The copyright crackdowns were so common in the early and mid 2010s with Days and Y&R content. There were many channels on YouTube that posted content then, now there is such a small amount that posts anything classic or current. There is a social media channel called "Liquid Soap" that was regularly posting clips from Days and Y&R. I think it's run by someone at Sony, but has gone pretty much dormant. I remember when it started wondering if this was Sony's way of measuring how much of an interest there is in past soap content. We of course got the Pluto soap channel not long after, but those episodes are anything but classic, showing content from the last 7 or so years.

Honestly, I don't think we'll see any classic episodes of Days (or Y&R for that matter) until the show is cancelled. I think Sony is the real blocker here. When Ken Corday sued Sony a few years ago and was asking for their binding contract to be terminated, he stated that Sony had pretty much no interest in Days anymore. It had gotten to the point where he was personally trying to sell the show overseas (which was legally wrong of him and Sony made that clear). That lawsuit was so interesting to me, and I still wish Corday had been allowed to move on without Sony's involvement. Say whatever you want about KC (and there is a lot that can be said about his mismanagement) he loves the show, and I think he would be more receptive to fan requests for classic content. Sony is just in it for the pay check, without putting any effort into the show. I assume Corday can't feel the same way, mostly because his profit must be so minimal compared to the old days lol 

Edited September 19, 20241 yr by cody_1990

On 9/15/2024 at 11:35 AM, janea4old said:

To clarify, Sony employs an outside company that has algorithms that find the videos.

 

4 hours ago, cody_1990 said:

The copyright crackdowns were so common in the early and mid 2010s with Days and Y&R content. 

Yeah that's what I was referring to, the crackdown in early and mid 2010s.

That period was when Sony hired the outside firm to do the crackdowns.
The name of the firm they used back then was "Entura".

I don't remember if the takedown notices said "Sony" or "Entura" back then.  I think it was mostly youtube takedowns at first, so youtube might not have said who it was on their notices.  I think it spread to crackdowns on other video platforms.

I see that Entura was acquired by "Corsearch" in 2021.
https://corsearch.com/about/press-releases/corsearch-enhances-digital-piracy-protection-with-acquisition-of-london-based-entura/

To be honest, I don't know how Sony is doing it nowadays, does Sony have an internal division that does this, or do they hire a business to do this on their behalf? But regardless, the Sony name now appears on copyright crackdown notices that are given to twitter accounts.

Edited September 19, 20241 yr by janea4old

29 minutes ago, janea4old said:

 

Yeah that's what I was referring to, the crackdown in early and mid 2010s.

That period was when Sony hired the outside firm to do the crackdowns.
The name of the firm they used back then was "Entura".

I don't remember if the takedown notices said "Sony" or "Entura" back then.  I think it was mostly youtube takedowns at first, so youtube might not have said who it was on their notices.  I think it spread to crackdowns on other video platforms.

I see that Entura was acquired by "Corsearch" in 2021.
https://corsearch.com/about/press-releases/corsearch-enhances-digital-piracy-protection-with-acquisition-of-london-based-entura/

To be honest, I don't know how Sony is doing it nowadays, does Sony have an internal division that does this, or do they hire a business to do this on their behalf? But regardless, the Sony name now appears on copyright crackdown notices that are given to twitter accounts.

Previously an entity from India was listed, a 3rd party. Now Sony  is being named. 

 .

Yes, it would be amazing to see some of those classic stories from the 60s and 70s brought back. There's something timeless about that era's creativity and storytelling!  

2 minutes ago, asafi said:

Yes, it would be amazing to see some of those classic stories from the 60s and 70s brought back. There's something timeless about that era's creativity and storytelling!  

1. Bill Bell Sr. & 2. Pat Falken Smith & in this particular case 1 + 2 = at least 5!

 

Hot take, that I'm certain won't get widespread support.  Posting content, without a concern for how actors and writers will get residuals, is not the same thing as providing “free publicity.”  We need to value the need to provide support to creatives, over our selfish desire to watch old episodes.  These are people with union contracts, we should respect those agreements. 

If the production wants to release old clips, while sharing the profits, I would support that.  But, this type of posturing by fans is not the vibe.

Edited September 21, 20241 yr by j swift

2 hours ago, j swift said:

Hot take, that I'm certain won't get widespread support.  Posting content, without a concern for how actors and writers will get residuals, is not the same thing as providing “free publicity.”  We need to value the need to provide support to creatives, over our selfish desire to watch old episodes.  These are people with union contracts, we should respect those agreements. 

If the production wants to release old clips, while sharing the profits, I would support that.  But, this type of posturing by fans is not the vibe.

I am in possession of "DAYS Twitter clips" that someone managed to grab before they disappeared. Almost all of them run less than 3 minutes. They should theoretically be allowed under FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHT due to the shortness of length involved. People who comment on media should be able to avail themselves of such things as "claiming FAIR USE". If not, then why does such a thing even exist in the legal framework. 

Edit to Add: I just double-checked 60 "clips salvaged from Twitter" & out of 60, 4 are over 3 min. 3:18, 4:02, 3:22 & 5:39.

 

 

Edited September 21, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella
info

2 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Almost all of them run less than 3 minutes. They should theoretically be allowed under FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHT due to the shortness of length involved. People who comment on media should be able to avail themselves of such things as "claiming FAIR USE". If not, then why does such a thing even exist in the legal framework. 

That is an inaccurate understanding of "fair use".

