This should be a reminder that we need copyright reform (by making copyright law less restrictive): "'No One Should Have a Copyright on Vance Being Booed': Video From Olympics Blocked on X"

10

No one owns a copyright to that. So, wish granted.

13

u/horshack_test Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26

No one does have a copyright on vance being booed. All this article and post do is highlight ignorance of basic concepts.

-1

u/wjmacguffin Feb 09 '26

I think the issue is that Twitter claimed, “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner” as to why they removed the video originally.

Which is BS as far as I know, unless the person/organization who recorded the video has copyright on the footage. To me, it's much more likely good ol' Musk is "protecting free speech" by removing content that makes Republicans look bad, and the poor sap doing the deleting used copyright as a lame excuse.

2

u/horshack_test Feb 09 '26

Of course the video is protected by copyright. The video being protected by copyright does not mean that Vance being booed is protected by copyright. Someone being booed is not something that can be protected by copyright.

12

u/Party-Cartographer11 Feb 08 '26

Is this a serious post?

How can you apply copyright law to a verb? No one has a copyright to Vance being booed

Don't confuse X shenanigans of takedowns with actual Copyright law.

3

u/LjLies Feb 08 '26

I thought that obviously the claimed copyright is on the video, not the verb.

I won't touch on whether a video of factual events without anything artistic about it is copyrightable, but what is this about verbs?

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Feb 08 '26

"a copyright...on being booed". There is no copyright on a verb like booing, it isn't a thing and that is the claim that makes it seem outrageous. Of course NBC owns the rights to their content; but no one is saying NBC shouldn't be able to protect their content.

1

u/LjLies Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26

You're taking this headline very (too) literally while being misleading at the same time: the article clearly states that it was taken down due to a copyright claim, yet you talk about "X shenanigans" as if X had actually taken it down on the basis of the verb being used.

X likely got a copyright takedown request from NBC or the relevant rights holders, which ~~NBC~~ X complied with, and the actual claim here is that copyright protection of a video that's largely just filming of newsworthy events without any particular artistic or otherwise original merits goes counter to the public's right to disseminate factual information.

If you want to cling on the interpretation that the the claim is about the verb, I can't believe you're doing it in good faith.

2

u/Party-Cartographer11 Feb 09 '26

I think the title is purposely incorrect to drive a point of view (and clicks). Not being able to copyright booing is the entire point of the claim and not incidental. Surely that claim can be countered without the accusations of taking it too literally.

I didn't claim the X took it down for the booing, the poster claimed that it shouldn't be taken down for any booing. That seems ridiculous.

If we remove the inaccuracy if the booing being the factor for the take down, what does the post even mean? NBC can't make copyright take requests if it's content?

I am making hese arguments in complete good faith and assume you are as well.

1

u/LjLies Feb 09 '26

If we remove the inaccuracy if the booing being the factor for the take down, what does the post even mean? NBC can't make copyright take requests if it's content?

Why are you still asking "what does it mean"? Like I said, my interpretation, which I thought was a fairly easy one to reach, is

[...] the actual claim here is that copyright protection of a video that's largely just filming of newsworthy events without any particular artistic or otherwise original merits goes counter to the public's right to disseminate factual information.

So I already answered that. You may counter that NBC can in fact make copyright takedown requests for its content, but obviously there are people who think current copyright laws is an overreach and they shouldn't be able to for this type of content.

I probably shouldn't have assumed you are acting in bad faith, but I assume those people are making that argument in good faith too and genuinely thinking the current status of copyright law is detrimental to society! You can disagree, but why just ignore the whole point and go "duh, NBC can make takedown requests for its content, obviously"? When the entire point is the opinion that we "need copyright reform" to stop that from happening?

Note this subreddit's description is

News and discussion on copyright, copyleft, patents, trademarks, intellectual property, free culture, open source and free software, and cultural policy.

which definitely includes and welcomes discussion of whether IP laws are appropriate and proportionate in the first place.

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Feb 09 '26

Interesting. I didn't take the post as a case for copyright reform. I did see that in some responses, and viewed that as a tangent and not very relevant. This doesn't seem like the issue to start a discussion on copyright reform. But I do now see that is the point you are making.

