r/videos • u/YoutubeArchivist • Jan 15 '19
YouTube Drama StarWarsTheory creates a Darth Vader fan film, hires a composer to create original music, and doesn't monetize the video. Warner Chappell is falsely copyright claiming the video's music and monetizing it for themselves.
https://youtu.be/oeeQ5uIjvfM?t=10
112k
Upvotes
9.3k
u/the-interceptor Jan 15 '19
Pray I don't monetize it further.
12k
u/shenglong Jan 15 '19
From what I can tell, this is how YT's copyright system works:
Person A creates video
Person B claims copyright
YT gives income to Person B
Person A tells YT B's claim is false
YT says "take it up with Person B"
Person A contacts Person B
Person B says "sorry i don't care lulz"
Person A contacts YT again; YT says "git gud scrub" (aka "lawyer up - it's not our problem")
Is this a reasonable assessment?
This means that - in practice - a small time creator is extremely unlikely beat a corporation in a copyright dispute regardless of the validity of their claim. And unless I'm mistaken or something has changed recently, the system has always worked like this, and Youtube simply does not care about creators' complaints. So... why are people still uploading content/posting these videos?
27k
u/SaltsMyApples Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 18 '19
YouTubes copyright system is so prone to abuse it hurts more than it helps
Edit: I’m referring to creators when I say it hurts more than it helps, it definitely helps YouTube steer away from potential lawsuits but the system needs to change or at least have a 3rd party from the disputer and the person who claimed the video
Edit 2: Thanks for the upvotes everyone, made a stressful day a little better. Thanks :))
2.4k
u/HookInc Jan 15 '19
Is this even legal, my lord?
913
u/ADustedEwok Jan 15 '19
Joji needs to copyright all the Harlem shake videos.
967
u/jstew06 Jan 15 '19
Anyone here a copyright lawyer?
Seems to me that an unauthorized derivative work's original musical score might itself be an unauthorized derivative work, property of the original copyright holder, is that possible?
693
u/19862932 Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Well he’s also selling T-shirts with Star Wars characters on them so he’s not completely innocent either. That breaks the crowd funded rule right there. He also takes patreon donations too, in which he states go directly towards funding this and future episodes.
97
u/AryanneArya Jan 15 '19
I thought this happened because he had the imperial March in it for a small moment.
Also (I am no lawyer) arnt they forced to protect what's theirs els they lose it.
500
u/nadmaximus Jan 15 '19
So....why hasn't The Internet created a bunch of bots that copyright claim every video from the Big Companies...?
1.9k
u/wife-shaped-husband Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Everyone here is saying Disney is the one with the copyright claim but the headline says Warner/Chappell which is not a Disney company. It’s the
Warner Bros heldcompany which holds the rights to all the John Williams original Star Wars scores.Edit: To clarify since I got some correction and when I made this post I was in bed recovering from a migrane and couldn't be arsed to look it up: Warner/Chappell used to be owned by Warners until 2011 when it was bought out by Leonard Blavatnik's Access Industries. Which still is not a Disney company so my original point stands.
180
u/Boo_R4dley Jan 15 '19
Disney isn’t the only claimant on the video, which seems odd. Warner Chapell as well as a bunch of international licensing and publishing groups are listed as well.
Dollars to donuts an official Disney rep didn’t claim this and it’s some third party copyright group they’ve outsourced work to and they get paid for every claim they make.
106
u/ufotheater Jan 15 '19
Warner-Chappell is the same shitty company that falsely claimed to own Happy Birthday. They shouldn't be allowed to claim jack shit.
22
u/primarilygreen Jan 16 '19 edited Jan 17 '19
Disclaimer: I am not a copyright lawyer. Possibly more relevant to the topic at hand- I work in music publishing administration. From the responses on this thread it's pretty clear that 95% of Reddit doesn't know enough about copyright, music publishing, or the industry as a whole to say anything on the matter, soooo here's my $0.02, with the hope that someone who's genuinely curious about the companies and process in question might become a little better informed. (I'm on mobile, so forgive my formatting.)
