement. The DMCA provides safe harbor to online service providers (OSPs) who follow its notice-and-takedown procedures. Those procedures don’t allow OSPs to make subjective decisions about whether fair use might apply in relation to a copyright claim. Nevertheless, YouTube sometimes does exactly that. YouTube responds to some DMCA takedowns by, instead of promptly taking the video down, requesting additional information from the claimant in support of their claim. As I understand the DMCA, that is YouTube going well-beyond their legal obligations - to their potential (albeit unlikely) detriment. So that’s the DMCA takedown process. Now let’s talk about Content ID. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with the option to provide a brief explanation of why the uploader believes the claim is invalid. If the dispute is rejected, that’s still not the end of the story. The uploader can press the dispute further. Doing so forces the claimant to either abandon their claim, or ‘upgrade’ it to a formal DMCA takedown. If a takedown is issued and the uploader believes their work is not infringing, they can respond with a counter-notification, which forces the claimant to either (a) sue the uploader within ten days, or (b) lose the dispute. In the latter case, the video goes back up and any escrow revenue - along with all future revenue - goes to the uploader instead of the copyright claimant. I am making two main points here: (1) I believe that YouTube does try to comply with the law. Whether they do so out of civic duty or “to avoid expensive litigation” is irrelevant. (2) Although the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions don’t allow OSPs to make subjective evaluations regarding fair use (while retaining their safe harbor), YouTube often does exactly that, when they feel it may be relevant. In fairness, I think part of that is because of they were emboldened by the recent-ish decision in Business Casual v. YouTube, but whatever the reason, it happens. And YouTube was doing that long before the decision in Business Casual. (Which held, in part, that YouTube can’t be liable for infringing the copyright of any content that is uploaded on YouTube, since their TOS include a provision that essentially grants YouTube a license to do whatever they want with the work. Crazy stuff.) There is more to copyright on YouTube, and I like to think that I am very familiar with how it all works. If you think I’m wrong about anything I wrote above, I am interested in hearing why. Similarly, if you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer them.

bni 3y ago

If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?

japanman185 3y ago
[dead]
stuartjohnson12 3y ago
In the UK, it was recently ruled that copyright could only apply to things not designed solely to replicate the original artefact. The context was museums licensing photographs of artefacts while keeping the originals locked away. From what I understand it's not been tested significantly in the US yet, though I could be wrong.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Although it’s somewhat different IANAL but Feist probably at least peripherally applies in that “sweat of the brow” doesn’t give you copyright. So with respect to the photographs, just because you spent days setting everything up to get the perfect reproduction, you probably still can’t get copyright on it.
- vasco 3y ago
  https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
- yetanotherloser 3y ago
  There's a similar case in the US - Bridgeman vs Corel - that influenced the UK one. I don't think it forms a universal rule in the US, unlike the more recent UK ruling, but it is influential.
LegitShady 3y ago

moomin 3y ago

In hbomberguy’s recent video about plagiarism, he points out that one of the dumb side effects of YouTube’s content ID policy is that claiming is so common and usually bad that people assume actual serious infringements are benign.

safety1st 3y ago
"Oops, just a bug" only goes so far. What's interesting about content ID is that only a select group of large copyright holders have access to protecting their works through it, and we have a growing number of cases where it makes "decisions" that are not in line with copyright law. So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Inquiring minds in the federal government might want to know.
- rezonant 3y ago
  > So is it a copyright enforcement system or is it really some kind of cartel mechanism which is replacing copyright law? Yes. In this case this is certainly because this footage is in Disney's YouTube CMS and set to be auto-claimed. The fact that we are at the whim of an admin doing the right thing and removing that content from their CMS or at the very least changing the policy attached to it is problematic at best.
  - safety1st 3y ago
    Intent is significant, it can determine outcomes in court rulings. So here we have this content ID system which Google claims exists to help some Google partners manage their copyright claims. One would think that would mean it helps them determine which claims are valid and which aren't. But it didn't appear to help Disney with that in this case, rather it enabled Disney to swiftly make an invalid claim after the film entered the public domain. So Google's tool in this case didn't help their partner manage valid copyright claims. Its just helped Disney suppress some other publisher. We've known for many years that Steamboat Willie would become public domain in 2024. If you were really trying to help your partners manage copyright claims wouldn't you build some notion of this into the system? Whereas if you were trying to kowtow to larger publishers in exchange for favors - maybe you would leave details like public domain out of your implementation. So what was Google's intent here? Of course they will have arguments like "it was a bug" or "that would be too hard," but finding out if those things are true is what you do discovery for.