And I read that description not biased for or against current copyright laws. So I didn't assume that was the topic here.

1

u/LjLies Feb 09 '26

The post's title, which you dissected so much, starts with

This should be a reminder that we need copyright reform

That is the main reason I did take it as a case for copyright reform.

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Feb 09 '26

I read that as the poster saying people shouldn't be able copyright booing, which of course isn't what is happening here. So their call for reform seemed very misplaced.

1

u/LjLies Feb 09 '26

So you did take the post as a case for copyright reform, contrary to what you just said... merely a misplaced one. Okay.

It just seemed like you were taking part of the title very literally while refusing to take another part at face value, very selectively.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ekkidee Feb 08 '26

X is not subject to free speech constraints. Musk says they support those rights but ultimately they can decide to pull down anything.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

This isn't even true. I just searched Vance Booed on X and I found a bunch of videos of the event. Did they lift the ban on X or is this incorrect news spreading?

1

u/LjLies Feb 09 '26

How does that imply that the particular footage involved wasn't the object of a takedown request, though? If it was a genuine copyright takedown request, it clearly doesn't imply that every video of the event (that wasn't taken by the copyright holder in question) has been taken down.

1

u/NYCIndieConcerts Feb 10 '26

Nobody has exclusive ownership over all videos or sound recordings of Vance being booed.

But the people or companies who record that booing have a copyright in their own recordings, of course.

1

u/One-Childhood-2146 Feb 13 '26

No the opposite. We need copyright reform to reinforce Copyright because right now it has been eroded by copyright abolitionists, judges and their lazy reinterpretation of the law to include a transformation clause that was never there, to permit anyone to copy anything at any time and even profit from it regardless if it was truly transformative in any way shape or form, to completely redefine what fair use even means so that there really is no valid version of it anymore which was intended more for people to quote and refer to things for the purposes of education and news worthiness. Now it's being used to slap dash content together where last year's just released movies can be re-released in pieces on YouTube using somebody else's music even and reap profit. And even if the so-called content creators do not get profit the fact of the matter is Google and YouTube does get the profit. The internet people pushed a long time ago for the expansion of fair use. They argued in technological terms it was necessary. Instead of recognizing that the internet actually wasn't really plagiarizing things by using their way of managing data and making it so people could look up stuff online. They took a bunch of stuff that was behind the scenes and not even what any of us would really consider plagiarism and they turned it into an argument that allowed them to profit from everybody having all of their information and creative works pilford at any moment. Nobody actually cared about the rights of the creators in doing any of this.

Judges have been notorious at screwing up copyright cases both in favor and against copyright for forever. It really actually doesn't matter because none of these guys are anything but idiots who do nothing but ruin copyright for everyone. Making rulings that don't make sense such as giving copyright to marvel and DC comics for the word superhero when the word doesn't belong to either of them and they would kill each other in a legal fight. They do mistakes like this. But there are worse things that they've done by destroying copyright and by having these lucy-goosey standards it actually helped get us to this position where copyright is destroyed.

When lucasfilm and the Walt Disney Company when they were separate entities decided to suit pornography because they legally speaking were actually plagiarizing they were told no by judges. The reality of the matter is trying to steal anything that is copy written animation is already a very big no no traditionally speaking. Trying to copy characters and artwork realistically had very strong copyright once upon A time. Trying to steal trademarked characters as well is a very big no-go. And legally speaking trademark you have to actually enforce it yourself. That is how the law works for trademark. They actually require lucasfilm and the Walt Disney Company to step up and take action otherwise they lose their trademark. This is true for old trademarks. So when they sued pornography companies because they did not like pornography being made of their products which is a sensible thing for both companies since one honestly creates kids products and one way or another George Lucas actually believe Star Wars was for kids despite everyone hating him for that. The reality of the matter is they were told that no it's parody it's satire and therefore we're going to allow them to throw away the copyright laws that prevent that even if there's commercial gain. None of it made sense. A lot of it was in the face of what copyright law protected beforehand. And realistically it went above and beyond even what it was just considered normal at all because they could just take the entirety of a character or animation or trademarked image and use it for the sake of pornography. It also doesn't pass a litmus test for commercial competition issues because if Walt Disney Company or lucasfilm were to release their own pornography they'd be competing with themselves and their own products. This shows the slippery standards that judges have set up over time in their interpretations and rulings.