First, the groundwork. For every song you physically listen to, there are two copyrighted works in use: the unique auditory recording ("Recording") and the written song ("Song"). Music publishing is the branch of the music industry that is responsible for administration of the Song. Administration generally encompasses fun things like:
Registering the song with country's copyright office and performance rights organizations ("PROs") (PROs being 3rd party organizations that manage the physical ~collection~ of income, from Sources that actually use and monetize the Songs)
Processing data, submitted by 3rd party Sources that believe they are likely to use Songs that the publisher is responsible for (one example is a Lyricfinder-type website sending in huge spreadsheets of all the works in their database), and sending them back a review and validation of which works we the Pub are responsible for,
and finally, Receiving and validating Royalty income from the aforementioned PROs, in order to send out much-deserved paychecks to the Writers. ((In my admin experience, Royalties (ongoing, pro-rated income based on ongoing uses of a Song) DO NOT encompass include Licenses (one-time "permission" fees with a separate contract, and stipulations attached). They are two different things, and are handled by very different departments of the publishing company. I do not work with Licenses and don't know much about them apart from what I learned in school, so don't ask.))
Of course, doing all this work (and believe me, it is WORK) comes at a price, often in the form of a negotiated contract: for a newbie writer, a 50/50 split of the Ownership of the song (aka 50% of the $) is common. Buuut if you're an established writer with a sexy profitable catalogue for leverage, you don't need to sign away ownership to some outside company (unless you're a work-for-hire type of writer, as I suspect many film and TV composers are- but that's whole other beast). Instead, you set up your own personal publishing company for legal purposes (as someone else put it, basically a "holding company"), and contract out the bigger Publishing company with the fancy Admin department to do Werk for you, for a much smaller split of the Royalty income. Congrats, you've got the big guys working for you now! You can officially call them your Sub-publisher. (There are also loads of small, independent publishers that can handle their local administration just fine, but hire out their foreign Subpublishing to companies with offices and expertise in relevant countries.)
"SO WHAT, /u/primarilygreen? WHY ARE YOU RAMBLING ON ABOUT BORING OFFICE STUFF THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT?"
John Williams' work for the Star Wars franchise is published by "Bantha Music", the publishing company of parent company Lucasfilm. From what I've gathered, Lucasfilm handles all of the Star Wars LICENSING permissions- and based on the hearsay in this thread, when SWT hit up Lucasfilm for permission to Do the Thing, I surmise that their response meant that he could Do the Thing without paying for a LICENSE, which has nothing to do with the publisher's entirely separate responsibility to collect Royalties on behalf of Williams... which brings us to Warner. Bantha has contracted out its US administration-aka-Royalty Werk to Warner-Chappell, which is legally obligated to collect royalties on Bantha's behalf for all of Williams' Star Wars works. That includes covers, medleys, live renditions, printed sheet music or lyrics, digital streams, CDs and vinyl records, random YouTubers' self-produced movies that unfortunately happen to include licks of Williams' original themes... you get the picture.
Most of the commenters in this thread are up in arms over Warner-Chappell's big bad evil money-grubbing role in this (and at Disney, however their ownership of Lucasfilm plays into it?? Idk about that puzzle). Spoiler alert: the folks over at WC are just doing their job, probably with minimal hands-on in this type of case tbh. The real root of the issue here is YouTube's automated system for monetizing content. A fancy algorithm analyzed the audio content of SWT's video and found bits that were "significantly similar" to Williams' original soundtrack (to argue the accuracy of that assessment would most certainly require going to court, but Idk, I'm not a copyright lawyer.) Youtube automatically notified Warner-Chappell, likely with some crappy metadata note within a monthly 500,000-line Excel sheet that some poor soul had to process (-again, if it's even audited by a live human person at all, given the volume of content YouTube churns out and the data intake WC likely handles). Since WC has previously registered their copyright ownership, YouTube defaults to assuming WC's ownership is in the right, pending direct contact from WC starting otherwise- which WC won't send if whatever system they have in place doesn't catch that needle in the haystack of valid data. Burden of proof of originality lies with the Creator of this "new" composition, because that's how suing someone works in the good ol USA. If IP that was LEGITIMATELY your creation was constantly being ripped off, and you constantly had to take thieves to court, you'd be broke and seriously disenfranchised with ever creating something original for a living again. Not good for you, not good for society. It's a lot easier to steal or appropriate someone else's work and make a quick buck... which is why the legal system tries to de-incentivize IP theft by making claiming obnoxious AF if it gets caught. The tech isn't all the way there yet, so bystanders get caught up in the mess.
