Google removes monetization for some manual copyright claims

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

But thats the point, fair use clauses allready cover most of the falsely claimed stuff, and most of the rest are cases of the law not quite having caught up, (in effect they really should be fair use under the terms fair use was put into law for, but the law as written didn't quit account for some situations). The issue is that it's currently on the head of the person engaging in fair use to prove fair use. They're guilty until proven innocent at the moment.

Well it should be. Fair use is a defense against infringement, not a de-facto right. The US also has no moral rights when it comes to copyrights, which means that, everything is assigned by explicit licence, where as other countries, you can't sell the moral rights to a work, but you can always refuse your work from being used or displayed/broadcasted/performed. 

 

Currently, as in, if you were to actually sue someone, you would have to prove you used the minimum amount needed, which in a LP, 100% is needed. No fair use from a LP would ever qualify, and if we're going to nitpick that one specificly, A LP would have to strip the game audio to even start as fair use, since most games audio aren't required to show the game being played. The player voicing over it would "add" something to it.

 

But that's not what people want to watch most of the time. They either want to watch a video of a player playing the game w/o the player speaking over it (such as in games where you're trying to show technique or speed-run), or playing with the voice over (for games with dialog, or walk-thru/blind-plays of games.) 

 

If we're being honest, the problem with Youtube is the lack of qualified people. You can not expect everyone at Youtube to know every copyrighted work in existence, and this is a lot like eBay in that regard. eBay staff know very damn well what is counterfeit (believe me, it's obvious,) but can't take it down if it's not reported, and it's up to the representative to use their own judgement if something should be taken down, 3 times you're suspended, goodbye. If Youtube is like eBay in that regard, then I really don't want people having to guess if something is fair use or not.

 

It's easy to find the "LastWeekTonight" official youtube, but every time a new episode comes out on HBO, there's a half dozen videos recorded and uploaded within minutes of the HBO broadcast. Is it fair use? Hell no. That is what these ContentID controls are for, but there's a time gap between broadcast time and the upload going live to get that ContentID fingerprint, and that damage is done.

 

There can not be a perfect solution. Push too far in the copyright holders favor, then Youtube's value tanks, and people will just go back to sharing things on Twitter and Youtube, and privately via Discord. Don't push far enough, and then your service becomes used more for evil (criminal activity) than good. 

 

Will there ever be a real competitor for Youtube? Probably not in the US. Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon all have the resources to do so. Yet they seem more interested in charging you money to store your own files that you can't share.

[williamcll]

Still a long way to go to fix copystrikes.

[mr moose]

I wish there was more fairness and balance in the judicial system when dealing with copyright.  If it was easier for small youtuber's to take the big boys to court for abusing the DMCA we wouldn't see a lot of this to even begin with. 

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Kisai said:

. Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon all have the resources to do so. Yet they seem more interested in charging you money to store your own files that you can't share.

They know it is a proverbial infestation of copyright, free speech and political PR nightmares they wish to not be associated with.   It would cost them more than it would make them.

[dalekphalm]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:03 PM, Trik'Stari said:

I'm torn by the absolute logic of this, and my own mentality towards drawn images.

 

Pepe is a fine example of that conundrum. The creators efforts to take down what it is used for... bother me. Partially because I see making your own meme of a character (provided you yourself drew or otherwise created the image.) as an act of free speech.

 

Example: Nintendo owns the license to Mario. If you draw Mario, you own that drawing, not Nintendo. At least, that's how I would hope things work. If it worked in reverse, someone could copyright drawing trees and no one could ever draw trees again. At least knowing how retarded our court system is.

 

My reasoning is that, if you are drawing a character that someone else created, you're always going to get something ever so slightly different than the original. Even if you're trying to make an exactly perfect copy, it's not going to be perfect without the aid of some kind of tool.

To clarify a bit how copyright works.

 

Let's take a tree for example. Trees are pre-existing objects. You cannot copyright drawings of trees in general. Meaning that nobody would ever be able to get a copyright that says "I own all drawings of all trees". That's not how it works.