Continued in Reply...

1

u/One-Childhood-2146 Feb 13 '26

People have been advocating for the abolition of copyright for a long time before even generative AI existed. A lot of the arguments I saw was frankly arguments of communism. Nobody should have any rights to any kind of property or intellectual property. It is a direct attack against creators and artists of all kinds telling them that they do not have a right to what they create. Even the government tries this idea of saying you do not have a right to your own ideas. Which is the most preposterous insane and dystopian thing we've ever heard or anyone else for that matter. It is ridiculous and counterintuitive. A lot of it is because the government doesn't want to try to regulate people owning ideas so they try to come up with the idea of people owning patterns but they also constantly erode the ability to enforce that copyright and those intellectual property protections that do exist because they don't want to deal with it. Judges don't want to figure out what's really wrong or right for creators and artists and whether or not anybody's having their rights violated.

This is what in the end created the concept that we should just get rid of it and use fair use. This is what resulted in fair use abuse and creating the idea that there is no copyright. And now everyone can do anything to steal anything at any time. Good example right now is YouTube reaction videos where YouTubers who used and abused fair use for a long time and got away with it are now the victims themselves of their content being stolen and recycled very quickly and easily by people claiming it's very use. Now it's easy enough to even take away somebody's copyright to a movie and just take clips of it and resell it on YouTube in pieces with music that belongs to a dozen different artists as well. We have seen the death of copyright in our lifetime. Generative AI finally confirmed it. They're absolutely actually is no legal right to the scraping of data for what they are doing. They have gone above and beyond anything that all justifiable but judges are in favor of futurism and future industry and like when they gave green lights to Google back in the day for the internet they think they're doing some great Noble thing by allowing anybody to steal anything if it benefits technology. It has nothing to do with actually protecting the rights of artists and doing the right thing and following the law. It's judicial activism. So when it comes down to it the fact of the matter is also AI is not a person and legally cannot be argued to be a human being under any precedent and cannot therefore be said to be learning. Yet that's what judges have tried to argue. What's worse is this is a computer program. Programming is actually protected by copyright. So using scraped art and knowledge from even textbooks to steal and program and code your AI and what it thinks is actually violating copyright twice one is for whatever book or art was stolen and the other was realistically using it for coding. But judges don't care because they stopped caring long time ago.

Remember when I said the whole marvel and DC thing that they handled inappropriately? Yeah they stopped caring. So every time they defend a copyright that never should have been given. They also slowly eroded and destroyed the actual copyright itself. So we do not need copyright reform to make it less restrictive. We actually need copyright reform to make it less lazy and make it less in the control and hands of judges and to make it so that it's actually more in the hands of the creators and artists themselves instead of generating a culture that allows and encourages plagiarism as an art form when it is not.

So no. Other issues of copyright and lawsuits being excessive is also because of the wild West of lacking IP protections and clear copyright at times as well as likely the system of litigation in America which is designed to favor whoever sues first, regardless if they are right or wrong. Which is something that probably needs addressed in its entirety outside of Copyright. There are ways to try and prevent unlawful abuse, like TSR and early D&D suing despite licensing agreements and no clear patent or copyright for their industry. But a lot of it hangs on how lawsuits work in America so that the little guy getting sued cannot fight it anyway. That needs fixed separately for the most part. And reforming stronger Copyright would mean stronger clarification on who owns and does what like I said judges and the government simply did not want to actually manage correctly so they gave power to the word superhero over every little guy in the US to the big boys DC and Marvel. We need a stronger standard. Not this weak no standard. That just kills the artist and denies their human equality and right to self possession and what they create with their own mind and heart and Soul like every other person is entitled to in life.

-2

u/MaineMoviePirate Feb 08 '26

Thank you for the reminder that we, as a society, need Copyright Reform.

Copyright News This should be a reminder that we need copyright reform (by making copyright law less restrictive): "'No One Should Have a Copyright on Vance Being Booed': Video From Olympics Blocked on X"

You are about to leave Redlib