I think the song Happy Birthday probably fell into that category before their copyright was yanked. I know this isn’t a great GQ answer.
Does putting message on videos protect people uploading copyrighted videos from legal action using Y
The applicable term for the copyright owner is “copyright troll”. Wikipedia and EFF has articles about them with examples.
Note that examples like Righthaven don’t have a single item they are litigious about, but many. To make serious money you need a lot material to draw fees from.
Ashley Brilliant is another one, who last I heard held the record for the shortest work of text whose copyright had ever been litigated, at (let me see…) 9 words or 36 letters.
Good thing you spelled it that way and not Asleigh – you might have gotten sued.
I can’t remember the name, but about 10 or 15 years ago, an intelectual property lawyer who did conventions and taught aspiring creators the basics of copyright, trademark and patent law decided to do a comic book. The result was a fun and profoundly educational book. I recommend it highly and wish I could remember the title or the author’s name.
Neither a pun nor a mistake. I mean the phrase literally. There are many, many, misconceptions and false beliefs made up from whole cloth that have shown up over the years when it comes to the understanding of copyright law on the Internet and people trying to get away with distributing copyrighted material. Some others are the belief that you are entitled to a “trial period” of content and can download things like music and games as long as you delete the content within 24 hours of downloading it and the disclaimers that now-obsolete pirate servers thought making users agree to could ward off lawsuits and law enforcement from connecting to the system, basically an online version of asking “are you a cop?”
The most insulting part of this is when people steal material, make money on youtube with it, then say “Why u mad?” since they say they are doing YOU a favor by promoting your work (without your permission).
Yeah, it’s nearly one-ten-thousandth as bad as Google abusing the copyright strike system to do things like hit a white noise video with five separate copyright claims and, no, I don’t mean that someone got struck for uploading an old Sean Hannity video.
While there are obvious flaws in the current implementation, and some in the overall design, it’s difficult to put together any system that is flexible, scalable, and still identifies copyright infringements big and small. Is there a better system implemented somewhere?
That’s not at all the same document I remember (yes, it was from at least as far back as the mid-1980’s), but upon a quick skimming, it does look like a very good document. Your linked doc is much longer and more detailed than the one I saw, besides being rather newer. (ETA: I first participated in Usenet circa 1986, at which time it was already fairly well-established.)
The doc I saw listed five distinct right that are part of the copyright bundle. Your link lists seven distinct rights. I think the first five are the same that I remember, with the last two being newer additions.
The doc that I saw had one cute item in its FAQ section:
Q: “How do you waste a postage stamp”
A: Put a copy of your work into an envelope and mail it to yourself.
He meant, apparently, that the “folk law” method of securing a copyright without bothering to formally register it doesn’t work. He gave no further explanation or discussion of his answer. (The idea being that by mailing your work to yourself and then not opening it, you have a sealed postmarked dated envelope with your work, thus documenting the date on which you had it. Apparently, he means that a court won’t pay any attention to that.)
This isn’t an excuse for a production system which performs as terribly as the Google system does. It’s irrelevant.
Really, this just shows that YouTube has two completely different views of copyright and “Fair Use” in play: The grassroots one, in which anything and everything is “Fair Use” as long as the creator is properly credited, and the Official one, where less than nothing is “Fair Use” because, according to the Official systems, absolutely random noise can infringe on multiple copyrights. It’s impossible to reconcile these systems, but it’s impossible to even coexist with the system which sees copyright violations in anything and everything, apparently at random.
It seems to me that the Google system being fooled by white noise isn’t much of a drawback, because who’s seriously trying to make a video of white noise? Now, if it fails for real works, that’s a problem. Does it?
What pun?
Why not? White noise allegedly helps people relax. People play white noise to help them sleep. I can see that someone might want to play a video of white noise while relaxing in an armchair.
And people might produce white noise commercially and protect it with copyright, and take action against infringement.
Folk law / Folklore
Though Cleophus says no pun intended.
j
By definition, white noise cannot be protected by copyright. White noise might be used in a work covered by copyright, but white noise alone does not qualify for protection.
I think “folk law” is a term of art. The accumulated legal understanding of people who aren’t lawyers or particularly versed in law.
Like folk medicine is medical knowledge external to the professional medical establishment.
I remember seeing someone on Usenet seriously claiming that you could copy a commercial MIDI file and by adding an extra note off event at the end (IIRC the phrase the poster used was something like “just add an extra rest at the end”) it would legally be considered a different work and thus be perfectly legal.
The solution is if someone makes a ridiculous copyright claim against a video then it counts as a strike against the offender. Three and you’re out.
They just create a new account and resume. This is very lopsided.
If someone has a hundred+ videos with thousands of followers and they get 3 strikes for unwarranted copyright violations, they could create a new account, reupload the videos, etc. But that takes a lot of time and they lose the followers. It would take a while to regain them, etc. Plus things get mixed up. A video originally uploaded 3 years ago is now “new” and people might get confused about, for example, someone reviewing a “brand new” item that is in fact old hat.
And all the comments get lost, but that might not be a bad thing in many cases. 
A copyright troll has little to lose. That chances of one of their victims successfully suing is tiny. And they can just keep popping up over and over.