16 ms·

Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim

179 points by freedomben 3y ago

Dianescott55 3y ago
In the whirlwind of the freelancing landscape, where time is money and downtime is a luxury no freelancer can afford, ADRIAN LAMO HACKER emerged as a digital superhero at the recommendation of a seasoned colleague. Picture a scenario where I, as a freelancer, teetered on the brink of potential data loss – an imminent threat that could disrupt not just my workflow but the very foundation of my freelance business. It was a fellow freelancer, a trusted colleague who had navigated the challenges of the freelancing world before me, who first recommended ADRIAN LAMO HACKER. Little did I know that this recommendation would soon become the lifeline of my digital endeavors. As I faced the looming specter of losing critical project files, client communications, and the intricacies of ongoing collaborations, the sheer magnitude of what I almost lost struck me with a paralyzing force. In the ever-evolving landscape of freelance work, where client deadlines are sacred and projects demand unwavering commitment, the potential data loss was not just a technical glitch. It was a threat to my professional reputation, a risk to the relationships cultivated over the years, and a disruption to the seamless workflow I had meticulously built. The realization of the extensive loss I was on the verge of experiencing sent ripples of panic through my freelance routine. Speak with ADRIAN LAMO HACKER via email: Adrianlamo@consultant.com – a recommendation that transformed into a digital lifeline. As the recovery tool seamlessly swooped in, it wasn't merely rescuing data; it was salvaging the countless hours invested in crafting proposals, delivering projects, and nurturing client relationships. The peace of mind it provided was beyond measure – it was the assurance that my freelancing career, often hanging by the thread of timely deliveries and client satisfaction, remained untarnished. The relief that washed over me was profound. It wasn't just about avoiding downtime; it was about preserving the integrity of my freelance business. ADRIAN LAMO HACKER became synonymous with uninterrupted workflow and undisturbed focus on what matters most – delivering quality work to clients. In the aftermath of this potential catastrophe, I not only recovered my data but also fortified my freelance venture with a tool that goes beyond recovery – it ensures the peace of mind every freelancer craves in the face of digital uncertainties. Consult ADRIAN LAMO HACKER via Email: Adrianlamo@consultant.com
genter 3y ago
> After being hit with the claim, Baker's upload became demonetized, meaning the YouTuber could not make any money off of it. The claim also blocked the ability to embed the video on third-party websites. In addition, the YouTube video was given limited visibility, including being blocked from view entirely in certain countries. The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views (and thus the most money). It might've been only blocked for a day, but it was one of the most critical days. But good news! It was unblocked.
- goda90 3y ago
  I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.
  - MaxikCZ 3y ago
    Prolly can, and they prolly settle, but good luck with your random ban incoming in 2 weeks for something totaly unrelated.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    > I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization. No chance, the YouTube terms give them huge carte blanche to not pay out for any reason. You could maybe sue Disney but the result would be so small it would cost you a lot, lot more to hire a lawyer to do so.
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  > The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views. Yeah. It wouldn't be too bad in other cases that just uploaded Steamboat Willie as-is as a statement, but in this case Baker actually did his own parody dub, so it's especially egregious.
lemoncookiechip 3y ago
It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-baker-youtube-demonetized-again https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...
- labster 3y ago
  That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
  - wavemode 3y ago
    From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike systems for the content.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      That sounds like it should be their problem and they should still be held accountable for not caring enough to disable any automated flagging/filing
    - LargeTomato 3y ago
      If your computer program perjures itself who is liable? I mean, realistically no one because Di$ney but maybe they should get enough of a wrist slap to update their algorithm to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
      - peddling-brink 3y ago
        Computer programs don't perjure themselves, LLM's aside. The company that is running the offending program should be liable. But who knows, I'm no lawyer.
tkems 3y ago
Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends for a work and a source to compare claims against 2) Orphaned works without known owners that are nearly unusable until expiration 3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. 4) Archiving of expired works would be easier
- bilsbie 3y ago
  Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.
  - blagie 3y ago
    Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."
    - randomdata 3y ago
      If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentially buying the rights for Netflix but of course you have to pay 65K to make sure you have those rights to sell, which is money you don't have, so you need to take out a loan in order to potentially profit from your labor. OR you're Peter Beagle https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-rights/ https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-... The fact is that there are a million ways in which a class of entrepreneurs make money off of their work, even though, like most entrepreneurs they fail, and whenever HN starts talking copyright there are always people who probably make significantly more per year than the average writer does at writing who want to make sure writers make even less. It's weird that HN often loves entrepreneurs, and wants to make things easier for them - but not writers. Aside from that this scheme, as most other fix copyright schemes, will not be taken up by most other countries (other than U.S I mean) as they tend to have a "copyright exists because creators have moral rights to ownership of their work" theory of copyright and not the whole "copyright exists to foster innovation" theory. As other countries will not follow the U.S you would have what you often have today, things in Public Domain in U.S and not in other countries and so you cannot freely make derivative works for an international audience at least as you would be sued.
olliej 3y ago
Here I fixed it: "Disney backs down from fraudulent DMCA claim"
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
whenever copyright comes up a bunch of engineers come up with suggestions for fixing copyright that seem to be based on the idea that every country has the same theory of copyright as the U.S. Well I would suggest that the best fix for copyright would be to bring international Non-US standards in line with U.S or some sort of compromise between the two. The main problem I find with copyright is seeing something is in the public domain but later on realizing no, it's in the public domain in the U.S because it was made in 1926 but since the creator died in 1970 it won't really be truly public domain (excusing some potential weird little countries with unlimited copyright) until 2040.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  Luckily Steamboat Willie copyright was held by corporation thus it was 70 years after publication, otherwise it would be 70 years after longest living creator in Europe - Ub Iwerks died in 1971.
nubinetwork 3y ago
Pretty much what I thought happened. Lazy Disney didn't bother to update content ID.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]