 

You can copyright a specific drawing of a tree. If the tree was something you imagined (eg: not based off of any existing real tree in real life), you would own the general concept of that tree, plus the specific depiction of that tree via the drawing itself.

 

Someone could draw their own tree, as long as it doesn't substantially resemble your tree.

 

However, if the drawing is based off of a real tree (or is "generic" enough that it could easily resemble any number of real trees), then you still own the specific drawing of that tree. That means someone can't just scan it, and claim it's their drawing of a tree.

 

But, they can draw their own version based off of the same tree. Note: based off of the same tree, not the drawing of the tree. Granted, some of these things become hazy.

 

So, for example: Mario. Mario is a fictional character invented by Nintendo. They own all rights to Mario, including any depictions of him. If you draw Mario, sure you own that drawing, but you violated Nintendo's copyright by even creating the drawing. You need to negotiate a license with Nintendo in order to legally create a drawing of Mario.

 

There are exceptions: Such as Fair Use. But, Fair use is a defense in court, not a proactive thing. That's where most people get it wrong. Maybe it should be, but fair use has never been a proactive thing, it's always been a defense.

 

So, even though you drew Mario slightly different than the original creator did, it's still Mario.

 

You get around this by making something that is "Similar yet legally distinct" - eg: You make a "Marion the Electrician" - Sure he wears coveralls, but they look a little different, and he doesn't have an "M" in a circle on his hat.

 

If you want to draw Mario specifically, you get a license, or you wait until he enters public domain.

 

If I invent some new fictional character, I own the rights to that. If someone decides to draw their own version of that fictional character I invented, and then slap it onto a T-Shirt and start selling it, that violates my rights. They either owe me a cut in the form a licensing deal, or they are violating law and I can seek to have their operation shut down.

 

And that's the way it should be.

 

Granted, I feel like it should be easier to acquire a license in order to legally sell a Mario T-Shirt I've created. Or for YouTube creators to license music or video game footage or movie footage, etc, for use in their videos.

[Trik'Stari]

50 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

To clarify a bit how copyright works.

 

Let's take a tree for example. Trees are pre-existing objects. You cannot copyright drawings of trees in general. Meaning that nobody would ever be able to get a copyright that says "I own all drawings of all trees". That's not how it works.

 

You can copyright a specific drawing of a tree. If the tree was something you imagined (eg: not based off of any existing real tree in real life), you would own the general concept of that tree, plus the specific depiction of that tree via the drawing itself.

 

Someone could draw their own tree, as long as it doesn't substantially resemble your tree.

 

However, if the drawing is based off of a real tree (or is "generic" enough that it could easily resemble any number of real trees), then you still own the specific drawing of that tree. That means someone can't just scan it, and claim it's their drawing of a tree.

 

But, they can draw their own version based off of the same tree. Note: based off of the same tree, not the drawing of the tree. Granted, some of these things become hazy.

 

So, for example: Mario. Mario is a fictional character invented by Nintendo. They own all rights to Mario, including any depictions of him. If you draw Mario, sure you own that drawing, but you violated Nintendo's copyright by even creating the drawing. You need to negotiate a license with Nintendo in order to legally create a drawing of Mario.

 

There are exceptions: Such as Fair Use. But, Fair use is a defense in court, not a proactive thing. That's where most people get it wrong. Maybe it should be, but fair use has never been a proactive thing, it's always been a defense.

 

So, even though you drew Mario slightly different than the original creator did, it's still Mario.

 

You get around this by making something that is "Similar yet legally distinct" - eg: You make a "Marion the Electrician" - Sure he wears coveralls, but they look a little different, and he doesn't have an "M" in a circle on his hat.

 

If you want to draw Mario specifically, you get a license, or you wait until he enters public domain.

 

If I invent some new fictional character, I own the rights to that. If someone decides to draw their own version of that fictional character I invented, and then slap it onto a T-Shirt and start selling it, that violates my rights. They either owe me a cut in the form a licensing deal, or they are violating law and I can seek to have their operation shut down.

 

And that's the way it should be.