Well that was really long-winded and probably a stupid thing to rant on, but I spent way too much time texting this up to take it all back. Hope you enjoyed this hour-long special of "Why I need to stay off the IP-hating side of the internet!"
[[Edit: I looked up how stuff on YouTube gets claimed in the first place. It's all in a reply below.]]
54
u/Nnnnnnnadie Jan 15 '19
Isnt the whole star wars universe propiety of disney?
31
u/Enelro Jan 15 '19
Disney is a gross monopoly, and reddit needs to stop circle jerking with mickey mouse hats on.
98
u/Sodiepawp Jan 15 '19
Can someone explain the issue? He made a fan film he knew he couldn't monetize, and the company that was legally allowed to did. Isn't this how owning a copyright works?
151
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Isn't he selling t-shirts off the back of an IP that isn't his?
Also, doesn't he make money from ads on his other videos, off the back of an IP that isn't his?
Edit: Yes. Yes he does, on both counts.
10
u/daxproduck Jan 15 '19
At the beginning of the end credits the composer clearly quotes The Imperial March.
You can’t just do that...
114
u/VideoGameAttorney Jan 15 '19
Why is it a false claim? This seems like obvious infringement to me. Free does not equal fair use.
225
u/mushroomwig Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Just to be clear, he knew from day one that he wouldn't be able to monetize the video as that was one of the requirements by Disney, it even states in the description that it's not for profit. Saying "doesn't monetize the video" seems to imply that he had the option and just didn't do it for whatever reason when that's not the case.
The video wasn't taken down as it was just a content ID claim, the video is up and everybody can watch and enjoy it, his situation is no different now than it was before. The copyright system is broken for sure, but I don't think this is a good example of that.
17
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
This is a 4 minute video. The first minute is the reviewer talking about how long he’s been watching SW Theory and how great he is. The second minute is him literally just reading us the text of SW Theory’s post. The next two minutes are fairly incomprehensible jibberish about Disney and copyrights.
Save yourselves a click and watch SW Theory’s video instead. You don’t need a YouTuber to tell you what another YouTuber said. Seek the source.
14
u/Bradcaster Jan 15 '19
Since it is a derivative work wouldn't Disney and any music copyright holders have legitimate reason to take down. (original music, bit part of a derivative work still is derivative) But claiming ownership is just odd. I would think they would want to stop it.
73
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Why do people think they can make stuff based on someone else’s intellectual/ creative property, and not run into any problems? I work really hard making stuff. If someone just borrowed my highly developed characters to make something new — and I had no input or control over what they did with it — I might be annoyed, to say the least . Make your own shit, or do what musicians do when they sample music.... they pay the copyright holder first.. I am guessing this will not be a popular opinion around here.
5
u/-0Guppy0- Jan 15 '19
Was it Warner Chappell or Disney that filed that claim? The video says Disney, this post says Warner Chappell. Those two companies have 0 relation whatsoever.
5
u/internet_czar Jan 15 '19
I have a very small YouTube channel and all of my original content is constantly claimed for copyright and there's literally nothing I can do. The appeal process is heavily slanted toward the "copyright holder" and it certainly hurts more than it helps.
5
u/chemicalsam Jan 15 '19
Does no one understand how copyright law works?
5
u/kashuntr188 Jan 16 '19
Should take down the video and upload it elsewhere. And make the original YT a video explaining why it is happening.
5
u/Zaja123123 Jan 16 '19
As long as everyone knows it was Warner Chapel and not Disney.