179 points by freedomben 3y ago

In the whirlwind of the freelancing landscape, where time is money and downtime is a luxury no freelancer can afford, ADRIAN LAMO HACKER emerged as a digital superhero at the recommendation of a seasoned colleague. Picture a scenario where I, as a freelancer, teetered on the brink of potential data loss – an imminent threat that could disrupt not just my workflow but the very foundation of my freelance business. It was a fellow freelancer, a trusted colleague who had navigated the challenges of the freelancing world before me, who first recommended ADRIAN LAMO HACKER. Little did I know that this recommendation would soon become the lifeline of my digital endeavors. As I faced the looming specter of losing critical project files, client communications, and the intricacies of ongoing collaborations, the sheer magnitude of what I almost lost struck me with a paralyzing force. In the ever-evolving landscape of freelance work, where client deadlines are sacred and projects demand unwavering commitment, the potential data loss was not just a technical glitch. It was a threat to my professional reputation, a risk to the relationships cultivated over the years, and a disruption to the seamless workflow I had meticulously built. The realization of the extensive loss I was on the verge of experiencing sent ripples of panic through my freelance routine. Speak with ADRIAN LAMO HACKER via email: Adrianlamo@consultant.com – a recommendation that transformed into a digital lifeline. As the recovery tool seamlessly swooped in, it wasn't merely rescuing data; it was salvaging the countless hours invested in crafting proposals, delivering projects, and nurturing client relationships. The peace of mind it provided was beyond measure – it was the assurance that my freelancing career, often hanging by the thread of timely deliveries and client satisfaction, remained untarnished. The relief that washed over me was profound. It wasn't just about avoiding downtime; it was about preserving the integrity of my freelance business. ADRIAN LAMO HACKER became synonymous with uninterrupted workflow and undisturbed focus on what matters most – delivering quality work to clients. In the aftermath of this potential catastrophe, I not only recovered my data but also fortified my freelance venture with a tool that goes beyond recovery – it ensures the peace of mind every freelancer craves in the face of digital uncertainties. Consult ADRIAN LAMO HACKER via Email: Adrianlamo@consultant.com

genter 3y ago

> After being hit with the claim, Baker's upload became demonetized, meaning the YouTuber could not make any money off of it. The claim also blocked the ability to embed the video on third-party websites. In addition, the YouTube video was given limited visibility, including being blocked from view entirely in certain countries. The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views (and thus the most money). It might've been only blocked for a day, but it was one of the most critical days. But good news! It was unblocked.

