There are two types of copyright triggers on YouTube, manual, where someone actively makes a claim and the much more common automatic flagging system which scrubs through whatever you upload to YouTube as part of the upload process, usually after the SD version is ready but before HD if that is applicable. And after uploading, your video will be subject to periodic and random checks for the rest of time. If you've ever received an e-mail out of the blue informing you that a video you uploaded ten years ago has been blocked in Greece or cannot be monetised because of a claim by a company in Australia, that is usually why that has happened.
This is an automatic flagging. Neither automatic nor manual copyright claims, blocks and strikes do not have legal standing and are not in themselves evidence of anything. But this is especially true of automatic versions when a work's copyright expires. All they mean is that someone - and it's important to remember that this could be anyone - has made a copyright claim on some material and either consciously made it against your upload or the automatic system thinks your content is a match for what's in its database to check for. So, once material has been added to the system to check it stays in there, it's up to the submitter to make changes and there is no obligation for them to do so nor sanction if they fail to do so.
Last year, Disney was blocking my upload of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit's Trolley Trouble's. I disputed it and to my surprise, instead of running out the clock or trying to intimidate me into dropping the issue, they promptly responded and dropped the claim. A while ago, YouTube informed me that my channel could qualify for partnership, as part of the sales pitch it was keen to stress that I could make use of its checking system, simply upload my video to it, and it would take care of all the rest for me. I think you can see several of the potential openings for abuse right there.
Why such a boon for shady dealers and outright committers of copyfraud? Well, it's not YouTube's fault, well not exclusively its fault. It's the fault of Intellectual Property legislation. In particular the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the dreaded DMCA. Under the DMCA system, YouTube and all other websites operating under jurisdiction of the United States of America have to take allegations of copyright infringement at their word and act to remove it. This leaves it up to the user to challenge it if those complaints are unfounded. And sites aren't even obligated to provide you the means to challenge it. YouTube gets lots of criticism for its copyright policies, but I will give it the barest slither of credit, it does allow users to make a challenge in the case of abuse, from what I've seen other websites just act and then ban the user or send them a warning. YouTube's process is extremely flawed, especially if you don't have a lawyer on retainer, but it has a process.
If you're curious why websites behave this way, it's because that's a requirement of the `Safe Harbour` protections. So this is a compromise between big media companies and big tech companies. YouTube and all the big online media sharing sites are full of piracy, but they rarely face any legal consequences, because the liability is transferred to the anonymous individual users. This aspect was key to what made that lawsuit by the channel Business Casual so surprising, the alleged actions of YouTube as a company risk losing that Safe Harbour status and would put them at risk of direct litigation for copyright violations and other activities by the company and its administration. So, it will be interesting to see how that class action lawsuit they're building plays out.
But back to the Mouse, because of how 'Safe Harbour' works there is no attempt at evaluation or judgement, it is a simple as Step 1: Report and Step 2: Remove as an automatic function, this means that the copyright claims on YouTube videos don't matter beyond restricting and annoying some people. The system by design eliminates evaluation and judgement of merit until other parties take further action. My upload of Steamboat Willie is blocked in several nations, and according to YouTube the claim is made by Disney, but I won't have any proof that Disney is in fact behind the claim unless I proceed through the dispute process up to a point where YouTube enacts a "contact the claimant" option and gives me an e-mail address, that is how little effort YouTube takes in verifying the identities of the entities that claim their legally protected material is being harmed by its service. Oh, and for extra fun, even when you win a dispute, there is nothing in place to stop the same content being claimed, nor being claimed by the same people you fought off last time. Warner Bros, are pretty infamous for repeatedly trying to re-claim their former properties to take just one example. What determines the copyright status of works is legislation and case law. So, if you live in one of those countries that keeps blocking the Mouse, you need to look at your own nation's legal codes; does your nation have the "rule of shorter term" for foreign works? Is the work still in copyright in your territory, and if so in what fashion and to whom is the representative? A company arbitrarily actioning what is often an automatic response does not mean anything.
Addendum
On the 13th of March, Disney failed to escalate my challenge copyright dispute over the content of the video, during the dispute period Disney did however remove its region blocks and changed to what's called an "ad grab" copyright claim. That's the claim that doesn't affect the upload but does monetise it for the claimant. So, looks like we have clarity, Mickey Mouse the character is public domain world wide.
No comments:
Post a Comment