Film Theory: All Your Memes Are DEAD! (Article 13)

[jadermartin99]

A Final Update on Our Priorities for 2018

I’m in America, but this is still very important, it will affect all of us because the internet is connected so please watch and share while you can. It may not affect us all now, but it will spread if passed. share while you can.

[OliviaMerteli]

_Article 13 _
_Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users _

1.Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. .

2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. .

3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

Took from here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&from=EN

Because we see a lot of youtube creator crying everywhere about article 13 but nobody read the actual thing.
To resume:
-don't steal others people works.
-You can only do fanstuff of products when the right owners of the product authorize it.
The only thing new is the fact the service providers will be responsible of the content posted on their servers and will have to take active measures against thieves instead of saying "we are not responsible of the content posted on our servers".
I bet Youtube and their tops youtubers are not happy. That site is is all about stolen movies, stolen music, stolen art.

[Draconic]

-You can only do fanstuff of products when the right owners of the product authorize it.

I'm sorry, but what reality are you living in that this is not a bad thing?

Fanfics, fanarts, fan comics, music covers, fan games, game mods,... hello?
Are you from this Earth? Do I really need to explant how bad is it? You know, as BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?

[kip]

The only thing new is the fact the service providers will be responsible of the content posted on their servers and will have to take active measures against thieves instead of saying "we are not responsible of the content posted on our servers".

This basically means sites can’t afford to have any small content creators because they can’t trust people not to upload copyrighted content. Whether they make stolen content or not.
Look at it this way: this could mean Tapas cant allow small content creators to upload content. What if one of us would make a fancomic? What if one of us has a copyrighted character make a cameo? They can’t trust all their users to individually behave and even one person “misbehaving” can harm them.
It’s now not good enough for them to be able to say after the fact, ‘oh, you uploaded copyrighted material, take that down’- they have to prevent it from ever having happened in the first place, and the only way to do that is to only trust contract-signed artists they’ve personally vetted.
Me and you? Not gonna be able to upload comics anymore.
That ‘new thing’ is all that matters. If you actually think the only people harmed from this will be people uploading copyrighted content you’ve got another thing coming.

[OliviaMerteli]

Not on the same reality as you that for sure.
I live in a earth where product right owners own (how shocking) their products rights.
It was already the case before this law, nothing change. There always been a list of authors who don't want fanstuff made of their products and it never been a problem before. Most authorize it, and they'll continue to authorize it.
"Basic human, right" really!!! I guess nobody need food, shelter or medicaments in your reality?

[OliviaMerteli]

Did you ever read the TOS when signing on Tapas? There we declare we are the rights owners of the things we post. Tapas already respect the law, they are not concerned.
Read the article.

[kip]

The thing is though... By your definition of the law, tapas is breaking the law in these very moments.There's plenty of fan-comics on tapas right now (I can literally think of a dozen off the top of my head), not to mention novels using copyrighted photos and images as their covers, etc, etc.
Just because something is in the TOS doesn't mean people will actually obey by it. The same applies to youtube.
The whole issue is that the sites are asked to prevent these incidents from ever happening, and they're being held responsible if they don't. That means that showing that the user was aware they're breaking site law is no longer acceptable as a shield for the sites. Tapas (theoretically) won't be able to afford saying 'they broke our laws', they'll be held accountable for the actions of the users breaking their laws as if they were the ones doing it. A single user uploading a fan-comic or even a cameo character or a site logo will be considered Tapas breaking the law opening them for lawsuits and fines. That's what this whole thing is about.

Even in a situation where Tapas was completely clean of copyright violations (which, as previously established, it's not), Tapas still can't afford to allow users in the UK to upload content in case they ever will, in the future, upload copyrighted content.

[Draconic]

Not on the same reality as you that for sure.I live in a earth where product right owners own (how shocking) their products rights.It was already the case before this law, nothing change. There always been a list of authors who don't want fanstuff made of their products and it never been a problem before. Most authorize it, and they'll continue to authorize it."Basic human, right" really!!! I guess nobody need food, shelter or medicaments in your reality?

