TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

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

342 点作者 dragonbonheur超过 1 年前

19 条评论

fermigier超过 1 年前
&quot;Here&#x27;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&#x27;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, &quot;stole&quot; Willie from Buster Keaton&#x27;s &quot;Steamboat Bill.&quot;<p>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&#x27;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.&quot;<p>-- Lawrence Lessig, &quot;Free Culture&quot;, OSCON 2002 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&amp;t=253" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;uH4RskpUFiA?si=IHVC72F4oXpLHJVV&amp;t=253</a>)
评论 #38879041 未加载
评论 #38878326 未加载
评论 #38878920 未加载
评论 #38879574 未加载
评论 #38878408 未加载
kitsune_超过 1 年前
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&#x27;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 &quot;cool tech&quot;? I see a lot of submissions about FAANG companies &quot;doing wrong&quot; on here but I rarely see a discussion about us software developers being active participants in this sort of behavior.
评论 #38879768 未加载
评论 #38878951 未加载
评论 #38878695 未加载
评论 #38878421 未加载
评论 #38878409 未加载
评论 #38878472 未加载
评论 #38878559 未加载
评论 #38883694 未加载
评论 #38878393 未加载
评论 #38878667 未加载
评论 #38878731 未加载
评论 #38880530 未加载
评论 #38878194 未加载
moomin超过 1 年前
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.
评论 #38878005 未加载
评论 #38878006 未加载
adaml_623超过 1 年前
A positive take on this is that this is a clear pass&#x2F;fail unit test on YouTube&#x27;s copyright system.
评论 #38877908 未加载
评论 #38877759 未加载
nubinetwork超过 1 年前
It got caught right after they uploaded it. Basically content ID hasn&#x27;t been updated yet. I would contest it.
bni超过 1 年前
If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain?<p>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?<p>Has issues like that ever been clarified?
评论 #38878139 未加载
评论 #38877928 未加载
评论 #38878383 未加载
评论 #38878092 未加载
评论 #38878418 未加载
评论 #38877902 未加载
trogdor超过 1 年前
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.<p>I make my living from YouTube, and I am going to explain what’s behind that link.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Behind the “Select Action” link is the option to initiate the dispute process I just described. Which the uploader almost-certainly already did.<p>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>I</i> had made in error.<p>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.<p>Edit:<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
评论 #38878974 未加载
评论 #38878943 未加载
评论 #38878857 未加载
评论 #38878898 未加载
bertil超过 1 年前
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.<p>This is the canonical piece of culture whose entry into the public domain was expected and celebrated. It’s the touchstone of copyright extension.<p>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.
globular-toast超过 1 年前
YouTube could choose to continue to honour Disney&#x27;s copyright forever. Yet another reason to get away from centralised platforms.<p>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.
评论 #38877835 未加载
littlecranky67超过 1 年前
Maybe because in some countries (like Germany) it is not yet in public domain.
评论 #38878325 未加载
评论 #38878329 未加载
d--b超过 1 年前
&gt; A one-off mistake or a sign of copyright battles to come over Mickey Mouse?<p>Or a stunt by a clever youtuber to make himself some free attention?
jokoon超过 1 年前
I don&#x27;t understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that.<p>Is that because they partner with big movie&#x2F;music industries?<p>Also I don&#x27;t understand why competitors are not really picking up.
评论 #38878279 未加载
评论 #38878347 未加载
评论 #38879408 未加载
zzzeek超过 1 年前
the article didn&#x27;t seem to have it (?) so here&#x27;s the video in question:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JMYJxCj6pmI</a>
Joel_Mckay超过 1 年前
&quot;Play stupid games... win stupid prizes.&quot;<p>Isn&#x27;t a remastered version a separate work under the copyright semblance rules?<p>i.e. each digitally remastered re-release essentially extends that versions protection another 85 years. =)
评论 #38878530 未加载
merdaverse超过 1 年前
Everyone and their grandmother knows that the video is public domain now. How is it possible that Disney and Youtube don&#x27;t? How are people so incompetent calling the shots?
kzrdude超过 1 年前
I assume content id database entries have expiry dates
评论 #38877936 未加载
评论 #38877726 未加载
KHRZ超过 1 年前
Disney also claimed copyright to my upload of Steamboat Willie to Facebook on January 1st. They have 1 week to review my dispute.
ikekkdcjkfke超过 1 年前
Wire fraud?
publiccopy超过 1 年前
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
评论 #38878344 未加载
评论 #38882907 未加载