Apparently, you can copyright troll anything with your voice

[ColonelSupremePizza]

So, I got to work this morning, got my coffee, and was looking for something to listen to on YouTube while I get started with my day and saw this. 

 

 

This dude was a masterclass in trolling in a more wholesome way and he uploads sparsely. However, the point of this isn't his content, it's what someone is actively doing to his channel.

 

Some dude that was in one of his videos decided to start up a Soundcloud, upload his voice, and then use that as hard evidence to YouTube as clear copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this came with a strike to Daniel, but the concerning part is how easily you can manipulate the copyright system these days. We have all seen the massive amount of false DMCA or copyright claims made against people before, but this is taking things to a new level.

 

Why should people care?
 

Here's an example: I could be streaming a game and be talking to someone. That person can then decide to issue a copyright claim on me while streaming because, valid or not, they claim their voice is copyrighted. This could also have an effect on VODs where some people can copyright claim videos with popular people in them, or conversely allow a popular person to smack down any video with their voice in it. This would mean that Asmongold could copyright strike any video in which someone is listening to him speak in the background, which I doubt he ever would in the first place.

 

Obviously, this is primarily due to automated systems sucking the unwashed balls of the universe, but this sort of chicanery just makes people not want to share content and is yet another avenue of abuse.

[Data_Mining]

I believe people's image or likeness, including their voice, is protected from unlicensed and unauthorised use, this is specifically intended to prevent people from implying celebrities endorse products and such. Though I'm sure there are some extensions to that which would protect against political speech and maybe even deepfakes. That being said, if the person actually said the things they said, in a prank situation, it may not be covered by those laws, as it would be a natural and honest reaction from them.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, ColonelSupremePizza said:

That person can then decide to issue a copyright claim on me while streaming because, valid or not, they claim their voice is copyrighted

Well it's the concept of the person talking that makes it a copyright.  It's actually why for professional ones, they make you essentially sign a waiver in regards to what rights they are allowed to use their for.

 

The general issue I think is that because you had so many companies go after YouTube you actually ended up with the content ID system (and the DMCA implementation) where they now err on the side of cuation

[ColonelSupremePizza]

15 hours ago, Data_Mining said:

I believe people's image or likeness, including their voice, is protected from unlicensed and unauthorised use, this is specifically intended to prevent people from implying celebrities endorse products and such. Though I'm sure there are some extensions to that which would protect against political speech and maybe even deepfakes. That being said, if the person actually said the things they said, in a prank situation, it may not be covered by those laws, as it would be a natural and honest reaction from them.

While I do generally agree that a likeness or voice can be copyrighted, such as a celebrity and so forth, this is going above and beyond. This dude saw the video, decided he didn't like it, uploaded a Soundcloud clip, and then issued a copyright claim. The guy is a nobody and actively revels in getting channels struck down with his antics. It's one thing if someone decided to use Obama's voice to trick people into an endorsement or Obama himself issuing a copyright claim against someone that has a video with his voice in it, it's entirely different for someone to manufacture a piece of copyrighted work so they can then go back and make a claim.

 

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well it's the concept of the person talking that makes it a copyright.  It's actually why for professional ones, they make you essentially sign a waiver in regards to what rights they are allowed to use their for.

 

The general issue I think is that because you had so many companies go after YouTube you actually ended up with the content ID system (and the DMCA implementation) where they now err on the side of cuation

I guess I wasn't clear. This dude made the Soundcloud recording AFTER he saw the video was up showing how pathetic he was for defending some garbage in Second Life, which is an absurdly degenerate place. He then used that recording to go back and file a copyright claim.

 

This is entirely different from an established personality, celebrity, or other such individual that already has established works that back up a copyright claim. This sort of thing makes it easier to be a copyright troll than ever before.

[Mark Kaine]

On 9/26/2023 at 3:55 PM, ColonelSupremePizza said:

So, I got to work this morning, got my coffee, and was looking for something to listen to on YouTube while I get started with my day and saw this. 

 

 

This dude was a masterclass in trolling in a more wholesome way and he uploads sparsely. However, the point of this isn't his content, it's what someone is actively doing to his channel.

 

Some dude that was in one of his videos decided to start up a Soundcloud, upload his voice, and then use that as hard evidence to YouTube as clear copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this came with a strike to Daniel, but the concerning part is how easily you can manipulate the copyright system these days. We have all seen the massive amount of false DMCA or copyright claims made against people before, but this is taking things to a new level.

 

Why should people care?
 

Here's an example: I could be streaming a game and be talking to someone. That person can then decide to issue a copyright claim on me while streaming because, valid or not, they claim their voice is copyrighted. This could also have an effect on VODs where some people can copyright claim videos with popular people in them, or conversely allow a popular person to smack down any video with their voice in it. This would mean that Asmongold could copyright strike any video in which someone is listening to him speak in the background, which I doubt he ever would in the first place.

 

Obviously, this is primarily due to automated systems sucking the unwashed balls of the universe, but this sort of chicanery just makes people not want to share content and is yet another avenue of abuse.

i.... agree, but all yt needs to do is change the rules , or probably actually use the rules already in place, there is no way a voice willingly shared on a media platform is "copyrighted"...

 

ie. just another case of yt being stupid ig? 

[Rex Hite]

Copyright rules, "fair Use', and the entire concept of intellectual property is long overdue for a radical re-think.

Not even a re-think really, more of a revolution.

I don't think it's possible for YouTube to be logically objective and to create or enforce rules that make sense. That's expecting too much from them, or from anyone for that matter.

[Mark Kaine]

16 hours ago, Rex Hite said:

Copyright rules, "fair Use', and the entire concept of intellectual property is long overdue for a radical re-think.

Not even a re-think really, more of a revolution.

I don't think it's possible for YouTube to be logically objective and to create or enforce rules that make sense. That's expecting too much from them, or from anyone for that matter.

again, i (partly) agree, it's definitely "difficult" but not impossible. 

 

in youtube's case i would even go so far as to say it's pure laziness,  they're one of the most evil corporations on the planet after all, it's really hard to make excuses for them (for me)

 

 

better regulations would definitely help, *especially* because of aforementioned actor(s).

 

 

 

[Rex Hite]

The commodification of information is tied up in arbitrary rules, changable legalities and legislation that just can't keep up with the flood caused by demand and as well by the new technologies that have arisen to feed that demand.

 

I think as long as the phrase, "intellectual property" keeps getting unquestioningly repeated, cementing itself in the public mind as  the only way to see information, (as property), then businesses will naturally seize the initiative to take their share of ownership. And so the short term-ism of quarterly share-holder value and bottom-line thinking will end up determining not just who gets what, but who gets to say what. And where. And how.