Group items tagged

"...Teachable moments As is often the case in awkward cases - where the system does not quite work as intended - a few things can be drawn from this episode. YouTube's Content ID system - http://youtube-global.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/improving-content-id.html - is, in fact, intended to act as a buffer between the sometimes conflicting interests of content holders and uploaders: rather than forcing content holders to either ignore infringing content or go straight to a DMCA takedown notice. YouTube compares content that is uploaded to huge numbers of files of copyright works supplied by content owners, as do external agencies contracted to content owners. Content owners are able to set their own parameters, and determine what action YouTube should take - whether that is allowing, monetizing or blocking the content. One problem with this setup is that mechanical systems, while necessary to sort the vast amount of content being uploaded to YouTube and other video sharing sites every moment, are short on nuance. One can make assumptions and built rules based on quantifiable properties - if there are five minutes of rightsholder-owned content scattered across a 30 minute video, for example, that content is more likely to be being used for illustrative purposes in a review than uploaded in an infringing fashion - but ideas like fair use are generally decided by humans, and can only be approximated by mechanical systems. So, the rights holder, the agency pursuing monetization on the rights holder's behalf, the uploader and YouTube have connected but not identical interests. This may go some way to explaining the lacunae which took this example from a formality to a three-month epic. And, in this particular case, there are unusual elements - for example, the double claims, for first audiovisual and then visual content. The system is not intended to enable this kind of double jeopardy

Daniel Nye Griffiths descrive un caso reale di disputa sul copyright nel caso di un remix video pubblicato su YouTube. Da lì, spiega come funziona il sistema YouTube che individua possibili violazioni di copyright ma consente anche di contestare tali individuazioni. Ci sono anche link alle fonti dirette. Cosa buffa: il caso reale riguarda il copyright di una serie TV intitolata "The Twilight Zone", l'area crepuscolare tra giorno e notte. Sono capitata su questo articolo cercando di capire se un episodio del 1960 di questa serie era ancora sotto copyright oppure era caduto nel pubblico dominio. Prima avevo provato con lo strumento Digital Copyright Slider dell'associazione delle biblioteche US - http://librarycopyright.net/resources/digitalslider/ - che aveva cautamente risposto "Forse", con una nota che spiegava che dipendeva se il copyright originale era stato rinnovato, e link a lunghi e complessi documenti su come fare per scoprirlo... quindi sono tuttora nella "Twilight Zone" in merito.