fermigier 3y ago

"Here's my favorite example, here: 1928, my hero, Walt Disney, created this extraordinary work, the birth of Mickey Mouse in the form of Steamboat Willie. But what you probably don't recognize about Steamboat Willie and his emergence into Mickey Mouse is that in 1928, Walt Disney, to use the language of the Disney Corporation today, "stole" Willie from Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill." It was a parody, a take-off; it was built upon Steamboat Bill. Steamboat Bill was produced in 1928, no [waiting] 14 years--just take it, rip, mix, and burn, as he did [laughter] to produce the Disney empire. This was his character. Walt always parroted feature-length mainstream films to produce the Disney empire, and we see the product of this. This is the Disney Corporation: taking works in the public domain, and not even in the public domain, and turning them into vastly greater, new creativity. They took the works of this guy, these guys, the Brothers Grimm, who you think are probably great authors on their own. They produce these horrible stories, these fairy tales, which anybody should keep their children far from because they're utterly bloody and moralistic stories, and are not the sort of thing that children should see, but they were retold for us by the Disney Corporation. Now the Disney Corporation could do this because that culture lived in a commons, an intellectual commons, a cultural commons, where people could freely take and build. It was a lawyer-free zone." -- Lawrence Lessig, "Free Culture", OSCON 2002 (https://youtu.be/uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&t=253 https://youtu.be/uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&t=253)

skummetmaelk 3y ago
Take what you can, give nothing back. Apparently.
- troupo 3y ago
  That has been Disney's motto since forever. The "golden age if Disney" is all public domain works and fairy tales.
  - HlessClaudesman 3y ago
    Public domain for thee, but not for me.

kitsune_ 3y ago

From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better balance between profit and public responsibility? Is it really just about money, status and working on "cool tech"? I see a lot of submissions about FAANG companies "doing wrong" on here but I rarely see a discussion about us software developers being active participants in this sort of behavior.

thelastparadise 3y ago
It's about the money.
kriops 3y ago
Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.). And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.
- zanellato19 3y ago
  A corporation is a collection of people. If these people are doing immoral actions, so is the corporation. Everything that happens by human action is moral or immoral.
  - kriops 3y ago
    How do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders? I don’t think you can.
    - nsagent 3y ago
      It seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared, e.g. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism.

publiccopy 3y ago

it became public domain in the US. Disney still holds copyright elsewhere and Youtube must adhere to all national copyright laws in countries which have access to youtube

saaaaaam 3y ago
Not only this, but the musical works contained within the video may not be public domain. I can’t tell whether he has replaced all of the audio or dubbed his version on top of existing music.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Pretty sure YouTube/Google have a notion of region and can selectively enforce copyright if they choose to.
- saaaaaam 3y ago
  Yup, correct. And interestingly the article says it was in fact blocked from view in some territories. Which makes me think that the copyright claim is not actually about the video content but likely audio. So perhaps they have blocked in territories where the video is not yet public domain and there’s a copyright claim in the territory (USA) where some other copyright controlled element is causing an issue.

Joel_Mckay 3y ago

"Play stupid games... win stupid prizes." Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? i.e. each digitally remastered re-release essentially extends that versions protection another 85 years. =)

trogdor 3y ago
>Isn't a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules? No. A 2018 9th Circuit decision held that remasters are not eligible for copyright protection because they lack originality. The case was ABS Entertainment Inc. v. CBS Corporation.
- Joel_Mckay 3y ago
  "Burninating the countryside, Burninating the peasants, Burninating all the peoples" (Trogdor) From one monster to another, cheers =)
  - trogdor 3y ago
    Haha! Thanks, man! Back in high school, I bought their CD. [0] I wish I still had that thing. The packaging was hilarious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Bad_Sings_(and_Other_Type_Hits) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Bad_Sings_(and_Other_...
    - _chu1 3y ago
      I'm in high school now and I bought their sbemail DVD boxset

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jokoon 3y ago

I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. Is that because they partner with big movie/music industries? Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up.

