• Disney retracts copyright claim on a YouTuber’s “Steamboat Willie” video, allowing it to be monetizable and shareable worldwide.
• The claim had previously demonetized the video and restricted its visibility and embedding options.
• This move by Disney may signal its recognition of “Steamboat Willie” being in the public domain.
I’m having a hard time comprehending how this is a “win” when Disney had to voluntarily retract their claim with Youtube.
The short is in public domain. It is the goddamn motherfucking law. Disney does not have any say in the matter. We should not, and in fact do not, have to rely on them being “nice.” Not anymore. That’s the point.
Fuck them, in the ear, with an egg beater.
If I’m looking at dates correctly, Disney filed the strike AFTER it was in the public domain already. So it was a bullshit strike from the beginning, not just something that was struck before it entered the public domain and was left over.
The DMCA needs to be updated with fines for clear bullshit claims like this. As it is, there is no penalty for a company to just claim everything. I’d even be okay with platforms like Youtube receiving a portion of that fine for having to be in the middle of the bullshit copyright claims that were overturned because. Give the platforms an incentive to make the process streamlined and straight forward instead of the crap we have now.
YouTube is legally obligated to take the content down as soon as they receive the DMCA notice or else YouTube will become liable for potential damages. YouTube’s automated copyright claim system is inherently broken, but that’s a symptom of DMCA, not the cause.
From my understanding the big copyright owners basically have a stranglehold on youtube when negotiating how youtube should handle copyright stuff. The current copyright law was not designed to accommodate platforms such as youtube so if they don’t do as the copyright owners say it could result in a long court battle resulting in a decision that youtube itself is the one violating the law for being the one hosting the non-licensed content on their platform.
Not a lawyer and don’t even live in the US so i might not be the most reliable source on this though.
A fine is useless if the default is that the request is granted, which platforms like YT are more or less forced to do since you can submit thousands of request at no cost. Add a security deposit (and punitive damages in case of bogus requests) for each and every request and maybe you solve the problem.
I completely agree, but isn’t this the issue with private platforms taking over essential functions of society? If YouTube wants to play ball with the copyright lobby that’s their business. They could ban any video for any reason whatsoever, it’s their platform.
Youtubes copyright system isn’t really the ‘problem’, the copyright laws are. Youtube gets yelled at by both sides at the same time and generally takes a reasonable middle man position. It’s not youtubes job to arbitrate who owns what.
And they’re pretty much required to take things down, it prevents them from being liable. After that, the uploader can challenge this decision, and if the claimer doesn’t back down, it goes to court.
Unfortunately, claimers are currently not required to provide any proof, nor are they required to pay for any legal costs (at least not upfront), so it’s just simpler for the uploader to take the L.
This is the key issue; the DMCA provides basically no penalty for making false claims. The natural choice is to claim everything and see who fights you.
Yep, agreed, that’s the worst thing about it. Makes sense more or less otherwise.
We should start a brigade to issue DMCA takedowns for every Disney video on YouTube.
They’re only required to take stuff down in response to DMCA claims.
They have absolutely no obligation for their alternate process to treat claims as valid until proven false.
You’re right, copyright laws were written ages ago when mass media was exclusively owned by big media companies. If there was ever a copyright dispute, the company’s lawyers would meet up with the other company’s lawyers and either settle or go to court, and both parties could easily pay for the legal fees because they were, you know, big media companies.
But nowadays everyone can simply upload something that can potentially reach billions of people, which is unprecedented in human (or legal) history, and the legal system simply hasn’t caught up to this radical shift in the status quo. This is why Youtube has to compromise between the big media conglomerates with expensive lawyers and, well, the rest of us.
Disney, or anyone for that matter, can copyright claim any video. Youtube just plays ball because that’s the simplest thing to do.
It’s on them to prove, in court, that it actually is copyrightable and that they own the copyright to the content, which they’d fail to do.
The win is for the uploader and for the public, since now you can “be sure” that Disney won’t take you to court over it, which would be a costly endeavor for you. Even if Disney would almost surely lose.
Maybe the creator was in a SLAPP state and Disney was going to be paying for their lawyers anyway.
Afraid it doesn’t apply to copyright claims, but I might be wrong on that
Maybe?
Well, damn it, it should. That’s a prime example of an abusive suit, with media companies holding all the cards and quite willing to toss takedowns over the wall if the recipients are too afraid or poor to fight obviously baseless claims.
I think people misunderstand this and that you explained it well. It wasn’t a court that struck down the video, it was YouTube. I’m not sure though what American law has to say about monolithic platforms like YouTube and hosting public domain content.
If it’s public domain, then by definition anyone can upload it, for any purpose, and monetise it however they see fit. YouTube could ban anyone else from uploading Steamboat Willie and only have their own version to watch, or they could let literally millions of people upload versions. They can basically do whatever they want with it now.
Disney does not want to risk being labeled as a vexatious litigant in copyright court. They need to keep an aura of good faith there because of how reliant they are on bending copyright law to their will. Operating in bad faith could get them much harsher rulings on much more valuable IP.
Since it says Copyright Strike and not DMCA takedown we can assume quite simply that this was the automated system at YouTube doing it’s thing.
Steamboat Willie is in their system as Disney’s, but its now public domain. As this is the first time that’s happened whatever was in place (or wasn’t if it was forgotten about) to remove the Auto-Detektion failed to start ignoring Steamboat Willie and the video was struck.
Disney, being a big corporation, took a few days to get that news filtered to whoever can release that kind of thing.
This story seems like yet another example of YouTubes system being less than ideal, not one of Disney being counts (this time)
This makes the most sense.
When I release music through distributors, there’s always an option to enter it into contentid so YouTube can do claims on my behalf. This is all automated and I don’t assume YouTube takes the copyright lifespan into account.
If we extrapolate this to Disney’s use case, they would have had to actively locate it in their contentid entries to YouTube and then remove it that day and hope YouTube refreshes their contentid system timely enough. It’s not very far fetched that someone messed up in this chain. So I would honestly give Disney the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Don’t get me wrong, they have an awful relationship with the copyright but let’s make damn sure we criticise them for the right things, otherwise they will only learn that they will get shit on either way and stop thinking about being assholes.
Because this is about YouTube and not the actual law itself.
You could take this to court and defend your use if it. But in this case, it’s just YouTube and it’s own systems being abused by Disney.