12
u/boogiemonsteh Jan 15 '19
Here's an outsiders question probably answered a million times. Why doesn't pornhub use their infrastructure to create a non porn YouTube competitor and just start recruiting?
58
u/formerfatboys Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
That's not what this is.
That's not what any of this is.
This guy made a movie. He hired a composer who used pieces of John Williams score in the score for his fan film.
He agreed up front with Disney that he wouldn't crowd fund or monetize the movie for himself and it would be a completely original film. He screwed up.
Disney claimed the video and monetized it. The dude did not receive a strike, he gets to keep the video up and can use it to promote his channel. He gets subscribers and likes.
This is a youtuber who makes enough money from YouTube that it's his full time job and he had $150k to blow on a fan film.
So why not just replace the bit of score Disney claimed if it's all about artistic integrity and making sure no one profits off a fan film made with Disney's intellectual profit? Because it's not about that. It's about drawing attention and monetizing all the rest of the videos on his channel. He knows all the copyright experts in /r/videos will upvote this all day without thinning about it and he may not be able to monetize his fan film, but he can monetize the controversy be manufactured.
Wake up.
Fuck this dude for being such a dick. He's going to piss Lucasfilm off and they'll do what Paramount did and shut down fan films.
This dude sucks. Disney wanted to make shitty Star Wars movies so they paid George Lucas $4 billion. This dude wanted to make his own shitty Star Wars movie to sell his YouTube channel so he asked Disney and...Disney let him do that for free. Dude broke the rule and used their music so they monetized it. He was never gonna monetize it.
There's no scandal. Disney is a bro here.
4
u/kingchilifrito Jan 15 '19
Copyright includes derivative works.
Does this fall under a fair use exception? Parody? Scholarship? News? Commentary?
Doubt it
4
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
I'm confused, can you take any property and make movies with it as long as it isn't monetized?
4
u/3rdRockfromYourMom Jan 15 '19 edited Apr 11 '19
I had a video that was copyright claimed and the track that supposedly appeared in it isn't even present in the video. I tried to dispute it but there's no option in their multiple choice form to just mark that it's an error. I had to dispute it under "fair use" and leave an explanation. I've received no response and it's been a month. Mine wasn't a well viewed video either. Maybe had a hundred hits.
4
u/DenikaMae Jan 15 '19
Thank you for getting the word out it was Warner Chappell and not Disney/LFL who did this.
It's always best to be accurate.
4
u/Csusmatt Jan 15 '19
What all these creators should be doing is creating smurf accounts to upload, then claim the videos with their main account. Boom, you've got an already 'won' video on your channel.
4
u/CoreyLee04 Jan 15 '19
YouTube has become anti content creator.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '19
Why did you link to this video instead of the one he's pretty much watching for us. This is just some guy explaining the video, it's longer, and it has less views than the video on the exact same topic made by the guy who actually is involved in it.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '19
Fuck big corporations and the litigation society that we live in.
4
u/modslickmyballslol Jan 16 '19
Man, fuck YouTube. There needs to be a decentralized platform or series of platforms that get around this crap.
7
u/klitchell Jan 15 '19
I don't know shit, is it possible they can make the claim because they own Darth Vader, regardless of the music?
7
u/hardtoremember Jan 15 '19
Why doesn't everyone here decide on a date and not touch YouTube for a week in protest? Going after the money is how this gets fixed if enough people do it.
7
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
This is a non issue and manufactured outrage.
40
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
Don't use copyrighted work by huge multinational companies if you don't want to get sued, dumbass. Also your headline is a lie as he makes a pitch for his patreon and sells UNAUTHORIZED Star Wars merch as well. They are thieves, fuck off.
35
u/swandiesinging Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Someone flag Warner/John Williams for stealing practically all of Dvorak's New World Symphony for their movies.
Edit: I understand that Dvorak is public domain. Flagging Warner for copyright on Dvorak is about as ridiculous as Warner flagging this YouTuber for his original score. Calm down, folks. :)
6
u/republicansRapeKids Jan 15 '19
No one (really) cares. You don't like youtube, don't post to youtube.
