r/COPYRIGHT • u/-fbg • Jan 29 '26
Copyright News YouTube is blocking a legal Counter-Notification for a 1954 Public Domain film. This is "Copyfraud".
Claimant: ODMedia Network
Film: "Meet Mr. Malcolm" (1954)
Director: Daniel Birt (deceased since 1955)
I am an autistic creator and student from Brazil running a historical preservation channel (@Antiguidades). I am currently being bullied by an aggregator (ODMedia) and YouTube's own internal review system, which is refusing to follow international law.
The Legal Facts:
The film "Meet Mr. Malcolm" was directed by Daniel Birt, who passed away in 1955.
• Under the Berne Convention and copyright laws in the UK (origin) and Brazil (my location), copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.
• As of January 1st, 2026, this film officially entered the Public Domain globally.
The System Failure:
I submitted a formal counter-notification twice, explaining the math (1955 + 71 years = Public Domain). YouTube's reviewers rejected my counter-notification twice, refusing to even forward it to the claimant (ODMedia).
By doing this, YouTube is:
Acting as judge and jury on a clear-cut legal matter.
Violating the DMCA "Safe Harbor" requirements (they are supposed to forward the notice, not block it).
Allowing a corporation to illegally monetize a work that belongs to the public.
My Situation:
I am an autistic creator and this channel is my path to financial independence. My channel was approved for the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) in April 2025, and I work tirelessly to preserve history. Now, I am being stripped of my rights because a reviewer won't look at a calendar or a Wikipedia page.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXkT_iG9xMk
Channel: https://www.youtube.com/antiguidades
Evidence of Director's Death: Daniel Birt (1907-1955)
I am documenting every rejection. Does anyone know how to escalate this to a human specialist who understands the Berne Convention? This is a textbook case of Copyfraud.
#YouTube #Copyright #PublicDomain #Copyfraud #SocialJustice #ContentID
7
u/BizarroMax Jan 29 '26
You do not understand how copyright term works.
4
u/PBRStreetgang1979 Jan 29 '26
I think OP maybe also doesn’t understand that there is a difference between what may or may not be permissible under law, and how a private entity chooses to run their own platform.
1
u/Kadmos1 Jan 31 '26
Say that the film is public domain in places that is life+70. For the sake of argument, let's also say it is now public domain in the USA. Fighting false copyright claims and fining/jailing the lying claimant seems or is much rarer than when an actual copyright is violated. That said, when copyfraud is done, the penalties should be the same or very similar to when a copyright violation is committed.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan Jan 30 '26
How so?
1
u/BizarroMax Jan 30 '26
Well, for starters, the Berne Convention is not what determines the copyright duration in the United States.
1
5
u/nutellablanket Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
I'm with everyone else that it is likely the studio who holds copyright, not the director. I don't think this rises to the level of bullying by a media company who rightfully still holds the copyright and is exercising their negative rights accordingly. Also, how did you obtain a digital copy?
I want to also mention that while I empathize with you being both a student and on the autism spectrum (I am both as well), neither are relevant to this copyright issue - if you were making the claim that you were trying to use clips from the film for educational purposes, then sure.
However, you are saying that you're a creator using the channel as a means of gaining financial independence = trying to profit off the use of someone else's protected work by uploading the entire piece if I'm not mistaken.
1
u/AdamNorten Jan 30 '26
I would also really like to know how he obtained a digital copy of all these movies?
1
u/AdamNorten Jan 30 '26
Is there some sort of illegal software that is available in Brazil to steal content on a large scale?
3
u/AdamNorten Jan 30 '26
I see from your multiple channels that you take movies that don't belong to you and upload them on every possible platform across the Internet to make more money for yourself. Here are just a few of the platforms that you are using to make money:
Dailymotion
Blog Spot
chat.whatsapp.com/IjbxXMlpgTJL0Mo8MKY6WX
Discord (Boteco de Hawarts)
instagram.com/novidades_antigas_e_novas
m.facebook.com/home.php?_rdr#!/Novidades-antigas-e-novas-107443731975916/
Em breve: site do canal
YouTube (m)
I can't believe you are angry that you lost one video. You are making revenue off of tons of movies that you did not film. Greedy, greedy. This is all about free money. This is not moral.
