Sintel blocked by Sony on Youtube

noticed by Pratik Solanki and Sage Bwk on Facebook

Ton posted that on his Twitter hours ago, he already filled a complain.

Just a Youtube content ID cockup

It might be a cockup, but the word “just” is out of place. I think it is wrong to block something on behalf of a rights holder until someone else claims that party actually doesn’t hold the rights. It makes youtube complicit in a false copyright claim, which is a criminal offense. I know it might be inconvenient, but I think rights holder should at least actively confirm it has the rights before blocking!

Quick, someone send this to Slashdot/Reddit/etc. Might attract some funding for Gooseberry from the tech crowd too. Let’s milk the Sony snafu for all it’s worth :smiley:

Edit: someone already posted to slashdot, kindly press the + in the header :slight_smile:

Sony Pictures? What the…

Moderation note: merged this from its own thread. Please search before posting

What da fak?

Ignorant Sony. Hope it turns out to be helping Blender.
Stay wise (smart phones are still stupid).

Sony or any other company don’t just go from video to video hijacking copyright. If the youtube content ID system trawling through videos mistakenly thinks it has a match it will flag as copyright violation. The owner can then raise a dispute that it is in error. It’s not uncommon.

It would be funny if this ends up spiking the amount of funding raised for Gooseberry all the way to the goal.

Anyway, if Sony really did have a case against something used in Sintel, then you think they should’ve contacted the Foundation as soon as it was released instead of waiting a few years. It might indeed be Youtube’s automatic flagging system because it’s notoriously poor at detecting a genuine infringement.

So if the automated Youtube system detects something wrong with the copyright, this should be analyzed by humans first before blocking the video. With the current Youtube modus operandi, the presumption of innocence is abolished: the accused is innocent until proven guilty. For youtube, the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

What Sony content? Were they planning an open movie?

No… Sintel was apparently included in Sony’s 4k demo pool (for showing 4k content on their displays/projectors). Though to be honest, I wasn’t aware that there was a 4k render of Sintel in the wild.

In any case, it’s possible that’s what triggered the flag. If so, this is actually a result of a good thing (an Open Movie getting more exposure by being shown as part of demonstration material for hardware).

I hope the donate to Gooseberry didn’t Samsung and LG donate for this very reason that the use open content to demo there hardware. I think BBB gets used for this a lot.

With the large amount of content on youtube and companies like Sony that have huge amounts of copyright content, an automated method is the only practical solution. With the large numbers of videos that I expect are picked up it would be impractical to manually check each one, only those that are disputed.

There will always be mistakes. If you don’t like it, don’t use the service

All the time, it doesn’t cost them a penny.

You will probably find that a clip form Sintel has been used in a Sony video “with it being CC” something like a promotion for a 4K tv or something.

Someone then mistakenly claimed ownership of that promotional material in its entirety when uploading it to the Youtube Content ID System.

I have seen a similar thing happen with CC music, some big company uses some in a video only for it to be mistakenly claimed on the Youtube Content ID system as there own by another uninformed employee.

The major issue with this is that inorder to claim back the rights of a CC work, the way the system works is the rightful owner has to add it to the content ID system. This has caused problems for people who sell music or CC their music because they then start making claims on other peoples channels just like Sony has on the BF preventing a person from monetizing the said video. Youtube requires you make an exception for each use of the copyrighted work, making the act of selling or CCing music for use on Youtube very difficult if its been wrongfully or fraudulently claimed by someone else.

I know they don’t actively hijack videos and that it is not uncommon. The point is that youtube offer the option of automatically blocking, without the supposed owner checking whether he/she is actually the owner. I think this is legally wrong, as the burden of proof should not be on the actual owner.

When posting work on youtube your legal rights are not what you seem to think they are. Youtube is a private corporation who allow you to display your work on their website as long as you follow THEIR rules however bizarre they are.

For instance Youtube could require you to upload all videos with a red dot in the corner, failure to do so will have the video removed. Your legal “rights” to freedom of speech mean nothing, Youtube is not an open forum its a private space and you follow their rules.

At the moment Youtube has a bizarre rule that means your video can be removed if someones work looks or sounds similar. They don’t need to prove them selves they don’t need a “burden of proof” or a warrant or even give you a warning. If you don’t like the rules you are free to host your own videos.

I not being harsh at you, I’m just saying how bad it is so you get the idea. Youtube are completely legally allowed to do this. :frowning:

This look like a “minority report” :mad:

how we can help??

Go to hell Sony… Seriously…
Is anyone using Sony Vegas? Good time to switch to something else…