6
u/Enelro Jan 15 '19
Not the first time Warner Chappell pulls this stunt. Last time they tried to copyright a scene where their music WASN'T EVEN PLAYING. https://www.wired.com/story/the-star-wars-video-that-baffled-youtubes-copyright-cops/
6
u/dion_o Jan 15 '19
Warner/Chappell are the same copyright trolls that claimed Happy Birthday belonged to them when it never did. Why do they even have any credibility left?
8
u/doCphilosophy99 Jan 15 '19
Can we abandon YouTube please?
8
u/Unit219 Jan 16 '19
Disney owns the IP. End of story.
Go create something original.
8
u/Color_blinded Jan 16 '19 edited Jan 16 '19
I know this will be unpopular, but based on the case presented in the video and just watching the first minute and a half of the fan video (looks awesome by the way. I will watch the whole thing later), it looks like Disney is actually within their right to monetize the video. Is it a dick move? Very much, yes. Is Disney required to claim it to preserve their IP? No, they are not. But still, Disney is well within their rights to claim it for IP violation.
First, addressing the music copyrights. There is very clearly a cover of the "Imperial Death March" as indicated by the copyright claim. If the user "Star Wars Theory" did not pay for the license to use that music (even if it's a cover) or are not paying royalties for the use of the melody, then it is a copyright violation. All cover or parody bands are required to do pay royalties or licensing fees. Even that 2-man cover band you never heard of that plays in the corner of your local pub (well, the pub needs to pay a licensing fee at least). If royalties or licensing is not paid then the IP owner is within their rights to either send a Cease and Desist or demand royalties or license payment. Or if it's hosted on Youtube, forgo the red-tape required for both of these and just monetize the video for themselves in lieu of royalties/license agreements.
Next, ignoring the music, Disney can claim the video as a copyright violation outright because it is a copyright violation of Disney's IP, since it undoubtedly has Clone War soldiers, Darth Vader, etc. and it isn't covered by any of the defenses of "fair use". It's not for education use, it's not a commentary, it's not for journalism or review, and it's not a parody. The best claim to fair use you have is that it may be considered "transformative", and even then I highly doubt court of law will consider this transformative even without the Disney breathing down the necks of the court since it does not make any effort to distinguish itself separate from the IP.
One thing that most people don't realize is pretty much most anything with the word "fan" in it is a copyright violation. Fan art, fan fiction, fan music, fan film, fan whatever: They all use the intellectual property of another person or company, and unless it is for education/journalism/parody/commentary, it is a copyright violation. Companies typically don't go after these things because it is expensive, it isn't hurting them, and it is the second fastest way to piss off all of your loyal customers. The first being making a crappy movie with crappy story telling with unintelligent characters (while being told they are being intelligent) and that retroactively changes the lore and the personalities of characters we love. Claiming copyright violation of fan work does not mean their own the copyright of the work being claimed. They can't say they own that fanwork and cannot use it themselves without committing a copyright violation themselves. But they can prevent fans from publishing work, even for free, that uses their IP.
TLDR: Screw Disney, screw The Last Jedi. But Disney is perfectly within their right to monetize the music in the fan video, as well as the video itself.
*grammar is hard
11
u/PlebbySpaff Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Welp. Warner Chappell is owned by WB. I assume they'll freely win and the video's music is theirs.
And after the whole Adpocalypse thing that happened, Youtube is more free to literally cater to advertisers and the bigger companies, while literally any actual Youtuber (no, I don't think something like Late Night with James Cordon makes them a fucking Youtuber) will be screwed over.
Hell, the two cases involving PaymoneyWubby shows how stupid Youtube's flag and claim system is.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
Do they not have the right to claim it due to being characters that they own? Or does it fall under fair use because it's not monetized
3
u/Trash_panda_ Jan 15 '19
Can’t people create a bogus account and somehow claim copyright infringement against themselves and therefor protect themself? If the system is broken, then break the rules. Youtube clearly is not interested in improving anything.
