5 ms·

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

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.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      It seems like someone in the legal department ought to be responsible, up to the chief legal officer. If the company is developing or purchasing a program to automate legal documents, it ought to be a legal executive's responsibility to ensure that program is not breaking the law on their behalf. Someone approved using the program.
  - skinkestek 3y ago
    Automated or not it should still be perjury, shouldn't it? I could argue it is even worse if a company their size who definitely has the legal capacity to know about these issues have actually automated perjury.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      I agree. In fact, this is an important thing we need to establish. If your automation violates somebody's rights with a decision, that needs to be held to the same standard as if a human did it. Failing to enforce this, while clearly pragmatic, has IMHO led us to the somewhat dystopian current-world where AIs falsely flagging people have led to accounts being suspend/revoked, small businesses ruined, etc. Whether intentional or not, Disney should be liable to this Youtube channel for damages. They should have to pay a penalty for abusing the system, and also compensate the creator for the lost revenue. Companies like Disney sure thought it was important to "make an example" of copyright violators (pirates) in the past. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we should not stand for the double standard. IANAL, but if such is possible to win, I'd like to see this Youtube creator start a lawsuit.
      - 8note 3y ago
        "creator" is a weird descriptor of a guy who uploaded a public domain video
        freedomben 3y ago
        Did you actually watch the video? He didn't just "upload" it. He made a substantive artistic change. He added voices and sound effects
  - JCharante 3y ago
    It should be negligence to not associate an expiration date in the content ID DB
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      > It should be negligence Are you gonna be the one to operate all the websites which monitor for the deaths of all those creators? Did we learn NOTHING from Abe Vigoda???
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    IIUC, "Content ID claims" are not actual DMCA takedown notices (or similar) and thus filing them in bad faith isn't perjury. Youtube's T&Cs likely shield them from liability to a large extent. You might be able to get flagrant repeat offenders on fraud, but I assume it would be a very uphill battle. The actual legal DMCA stuff starts when you dispute the claim and the claimant doubles down with a takedown request, which (again IIUC) could be considered perjury—though, again, likely a very steep hill to climb.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    I think the standard of “you’ve known, or should have known” ought to apply here. It’s not the content creators problem that the DMCA takedown is automated and false-flags: It’s Disney and Google’s.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Hanlon's razor. Disney disputed it because it disputes 1000 things everyday. They realized they screwed up (totally not because they hit someone with 1M subscribers who can probably fight), and reverted it. Now, independently, UMG is going through the same thing. I don't know why nor how, but it's no secret that at this point that DMCA claims are rampant, with litte consequence for a false positive.
frereubu 3y ago
This seems like something different though - it's the audio this time and the screenshotted email doesn't mention Disney this time, so I wonder if he's used some music in it (there's some at the beginning) which is still under copyright? The original article made it sound like he'd created all the audio, but I presume he didn't create that music.

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.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    It seems like someone in the legal department ought to be responsible, up to the chief legal officer. If the company is developing or purchasing a program to automate legal documents, it ought to be a legal executive's responsibility to ensure that program is not breaking the law on their behalf. Someone approved using the program.
- skinkestek 3y ago
  Automated or not it should still be perjury, shouldn't it? I could argue it is even worse if a company their size who definitely has the legal capacity to know about these issues have actually automated perjury.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I agree. In fact, this is an important thing we need to establish. If your automation violates somebody's rights with a decision, that needs to be held to the same standard as if a human did it. Failing to enforce this, while clearly pragmatic, has IMHO led us to the somewhat dystopian current-world where AIs falsely flagging people have led to accounts being suspend/revoked, small businesses ruined, etc. Whether intentional or not, Disney should be liable to this Youtube channel for damages. They should have to pay a penalty for abusing the system, and also compensate the creator for the lost revenue. Companies like Disney sure thought it was important to "make an example" of copyright violators (pirates) in the past. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we should not stand for the double standard. IANAL, but if such is possible to win, I'd like to see this Youtube creator start a lawsuit.
    - 8note 3y ago
      "creator" is a weird descriptor of a guy who uploaded a public domain video
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Did you actually watch the video? He didn't just "upload" it. He made a substantive artistic change. He added voices and sound effects
- JCharante 3y ago
  It should be negligence to not associate an expiration date in the content ID DB
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > It should be negligence Are you gonna be the one to operate all the websites which monitor for the deaths of all those creators? Did we learn NOTHING from Abe Vigoda???
- caconym_ 3y ago
  IIUC, "Content ID claims" are not actual DMCA takedown notices (or similar) and thus filing them in bad faith isn't perjury. Youtube's T&Cs likely shield them from liability to a large extent. You might be able to get flagrant repeat offenders on fraud, but I assume it would be a very uphill battle. The actual legal DMCA stuff starts when you dispute the claim and the claimant doubles down with a takedown request, which (again IIUC) could be considered perjury—though, again, likely a very steep hill to climb.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  I think the standard of “you’ve known, or should have known” ought to apply here. It’s not the content creators problem that the DMCA takedown is automated and false-flags: It’s Disney and Google’s.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Hanlon's razor. Disney disputed it because it disputes 1000 things everyday. They realized they screwed up (totally not because they hit someone with 1M subscribers who can probably fight), and reverted it. Now, independently, UMG is going through the same thing. I don't know why nor how, but it's no secret that at this point that DMCA claims are rampant, with litte consequence for a false positive.

frereubu 3y ago

This seems like something different though - it's the audio this time and the screenshotted email doesn't mention Disney this time, so I wonder if he's used some music in it (there's some at the beginning) which is still under copyright? The original article made it sound like he'd created all the audio, but I presume he didn't create that music.