No, you are not allowed to monetized the material you aren't own.
And now, you are NOT ALLOWED TO CREATE something based on the material you aren't own.
See the diffirent yet?

Basic human rights are: food, shelter, medicaments, labor, knowledge, and creativity.
The last three are the diffirent between you and your pets.

How about the common sense?

[therippleeffectcomic]

It is a concern, for sure. Although I tend to lean on the more optimistic side of things and am willing to bet that this won't be as harmful as people think it will be (that's not to be complacent about it, of course).

Copyright is a really difficult subject to talk about because it can be quite complicated. The vagueness of the article 13 seems to suggest that corporations can use it to punish people in a large variety of ways. There is merit in this, because people having their property stolen can be incredibly damaging (particularly to independents), but I think a pre-emptive strike has the potential to ruin anyone's chances of making even the tiniest living through their creativity, even if that creativity is taking pre-existing ideas and exploring them further (like MatPat, who I personally love).

I think everyone needs more information regarding the implications of Article 13 as well as the reasons for it being pushed through in the first place. I appreciate MatPat's explanation but is it too cynical to suggest that greedy businesses want to control the content so they can get the lion's share of the profits, or is this a legitimate effort to protect all kinds of artists who are otherwise having their property stolen? Tough one.

[OliviaMerteli]

-You can only do fanstuff of products when the right owners of the product authorize it.

There always been a list of authors who don't want fanstuff made of their products and it never been a problem before. Most authorize it, and they'll continue to authorize it.

You only read see what you want to see, right?
Like when you obscenely complain about YOUR BASIC( do you even know the meaning of that word?) human rights, when billions of people don't even have enought water.

.

[Draconic]

greedy businesses want to control the content so they can get the lion's share of the profits

This will be happened, not a theory.
Look at how any company can easily copyright striked to any content creator on youtube right now.

Like when you obscenely complain about YOUR BASIC( do you even know the meaning of that word?) human rights, when billions of people don't even have enought water.

When you do this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation , you're already lost the debate.
Just a couble years later and you will understand the world.

P/s: I will stop now. Sorry everyone about the rant.

[OliviaMerteli]

I have worked with traditional publishing companies before and tthat article is basically the rules they have to follow. There is nothing new. Publishing company made us sign a paper to say that we really are the right owners of the things we publish.
If course some can lie, but if that's the case, the only responsible is the frauder. If no paper have been signed then it's publishing company fault.
Simply as that. That what the Tos are for on sites. The article is there to punish site who don't make their user "sign the paper".

And about my definition of the law concerning fanstuff?

There always been a list of authors who don't want fanstuff made of their products and it never been a problem before. Most authorize it, and they'll continue to authorize it.

-You can only do fanstuff of products when the right owners of the product authorize it.

[OliviaMerteli]

Since your the one who started with the agressive attitude and the "human basic rights", I suggest you read it yourself. But since a simple article is so hard to understand for you, I don't expect you'll get it, even in a couple of years.

[OliviaMerteli]

On Tapas Tos: https://help.tapas.io/hc/en-us/articles/115005545248

3.You hereby affirm, represent, and warrant that you (1) own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit and publish through the Service; and (2) all such Content are original works of authorship on your part and have not been copied, in whole or in part, from any other work and do not violate, misappropriate or infringe any copyright, trademark or other proprietary right of any other person or entity.

4.You further agree that Content you submit to a Tapas Media Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the Content or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the Content and to grant Tapas Media all of the license rights granted herein.

[Draconic]

But since a simple article is so hard to understand for you, I don't expect you'll get it, even in a couple of years.

I understand it, and I understand how reality and human work.
You are the one who don't understand and don't read any of our explanation.

Basic human rights are: food, shelter, medicaments, labor, knowledge, and creativity.
The last three are the diffirent between you and your pets.

How about you read this? http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/universal_declaration.html
If your local school don't teach this in your country, I suggest you should move to another place to live.

