Disney strikes again?

[Mike Newell]

Thanks Doug, glad you found it. Apparently, the same search engine that would bring it up before, won't do so now. Mike, note: my posting of this was never for profit. Oh, there wouldn't be much to spy on, I lead a pretty bland life.

I know there are no profit intentions but if there are Mickey and the gang will be round to see you. I doubt those in You Tube and Disney would even know what super 8 package movies are.

[Osi Osgood]

THAT, I totally agree with you on
, Mike. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney's executives of today don't even know about the Disney/ Derann deal.

[Ethan Knightchilde]

There are all sorts of rights that come with IP. Public performance, theatrical, digital distribution, physical, etc. The Fair Use Doctrine is generally applied to things like scholarly works, etc. where portions are quoted, excerpts included etc. Storing anything online that can be made public or where others can view it (potentially) runs afoul of the rights of a copyright holder. No content creator—no matter how large or small—cares to see their complete work sitting online anywhere unless they have specifically licensed it for that purpose, regardless of whether there is a profit motive. Best bet is to store locally and keep a copy offsite for backup, because platforms are legally obligated to take down material at a copyright holder’s request. Remember that (in general) only a copyright holder has the legal right to authorize the making of copies!

[Joerg Polzfusz]

There’s one thing that you have to keep in mind:
Even when the uploader doesn’t (want to) make profit, then at least YouTube is making money with these videos by showing advertisements, „milking the data cows“ (aka „exploiting user data“), selling their „premium“ subscriptions, … . Hence, everyone can easily argue that „uploading something to YouTube“ is „commercial use“ and hence not covered by „private use“-licenses or „fair use“-rules.

[Osi Osgood]

By that standard, not the uploader, but YouTube itself would-be open to lawsuits by the parent company/ copyright owner, but Disney and others make so much by using YouTube, that it far out weighs any money loss.

[Ethan Knightchilde]

By that standard, not the uploader, but YouTube itself would-be open to lawsuits by the parent company/ copyright owner, but Disney and others make so much by using YouTube, that it far out weighs any money loss.

Osi,
Youtube or any platform would indeed be subject to liability if they were given a take down notice and ignored it—as well as the uploader—for violation of copyright laws. As a very small content creator (but one who is proud of the films I have produced), I have had to do this many times. Amazon and Google-Tube were pretty quick to respond when given the notice. To be sure, I would have hired legal counsel if they had balked. No one has the right to use anyone else’s property beyond any permission that had been legally granted.

All that said, IP/copyright laws are byzantine and they have not kept up well with the rapid advance of technology. It’s always better to be safe rather than sorry.

[Osi Osgood]

This gets oh so much more interesting now. OK, I was actually able to get on my YouTube page, "CX TRAX", and while it states that I have 52 posted and active videos. I counted only 45. One of the missing 45 is that Star Wars scope video. A request for any intrepid fellow members. If you, on your own device, will go to my page, and click to peruse the videos, do you see either my Star Wars super 8 digest, or my Close Encounters super 8 scope posting, cuz neither of those are visible. I'm wondering if part of that is the internet provider which is actually censoring what comes up on the internet, due to its very nature and settings?

[Douglas Meltzer]

Osi,

Looking at your CX TRAX YouTube page, both Star Wars & Close Encounters are clearly visible. I counted 51 videos displayed, so could you have possibly uploaded one video as private?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

By that standard, not the uploader, but YouTube itself would-be open to lawsuits by the parent company/ copyright owner, but Disney and others make so much by using YouTube, that it far out weighs any money loss.

In order to avoid some of these lawsuits, YouTube is already paying license fees to GEMA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, … .

[Osi Osgood]

None were uploaded to remain private. Only one, in the past, was specifically uploaded to be private, and that was a tour of our new house, and I also got rid of that one after a few days, as it was just for family and a few friends. Putting something like that up public, would give scammers and hackers LOTS of info to rip you off.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

You should have kept it publicly online. Especially when it contains GPS data and when you are permanently, publicly posting your vacation plans on Facebook/YouTube/here.