goda90 3y ago
I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization.
- MaxikCZ 3y ago
  Prolly can, and they prolly settle, but good luck with your random ban incoming in 2 weeks for something totaly unrelated.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > I wonder if anyone could successfully sue YouTube for lost revenue over a wrongful demonetization. No chance, the YouTube terms give them huge carte blanche to not pay out for any reason. You could maybe sue Disney but the result would be so small it would cost you a lot, lot more to hire a lawyer to do so.
PoignardAzur 3y ago
> The first several days after a video is released is when creators get the most views. Yeah. It wouldn't be too bad in other cases that just uploaded Steamboat Willie as-is as a statement, but in this case Baker actually did his own parody dub, so it's especially egregious.

lemoncookiechip 3y ago

It's been copyright claimed again: https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-baker-youtube-demonetized-again https://mashable.com/article/disney-steamboat-willie-brock-b...

labster 3y ago
That can only possibly be bad faith on the part of Disney or UMG. Someone is clearly guilty of perjury.
- wavemode 3y ago
  From what I know it is indeed perjury to file a DMCA claim on content for which you don't own the copyright (e.g. after it has expired). But rather than intentional bad faith it's highly likely these sorts of actions are fully automated by both YouTube and Disney. Probably YouTube has not yet removed Steamboat Willie-related content from its Content ID database and Disney has not yet disabled its own auto-strike systems for the content.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    That sounds like it should be their problem and they should still be held accountable for not caring enough to disable any automated flagging/filing
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    If your computer program perjures itself who is liable? I mean, realistically no one because Di$ney but maybe they should get enough of a wrist slap to update their algorithm to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
    - peddling-brink 3y ago
      Computer programs don't perjure themselves, LLM's aside. The company that is running the offending program should be liable. But who knows, I'm no lawyer.

tkems 3y ago

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends for a work and a source to compare claims against 2) Orphaned works without known owners that are nearly unusable until expiration 3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. 4) Archiving of expired works would be easier

bilsbie 3y ago
Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.
- blagie 3y ago
  Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."
  - randomdata 3y ago
    If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentially buying the rights for Netflix but of course you have to pay 65K to make sure you have those rights to sell, which is money you don't have, so you need to take out a loan in order to potentially profit from your labor. OR you're Peter Beagle https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-rights/ https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-... The fact is that there are a million ways in which a class of entrepreneurs make money off of their work, even though, like most entrepreneurs they fail, and whenever HN starts talking copyright there are always people who probably make significantly more per year than the average writer does at writing who want to make sure writers make even less. It's weird that HN often loves entrepreneurs, and wants to make things easier for them - but not writers. Aside from that this scheme, as most other fix copyright schemes, will not be taken up by most other countries (other than U.S I mean) as they tend to have a "copyright exists because creators have moral rights to ownership of their work" theory of copyright and not the whole "copyright exists to foster innovation" theory. As other countries will not follow the U.S you would have what you often have today, things in Public Domain in U.S and not in other countries and so you cannot freely make derivative works for an international audience at least as you would be sued.

olliej 3y ago

Here I fixed it: "Disney backs down from fraudulent DMCA claim"

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

whenever copyright comes up a bunch of engineers come up with suggestions for fixing copyright that seem to be based on the idea that every country has the same theory of copyright as the U.S. Well I would suggest that the best fix for copyright would be to bring international Non-US standards in line with U.S or some sort of compromise between the two. The main problem I find with copyright is seeing something is in the public domain but later on realizing no, it's in the public domain in the U.S because it was made in 1926 but since the creator died in 1970 it won't really be truly public domain (excusing some potential weird little countries with unlimited copyright) until 2040.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
Luckily Steamboat Willie copyright was held by corporation thus it was 70 years after publication, otherwise it would be 70 years after longest living creator in Europe - Ub Iwerks died in 1971.

nubinetwork 3y ago

Pretty much what I thought happened. Lazy Disney didn't bother to update content ID.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]