YouTube demonetizes public domain ‘Steamboat Willie’ video after copyright claim::undefined

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    212
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The article hides it in the update.

    This feels significant: Disney has officially retracted a copyright claim on a third-party’s Steamboat Willie video on YouTube.

    It’s not significant, that’s how it works. It went into the public domain and the copyright strike process took time to adjust. Disney was never going to fight this.

    • dynamojoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just as significant (and I suppose still pending) is whether YouTube has re-monetized the video. Systems fail and shit happens, and I’m glad to see that this was quickly un-struck, but it’s not all the way corrected until he’s making his $.0003 per view or whatever the payout is.

        • henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The thing about public domain is that anyone can do whatever they want. Youtube is still providing a service by providing storage, cpu and network to be able to stream the video and they are within their rights to charge for that service one way or another. Of course anyone can also offer that same service for free as it’s public domain.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah you can go out and buy a copy of Shakespeare’s work, it’s just that you can also go out and publish some too

        • mindlight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          YouTube should not be able to put ads on content they make available for you?

          Tell me, in your world, who pays for the low latency, high bandwidth, high availability streaming platform you consume video on?

          • CybranM@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            You can’t argue with some of these anti-corporation people. I dislike greedy CEOs and shareholders as much as the next guy but a company hosting and streaming videos need some sort of revenue to keep those servers running.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            They should be allowed to try to put ads on, and I should be allowed to try and block them.

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Hell half of these damn copyright claims are automated bots. I guess they forgot to turn this one off.

      • blusterydayve26@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is significant because this is the first time in the history of copyright bots that they’ve ever had to remove a work from the bot’s registry. Given how rarely it happens, the code to do that probably won’t even be worth the cost of writing for another decade or two: some guy at YouTube will just add a manual exception for that video. (And that’s assuming the best of intention and action from the copy-vio-bot sellers which is unlikely, given their existing behavior.)

        • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Every year there is plenty of stuff, like movies which end in the public domain. Certainly not the first time. Just the first time you thought/heard of it

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Exactly, Disney never intended to make trouble with this, and this isn’t a significant historical win for copyright activists.

    • gramathy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s still significant because being demonetized kills a video in the algorithm and even if the claim is reversed you don’t get that back

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The title/article isn’t about the damage its doing to people using it. It’s implying that Disney is going to actively give trouble to people using it, when it was nothing other than a mistake that was bound to happen anyway.

        I’m not saying it didn’t significantly impact the creator, I’m saying Disney backing off the bad claim is not significant. It’s what Disney was always going to do, it’s just that “Disney and youtube accidentally flag Steamboat Willie stuff” isn’t as clickbaity. .

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well, one problem is that YouTube’s whole “Content ID” process happens specifically outside of copyright law. Google will gladly take down videos without actual copyright problems and they actively shield trolls (normally, a wrong copyright claim is a crime), because it means they won’t have to go to court.

      So, it would theoretically be possible for Disney to continue the Content ID claims, even if they’d lose a copyright claim in court.
      Google would eventually tell them to fuck off, i.e. to take it to court, but only if the case is clear enough.