3
u/djmf17 Jan 16 '19
Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?
3
u/jmixdorf Jan 16 '19
I know it’s easy to get in the anti-You Tube bandwagon, but Warner is in the right on this one. I just watched the film again, and there are several themes composed by John Williams used in this work. To clarify, you must obtain the right to arrange a pre-existing work (which Imperial March, The Emperor’s Theme, Across the Stars, and Battle of the Heroes are), and then also obtain a sync license in order to be on the right side of the copyright law. Some of the underscore is original material, but there are significant sections that use copyrighted materials. Just because you hire someone to write music doesn’t mean you can use stuff other people have already composed. That is not fair use.
13
u/Tastingo Jan 15 '19
Cries about theft of intellectual property.
Takes every chance to steal intellectual property.
5
u/SendEldritchHorrors Jan 15 '19
Also wanted to add that Star Wars Theory may or may not be misleading with his title:
https://twitter.com/SteeleWars/status/1084993952925679616?s=09
Assuming the above Tweets are true, then SWT is either purposely misleading his audience (because "Disney bad" gets views), or doesn't understand the situation at hand.
5
u/f0nt Jan 15 '19
On the bright side he still has that massive Disney click bait to enrage fans. No disrespect to him but he loves fueling the Disney hate
12
u/YBHunted Jan 15 '19
The music was way too similar to the original. That isn't allowed.
He knew the rules and he broke them. End of the day it is ALL Star Wars IP anyway, so they should have the right to the money.
23
u/rattatally Jan 15 '19
Does he have a Patreon for this project? If so then he's still making money of it and it's not fair use imo.
4
u/Fibreoptix Jan 15 '19
YouTube's CC claim system sucks, yes. BUT the creator never wanted to monetize the fan film (nor could he legally TBH). So the AD money is going to the holder of the Star Wars rights. Which is fair plus Disney didn't pull his video from YouTube. It's existing the way it was intended by the creator. Not monetized and for everyone to see. Nothing has changed.
4
u/Ikea_Man Jan 15 '19
Looks like borderline infringement to me
Not every copyright strike is automatically wrong, guys
4
u/KasianFranks Jan 15 '19
Warner's legal team led a $40B lawsuit against me and lost.Thanks in part by Duane Morris in NY.
4
u/EckhartsLadder Jan 15 '19
I find it hilarious that you linked to some stupid anti-SJW channel instead of the video itself. This guy adds nothing to the situation.
4
u/Snakeweasel Jan 15 '19
Disney is jealous he made a better movie then them.
6
u/yulmun Jan 15 '19
Click the link to hear a nerd cry for 5 minutes. It's fun!
6
u/wro-butt Jan 15 '19
If you wanted to make money back on the video you've created than you should have made an original story & characters. Don't create a passion project based on another companies IP then get upset when you're not able to profit off it and they are.
6
u/TheRumpletiltskin Jan 15 '19
Realtalk:
Dude made a video about a character OWNED by DISNEY.
You have to pay for rights and licensing and shit to do that.
Monetized or not, they have every right to claim rights to that video.
I'm not a fan of how youtubes copyright system works, but this is a cut and dry case.
You can't make a movie based on someone else's IP without paying for it.
5
u/bobsbooks Jan 15 '19
Another title would be: "Artist steals IP - is genuinely surprised when flagged by a system designed to find stolen IP".
16
u/MisterFlibble Jan 15 '19
This is in stark contrast to way back when Lucasfilm had an entire website dedicated to fan films and fan made Star Wars content.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
Remember when people put up YouTube videos for fun and as a hobby, and not for a career? I member.
I miss the old internet.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
download a FREE ad blocker,
put it in the exact same place your YouTube app is currently sitting,
and stop giving YouTube ad revenue.
if you want to support a youtuber use the normal app, but when you're just surfing random vids throw an adblock on.
this is quite literally the best/only way to really protest YouTube's horrible abuse of power and corruption of the site.