daveoc64 3y ago
> I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. As others have noted, the Content ID system is in place to show that YouTube is proactively trying to do something about piracy - this makes the movie studios and record labels less likely to sue Google. > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video hosting and streaming on the scale of YouTube is expensive and probably can't be profitable. YouTube allows anyone to upload an unlimited amount of 4K video, make it available to everyone in the world - all free of charge. Advertising revenue won't cover everything, and of course, quite a few people are blocking ads. Services like Vimeo compete to some extent, but they acknowledge the expenses involved, so only cater for niche market segments. Things like PeerTube offer an alternative model, using peer to peer bandwidth to keep the costs down - but the federated nature of it makes it less likely to catch on in the mainstream like YouTube has.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
Their main reason is to not get sued to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video is expensive. But competitors do pick up, just in different ways. TikTok and Twitch are strong competition, but they have a focus on different style of experience.
stg22 3y ago
Social media sites have so many users/viewings that fixed costs for serving all their content don't really matter to them, but since ads don't pay much per viewing, they have to cut the marginal costs of hosting and serving content to the bone to stay profitable. For every million pieces of user-generated content hosted, they get a certain number of copyright complaints, so handling those complaints is a marginal cost. Since the kind of uploaded content YouTube target is particularly prone to being a significant violation of copyright (e.g. entire films), handling the complaints cheaply is a particularly big concern for them. Handling them effectively and with common sense would require human processing of each complaint, but the effect of that on marginal costs wouldn't fit with the business model, so they go with a low-marginal cost, error-prone system instead. Since the consequences for the business of wrongly failing to take down copyrighted content can be very bad, but the consequences for the business of wrongly taking down uncopyrighted content are negligible, if the system must be error prone, they want their users to be on the wrong side of any errors, not the complainants. Any American rival to YouTube would have the same problem and would resolve it a similar way.

ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago

Wire fraud?

KHRZ 3y ago

Disney also claimed copyright to my upload of Steamboat Willie to Facebook on January 1st. They have 1 week to review my dispute.

trogdor 3y ago

This article is misleading, since it omits very important information. See the screenshot provided by the YouTuber regarding the Content ID claim? Look at the far right of the screenshot. There’s a “Select Action” link. I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link. When a creator receives a Content ID claim, that’s the beginning of a process, not the end. Content ID claims can be disputed, and during the dispute, all revenue from the video is held in escrow, eventually going to whomever prevails in the dispute. The first level of the dispute process is essentially the uploader asking the claimant to reconsider, with the option to provide a brief explanation of why the uploader believes the claim is invalid. There’s even a radio button to select if you believe the material is in the public domain. If the initial dispute is rejected, that’s not the end of the story. The uploader can press the dispute further. Doing so forces the claimant to either abandon their claim, or ‘upgrade’ it to a formal DMCA takedown. If a takedown is issued and the uploader believes their work is not infringing, they can respond with a counter-notification, which forces the claimant to either (a) sue the uploader within ten days, or (b) lose the dispute. In the latter case, the video goes back up and any escrow revenue - along with all future revenue - goes to the uploader instead of the copyright claimant. Behind the “Select Action” link is the option to initiate the dispute process I just described. Which the uploader almost-certainly already did. Also behind that link, IIRC, is the option to contact the claimant via email. That can be an equally-effective path toward resolution, as it provides the opportunity for a more casual, professional dialog, outside of YouTube’s formal process. In fact, on one occasion I developed a positive and ongoing business relationship with another media outlet after being contacted by them regarding a claim that I had made in error. When Content ID first rolled out in 2007, it could be easily abused. And it was. But that was almost 17 years ago, and the way it works today is - dare I say - pretty good. Like any enormous system it has its problems, but on the whole it’s pretty fair. Edit: There is one other option behind the “Select Action” link. It’s irrelevant in this case, but I might as well include it here for completeness. If the claim involves only a portion of the video, or the audio in the video, the uploader is given options to (1) excise the claimed section of their video, (2) silence the audio in the claimed section, or (3) replace the claimed audio with music from YouTube’s (huge) library of free music. If the uploader chooses any one of those options, it immediately resolves the claim in their favor, since the claimed material is no longer present in their upload.

bertil 3y ago

Nothing says that YouTube (Google or Alphabet) cares a little too much about automated processes and not enough about making sense of what’s happening than they not have pro-actively removed that IP from their content recognition system—having implemented a way to do that systematically, even. This is the canonical piece of culture whose entry into the public domain was expected and celebrated. It’s the touchstone of copyright extension. If you work at YouTube, please get a couple of intelligent people to parse WikiData to flag those, ask rights-holders if they still want to extend strikes, and avoid getting egg on your face in straightforward cases.

zzzeek 3y ago

the article didn't seem to have it (?) so here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI

merdaverse 3y ago

Everyone and their grandmother knows that the video is public domain now. How is it possible that Disney and Youtube don't? How are people so incompetent calling the shots?