--

About the TOS.
Tapas is an online publishing services, not a social media.
Have you read the TOS of Youtube, DeviantArt, Pixiv,... anykind of online art gallery?

Inspiration can be considered as stealing.
Any similarity would be considered as stealing.
Nothing is original in the artist world.
There will be some company abused this rule and copyright striked any artist as they can.

Any social media will not have enough resource to deal with this kind of abusive.
They will have to ban all fanmade creations and become the Online Publishing Services as Tapas.
Fanart will be illegal on that kind of website.

I'm sorry about my agressive attitude. You are so wrong, that made me really mad.
But now, I understand that you're not an artist, you don't understand how the creativity works.
You have no knowledge and zero empathy to how us artist doing in our life.

I'm sorry that I assumed you as an artist. Please understand us.

[therippleeffectcomic]

I'm fine with the way copyright is conducted at the moment. I've had a few warning messages from 20th Century Fox and EA for some fan art I had published on Redbubble (annoyingly they were some of my most successful items). It was frustrating because I wasn't making that much money (about £80 over 6 months) but I understood because, although the money I was making at "their expense" was very unlikely to damage their business, if thousands of people do the same, it could start causing issues.

If it's a case by case basis and there's reasonable cause for the companies (like people streaming episodes for free on youtube of a TV show) then I think that's fair enough. It's not the case, however, that companies are flagging every single creator that mentions their product in any way.

[kip]

I’m sorry you just completely ignored the fact I recognized that point and responded to it?

That means that showing that the user was aware they're breaking site law is no longer acceptable as a shield for the sites. Tapas (theoretically) won't be able to afford saying 'they broke our laws', they'll be held accountable for the actions of the users breaking their laws as if they were the ones doing it.

Look, honestly, you seem pretty set in your ideas, I’m talking about a hypothetical situation, and this whole thing is completely meaningless to real life consequences. If you feel like this is the right thing to go with, good for you. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the fine print.

[mariusthered]

this is just another example of politicians in the pocket of the big company's. if this goes ahead it will not only be the first step to the death of free entertainment on the net but all the entertainment you buy to see will go up, because you have to pay to see it! not more clips of your fave animation songs from a movie, nope you will have to go buy the full thing. greed once again threatens to destroy small business so big business can make more than they can ever spend and all those over paid windbags in the EUP get to make money from shares.

[Gilded_Cataphract]

This is really just Google having a fight with European IP holding companies who dislike Google's monetisation schemes. Due to the latter's efforts coinciding with the E.U's dislike of the big four American tech companies and their desire to break them up or at least bring them to heel; this is being settled in parliament rather than in court. Both sides are primarily represented by gigantic corporations and there are many people who do feel miffed by Google's monteisation scheme not giving them more than a pittance of a cut for their content being hosted on Google's services.

Whomever wins, the average person still loses. If Google wins, it continues its slow monopolisation of the entirety of the internet as it seeks to be the sole platform from which you can access any service on the network while silently burying any content it deems "non-advertiser friendly". If the European companies on the other side win, they'll start to push for the eventual dismantling of companies like Google and push for a more sole proprietary internet scattered into small fiefdoms based around certain clusters of IPs.

Copyright is a labyrinthine and arcane mess where nearly all the impetus of any legal efforts surrounding it is almost completely dominated by new money tech companies who while not at all against copyright when it suits them, absolutely want to get to profit off of simply hosting other people's work: and old money IP holding companies who absolutely want to completely lock down copyright and go back to the old days where they were the sole provider and dictatorial controller. Both are utterly toxic to what the average person would benefit from.

Because in either system, the person who gets the bulk of the reward for their effort is not the person who actually did the work of making that thing but suits who happen to have the right legalese to say they own some aspect of it or its distribution. Either way, the creator gets screwed and parasites get fat.

[ratique]

To those who throw around passive aggressive insults at each other, I recommend dropping it and for nobody else to pick it back up.