 

Granted, I feel like it should be easier to acquire a license in order to legally sell a Mario T-Shirt I've created. Or for YouTube creators to license music or video game footage or movie footage, etc, for use in their videos.

I was going to disagree with you on a few things, until I read the last bit.

 

I single out Nintendo because when it comes to copyright, they seem to ignore all parts of the law that only specifically benefit them.

 

Example: They copyright strike anyone who tries to make a review, or or any way uses their content in the making of a video. Even if it's just a few seconds long clip for a gag.

 

Personally, I think that kind of behavior is egregious and should come with SERIOUS consequences. For instance, loss of copyright.

 

I'm serious. I think our governments (not just the US) should, instead of threatening fines or taxations against massive corporations, threaten to erase that companies copyright on something. Either permanently or for a set amount of time.

 

Example: Apple is in violation of MANY consumer laws here in the US. The government response would be to nullify their patent or copyright or trademark on the term "iphone" and its associated hardware. Either permanently (probably a bit extreme in this case) or for..... lets say 10 years. So for the next 10 years, no one owns the patent on the term or hardware associated with "iphone" (regardless of model number). I feel like this would make a LOT of companies straighten the fuck up.

 

My reasoning:

 

1. It's more financially harmful to a corporation and thus a stronger incentive to follow the law. More so than a simple fine that results in a minor stock devaluation.

2. It would create competition.

3. If violating copyright laws can result in the loss of ownership of a thing you legitimately created, because that thing is derived from someone elses creation, then abuse of the laws concerning copyright should equally result in the loss of ownership of actual copyrighted IP.

 

To sum up: Licensing should be easier, and misuse of copyright systems should come with EXTREME penalties that mean actual harm to the corporate entity misusing those systems.

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I was going to disagree with you on a few things, until I read the last bit.

 

I single out Nintendo because when it comes to copyright, they seem to ignore all parts of the law that only specifically benefit them.

 

Example: They copyright strike anyone who tries to make a review, or or any way uses their content in the making of a video. Even if it's just a few seconds long clip for a gag.

 

Personally, I think that kind of behavior is egregious and should come with SERIOUS consequences. For instance, loss of copyright.

 

I'm serious. I think our governments (not just the US) should, instead of threatening fines or taxations against massive corporations, threaten to erase that companies copyright on something. Either permanently or for a set amount of time.

 

Example: Apple is in violation of MANY consumer laws here in the US. The government response would be to nullify their patent or copyright or trademark on the term "iphone" and its associated hardware. Either permanently (probably a bit extreme in this case) or for..... lets say 10 years. So for the next 10 years, no one owns the patent on the term or hardware associated with "iphone" (regardless of model number). I feel like this would make a LOT of companies straighten the fuck up.

 

My reasoning:

 

1. It's more financially harmful to a corporation and thus a stronger incentive to follow the law. More so than a simple fine that results in a minor stock devaluation.

2. It would create competition.

3. If violating copyright laws can result in the loss of ownership of a thing you legitimately created, because that thing is derived from someone elses creation, then abuse of the laws concerning copyright should equally result in the loss of ownership of actual copyrighted IP.

 

To sum up: Licensing should be easier, and misuse of copyright systems should come with EXTREME penalties that mean actual harm to the corporate entity misusing those systems.

I don't necessarily disagree, but you're talking major copyright reform. Good luck getting one country (especially the US) to do this - let alone getting all major countries in the world to adopt something similar.

 

I doubt a government would ever create a law like you describe that would actually remove their copyright or patent (temporarily or otherwise) over misuse. Typically the only way to lose copyright is for someone to prove you never actually owned it.

 

I'm also not sure that's a good idea. Yes it's bad for companies to abuse copyright law - I think it would be better to fix the loopholes and create better punishments that are easier to enforce.

 

And frankly, if we can create a system where licensing becomes easier, than most of these issues will simply go away anyway.

 

A lot of YouTubers don't properly understand fair use (rightfully so, they're not lawyers) - but that means that a lot of them actually misuse fair use too.