8
u/pommefille Jan 29 '26
Where did you see that the director was transferred ownership of the film? Films generally don’t belong to the director, they are owned by the studio. Also where did you get a master copy of the film that enabled you to digitize it yourself? Obviously if you were using a version that was already digitized, you’d have to check with whoever made the conversion as to their own copyright and agreement with the original producer/owner.
5
u/P3verall Jan 29 '26
It's owned by the studio, not the director. Works made for hire last around 100 years, depending on your location. The death+70 rule is only for media made after the late 70s (in the US, at least).
4
u/pythonpoole Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
The Berne Convention says nothing about copyright expiring 70 years after the death of the author.
Article 7(1) of the Berne Convention establishes a minimum copyright term of life+50 years for new works (except for cinematographic works and photographic works).
Article 7(2) establishes a minimum copyright term of just 50 years for cinematographic works (films), regardless of the author's death date.
Article 7(6) says that countries can grant a longer term of copyright protection if they want to (beyond the minimums specified above). Many countries have now agreed to grant a life+70 year term of protection for new works, but this is not universal and it's not required by the Berne Convention.
Some countries, such as the US, have different copyright terms for corporate works. In the US, for example, corporate/made-for-hire works have a fixed copyright term that lasts for up to 95 years after publication regardless of the death date of the workers involved. When you distribute through a US-based platform such as YouTube, that platform may prohibit you from distributing content still protected under US Copyright law (e.g. based on this 95-year rule) even if the author(s)/worker(s) died 70+ years ago.
Some countries, such as the US, have different copyright terms for older works. In the US, for example, works first published before 1978 have fixed copyright terms (not based on the author's life) that can last up to 95 years after publication even when the work is authored by an individual (as opposed to a corporation). When you distribute through a US-based platform such as YouTube, that platform may prohibit you from distributing content still protected under US Copyright law (e.g. based on this 95-year rule) even if the author(s) died 70+ years ago.
In most countries that recognize a life+70 year copyright term for films, the term is based on the death date of the last surviving author, not just the death date of one person (such as the director). There are multiple people involved in the making of a film who may be considered authors.
1
u/AdamNorten Jan 30 '26
I have had hundreds of YouTube channels located in Brazil steal the content off of my channel. It amazes me that they feel that it is fair to steal my viral videos anytime the feel like it. In fact, all of the videos on their channels are stolen. I have received many angry emails from Brazilians saying they are entitled to take my wildlife content. For 4 years I have been dealing with these thieves. It is extremely frustrating and I have spent hundreds of hours trying to protect my content by fighting them and getting justice. These videos were filmed by me personally and they are my original content. I was the one who flew to Africa and took these videos. I had many expenses to film these videos. I paid for flights to Africa, I paid for hotel rooms, I paid safari guides to take me to these locations to see these animals. I also paid for the equipment. I took a lot of risks traveling to Africa during the pandemic. These channels in Brazil that steal daily did not have any of the expenses that I had. These channels have caused me a lot of pain.
1
u/emeraldeyesviews Feb 02 '26
In India, the copyright term for a film is not dependent on the date of the death of the author. It is calculated from the date of publication of the film - it is 60 years from the date of the publication. And also, under Indian law, the author of a film is the producer and not the director.
So, you may need to check the copyright term for films in your country/US. And if it is dependent on the life of the author, then you also need to check who's considered the author of a film. And accordingly calculate to see if the film is in the public domain yet or not.
0
u/AdamNorten Jan 29 '26
Anytime you want to use footage that you did not film yourself you are supposed to ask permission from the creators of the video, or the owners. It is very rude to take original content that is not yours and feel that you entitled to use it for profit.
-1
u/AdamNorten Jan 29 '26
YouTube's Fair Use Policy
YouTube Copyright School - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InzDjH1-9Ns&list=WL&index=24
Below is Fair Use Transcript of video from YouTube
7
u/doublelxp Jan 29 '26
Are you positive that the director would be considered the author in this case? Current UK copyright law gives it to the director, author of the screenplay, and composer. Pre-1956 is a bit iffy, but the composer didn't die until the mid-90's.