Fair use via Wikipedia 
(disclaimer that anybody can mess up Wikipedia. Always check the sources they reference)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Fair use from Harvard:
https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use
 

This link is very applicable:
Fair use from CSMI ("Center for Media & Social Impact" at American University)
as it applies to online video:
https://cmsimpact.org/code/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video/


I am not an attorney but this is my *very limited* understanding of what I read in those links:

Fair use via Commentary:
A single short clip can sometimes be used as fair use -- if it used *inside* a long commentary review or essay discussing the original work.
But a daily series of clips with little typed words other than the original airdate, character names, and brief description -- does not meet that "commentary" test for fair use.
And note that they give a cautionary warning of an example that doesn't meet fair use:
a full-length book contained a quoted passage that was the crux of the original work, and it was ruled to not meet fair use.   It matters what is quoted.

Fair use via a new creation:
Fair use could be a single clip or a few clips that are made into a parody or mashup, or a montage, if the result is something that could be considered a truly NEW creative work, created by the person posting it, but even then the background music is under separate copyright. 
(We have all seen great montages taken down due to music copyright).
Posting a few show clips with no edits inside a single tweet -- that might not be considered a new creative work.

Fair use via Teaching:
Well if you were teaching a course in soap operas at a university, maybe in a limited way, but still you would need permissions (per the Harvard link).
I once had a temp job for a university where we had to write to every publisher to get permission to use books in classroom coursework. Very complicated.

important:
https://cmsimpact.org/code/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video/
"LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it)."

--------

That being said, Sony (or whoever Sony uses for this) has algorithms that detect the videos, and flag them for copyright violations, flagging them to report to twitter or youtube, etc.
That process would be automated to catch anything that might be a violation.
Even if someone's fan video *is* fair use, they'd have to prove that it is fair use, and they could lose their twitter or YT channel in the meantime.  

Edited September 21, 20241 yr by janea4old

11 minutes ago, janea4old said:

That is an inaccurate understanding of "fair use".

Specifically, what portion of what I said falls into inaccuracy, IYO? 

From the Harvard cite, I particularly like this passage: 

Quote

 To determine whether a given use is fair use, the statute directs, one must consider the following four factors:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

• the nature of the copyrighted work;

• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

These factors are not exclusive but are the primary—and in many cases the only—factors courts examine. The following sections consider each of these four factors in turn.

11 minutes ago, janea4old said:

Fair use from Harvard:
https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use

 

It is almost always an interesting area of discussion. 

16 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Specifically, what portion of what I said falls into inaccuracy, IYO? 

From the Harvard cite, I particularly like this passage: 

If you read my entire post, it was (hopefully?) clear what I was saying.
The passage from the Harvard site that you cited is just headers, but if you read the details, there is more explanation.  We can't just claim our video postings are "nonprofit educational use".  There are specific definitions for each aspect.
The CSMI site is clear.

4 minutes ago, janea4old said:

If you read my entire post, it was (hopefully?) clear what I was saying.
The passage from the Harvard site that you cited is just headers, but if you read the details, there is more explanation.  We can't just claim our video postings are "nonprofit educational use".  There are specific definitions for each aspect.
The CSMI site is clear.

It's not at all difficult to determine "for profit" compared to "not for profit". And, I think most of what we're talking about would fall under the heading of commentary, not education. If you're attempting to comment about a character, a theme, a couple, the idea is supposed to be that you use a small fraction of the piece to show what you mean. Generally speaking no educating is underway. That would of course apply to other people in other situations.

Clearly, we would all like to see actors like Marie Cheatham benefit from any profits derived from re-airing her work on DAYS.  My point is that these social media channels that are masquerading as promotional sites for daytime fans, do not prioritize that value.  In my opinion, any “real fan” would support fair compensation, and without the original production's participation that is not going to happen.  So, I'm willing to forego my selfish whim to see Addy and Tommy, if I know the creatives won't get residuals.

The X (formerly Twitter) user that I cited cleared exploited the boundaries of this limitation of Fair Use by posting daily clips without any transformation of the material or context of a critique.

The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).

 

Edited September 21, 20241 yr by j swift

We don't even know what individual twitter and youtube accountholders are thinking. I'm not going to make assumptions and assign motives to anyone.

Plenty of people through the years have said they would gladly pay to see the old seasons of DAYS, if only it were available.

Some of the twitter and YT accounts seem to have the intent to freely share what's otherwise completely unavailable, in the spirit of generosity.   I don't see that as "exploitative". 
Still illegal, but not a nefarious intent.

Edited September 22, 20241 yr by janea4old

I am unfamiliar with their previous posting habits so I am in no position to have an opinion about what or how they posted.

Unlike, say Angie, or JoeCool or DaysFan28 or two others where I am more or less familiar, one Stayla stan & one general DAYS stan, all of whom have been hit with cease & desist. 

6 minutes ago, janea4old said:

Some of the twitter and YT accounts seem to have the intent to freely share what's otherwise completely unavailable, in the spirit of generosity.   I don't see that as "exploitative". 
Still illegal, but not a nefarious intent.

I definitely know that spirit of generosity to exist & be manifest in some of the individuals who were involved. I know nothing at all about others.

There is a Canadian DAYS fan who was gifted with DAYS episodes from 1985 to 2020 a while back & their response was to digitize, upload & share privately. Some of what they have are edits. Most are full episodes. When the show moved from NBC to Peacock their first thought was to share. They are mentally preparing themselves that they may be shut down. Interestingly she says what she is doing is not illegal in Canada. I'm clueless but she's a litigating attorney. 

What residuals? These episodes were meant to air only once, maybe twice if they were extremely classic. By sharing clips you're giving the actors and writers a new chance to shine and be relevant.