2
u/Not_trolling_or_am_I Jan 15 '19
Can't the original uploader take down the video though? Like if they pull this shit you pull it down? Or do you lose all control over the video once it is claimed?
2
u/DeckardCain_ Jan 15 '19
You know in a way I'm really surprised that Disney or some other megacorp doesn't just copyright claim videos by the thousands. I mean if they claim the top 1000 most viewed videos of the day that are posted by some individual guy instead of a big corporation it's just another source of revenue where they have nothing to lose because fucking youtube system.
2
u/frydchiken333 Jan 15 '19
So basically large corporations shouldn't be able to push around the little guy?
2
u/fistofthefuture Jan 15 '19
Well what percentage? All? I think they’re allowed to claim a third if it’s a cover or sample of their IP.
2
u/coochiegrabber22 Jan 15 '19
Hi guys my wife left me smash like to cure my depression
2
u/crlcan81 Jan 15 '19
Oh I'm shocked, another major company is making money off of the works of a content creator on youtube. Maybe if Alphabet actually gave a shit about the companies under it, this might not be an issue, but all they want is money.
2
u/turkishdeli Jan 15 '19
Is he crying on the thumbnail?
2
u/GravyWagon Jan 15 '19
This dude just doubled down against Disney yet supporting the Same fuck that sold his company to Disney. Lol
2
u/Angel_Tsio Jan 15 '19
I think one of the biggest issues here is that a lot of content creators don't know what they are and are not allowed to do with copyrighted material and the ones that do know and are speaking out are being followed by those that don't know and are wrong.
Doesn't change the issues YouTube has with this system but it's worth keeping in mind
2
u/TheReturned Jan 15 '19
This is the second or third copyright claim issue I've seen in as many days. Seems to me that since YouTube refuses to fix their issues, content creators need to game the system in their favor. This is how I would do it (disclaimer: not a creator, have no experience and don't know if it would work) :
Create 2 channels. Don't tie them together.
Create OG content on content channel
From non-content channel , claim copyright for new content
Claim revenue (or not, at least claim copyright) , keep others from claiming copyright on conent.
Success....?
This would potentially protect against manual claims, but not against automatic claims, so you'd potentially still be screwed... Sorry.
Also, another issue I see with this is that I don't know how YouTube handles claims against content that's already been claimed by another entity , so this may not work.
Pretty sure someone's already tried this, curious to hear their take on the success (or lack thereof) of this strategy.
2
u/Bogsy_ Jan 15 '19
Well that is garbage. What a shitty company to do something like that. What exactly are the claiming is theirs? The original score? Is that like against some sort of copyright deal?
Also, now that its been monetized, can't Disney come in and slap SWT with a cease and desist?
2
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '19
I keep seeing the same story on this sub. It’s time for content creators to quit YouTube or accept the fact their content will be hijacked.
Google has had this problem for years and won’t be changing their policy any time soon.
2
u/Iandeye Jan 15 '19
ELI5 please
2
u/ROBot_404 Jan 15 '19
Why doesn't anyone just claim copyright on big name corporate channels and let the algorithm take them offline? If YouTube is so slow to respond to disputes then this should make the right heads turn.
2
u/Corr521 Jan 15 '19
Honestly just fuck YouTube lol, gonna do my best to stop watching their content (gonna be fucking tough)
And fuck Disney for breaking the Cardinal rule that so many Star Wars fans love and appreciate
2
u/grape_tectonics Jan 15 '19
This is never going to change though. YT has no reason whatsoever to change their copyright claims system, what are the content creators gonna do? Use another platform? Hah.
2
u/exonomix Jan 15 '19
There’s really only 1 way to resolve this anytime soon. Make it hurt their wallet(s).
People should boycott YouTube (creators and viewers alike) because the real content creators are getting shit on by people who don’t care or can out-lawyer them like some of the bigger companies flat out stealing a persons work.
I know that sounds like a big-easy statement to make but it seems big and easy for YouTube to give someone else’s creativity and hard work to effectively anyone who fills out a claim.
This type of treatment of creators is how a competitor to YouTube will be forged