Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91 
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 22, 2016 10:38:38 GMT
But they can very obviously claim audio content, which is a valid enough reason for Content ID to take down any BBC owned material that registers when it's uploaded to the site. It doesn't have to have ANY copyrighted visual content. Then why not just say 'Audio content'. I've no problem with them taking down a video for audio - it is theirs, after all - but to claim 'Audio-Visual' implies they own both. Moreover, why are other fan animations still up? They utilise audio content too. Then again, if they did get copyrighted we'd have no way of knowing of it was Audio, Visual or both that was claimed! |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Aug 22, 2016 11:07:44 GMT
Then why not just say 'Audio content'. Because it's obviously not just audio content! It audio and/or visual. Because there are ways of circumventing the automatic system. It way you'll often see copyrighted programmes or films that have been untouched recorded off the screen or that have had their video/audio tampered with in some nasty way. The automated system doesn't catch everything, but it will catch a high percentage and that will no doubt include a lot of recons as well. Often material is removed as soon as it's uploaded - and that's especially the case if it's the same material that's simply been re-uploaded from a different source. The ID bots have logged the content, so the upload gets identified straight away. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Watson on Aug 22, 2016 12:44:41 GMT
But they can very obviously claim audio content, which is a valid enough reason for Content ID to take down any BBC owned material that registers when it's uploaded to the site. It doesn't have to have ANY copyrighted visual content. Then why not just say 'Audio content'. I've no problem with them taking down a video for audio - it is theirs, after all - but to claim 'Audio-Visual' implies they own both. Moreover, why are other fan animations still up? They utilise audio content too. Then again, if they did get copyrighted we'd have no way of knowing of it was Audio, Visual or both that was claimed! I wouldn't get bogged down in whether it was audio or video or both that violated the copyright. The Dalek design in itself is someone's copyright...The Doctor Who character is under copyright...the Story is under copyright - one could argue that visually those things could be justifiably blocked. In any case, all BBCW has to do is assert that the copyright has been transgressed....the video will be taken down on trust that the BBC (registered with Google/YouTube) wouldn't lie about it. It is up to the video up-loader to then contest that if they think it is unfair (I have done so and won on occasion). Other copyright material isn't taken down because there is just too much of it out there to check over...and a lot of it falls within the right of fair usage (news items, comedic ventures etc). When a video reaches a wide enough audience it will get flagged to a copyright holder who might then take action. The automated system is also in place to ensure that those videos with unique "markers" are automatically taken down. BBCW would have to highlight a video featuring those markers first though. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Aug 22, 2016 12:55:28 GMT
When a video reaches a wide enough audience it will get flagged to a copyright holder who might then take action. No it doesn't, Justin. It doesn't do any such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ianphillips on Aug 22, 2016 13:23:42 GMT
We are jumping to a lot of conclusions. You're right there's no definitive proof about anything, but I would like to say a few words about your points. A. Yeah, we have absolutely no idea, but it does look professionally made. B. Apart from the scenes of Troughton talking (Episode 2) and the episode 5 cliffhanger, all of the animated footage is from the very end of Episode 4 and the very beginning of Episode 5 so while it is from multiple episodes it is for the most part in a condensed area. C. It could be test footage, but I doubt that it's from a fan animation. It just looks too well done. I mean it's better than any animation the BBC has had made for an official release like The Invasion or The Ice Warriors. D. Power may be the second least likely serial to be recovered, but we have over a quarter (If you count surviving footage) of the least likely serial to be recovered. Power is also a Dalek story and due to their popularity, if a collector was looking for prints, it would be an ideal purchase. E. Considering the BBC's notoriously cheap way of treating the missing episodes *cough*Underwater Menace*cough* I find it hard to believe that they would undertake such an expensive project, even for a serial as popular as Power. Considering the evidence I think this is most likely test footage that an animation company made (Maybe for a commission from Ian Levene? It wouldn't be the first time). However I am still curious as to why it was taken down. For now all we can do is sit, wait, and hope for the best. Just like we've been doing for forty years. For the last forty years... So Ian, you were aware that Doctor Who episodes were missing as far back as 1976? Where did you find out about them being missing that particular year? I learnt the awful truth in 1983, from the book Doctor Who A Celebration. As I've been waiting to watch Power ever since that day, I don't envy you the extra seven years you've had! Apparently, Fury From the Deep was still knocking about in the BBC archives in 1976. You could have snuck in there one night and helped yourself!  Well, I personally didn't find out in 1976. I am a very recent fan. Summer of 2014, but Troughton is my favorite Doctor so naturally I have become very invested in the missing episodes. Episodes starting disappearing about 40-45 years ago, so when I said forty years I was referring to the fanbase as a whole, not myself. P.S. If I had been around in 1976 and known about it then, Fury from the Deep would be safely stored in my basement right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Watson on Aug 22, 2016 13:27:32 GMT
When a video reaches a wide enough audience it will get flagged to a copyright holder who might then take action. No it doesn't, Justin. It doesn't do any such thing. Like I said elsewhere...your involvement is counter productive to your goal. Best way you can assure folk that the animation is nothing significant, is to research who did the work and convince them to take a bow.... Otherwise you are, just by your well deserved respect in the Who community, part of the problem and not the solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Aug 22, 2016 14:02:09 GMT
Like I said elsewhere...your involvement is counter productive to your goal. Best way you can assure folk that the animation is nothing significant, is to research who did the work and convince them to take a bow.... Otherwise you are, just by your well deserved respect in the Who community, part of the problem and not the solution. What absolute guff, Justin! In what possible way is it counterproductive, other than to counter made-up notions about how things supposedly work? If this was indeed one of the test pieces Dan asked for in 2012/2013, then the only ones that would know about it are the people who made it and Dan Hall himself (and I'd lay odd that he wouldn't have a clue now). Lots of companies put in bids, but as I was involved with one of them, I can tell most certainly you that no one had any clue as to who the other people in the process were, so there's no reason why the origins of the piece would be public knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Watson on Aug 22, 2016 14:19:58 GMT
Like I said elsewhere...your involvement is counter productive to your goal. Best way you can assure folk that the animation is nothing significant, is to research who did the work and convince them to take a bow.... Otherwise you are, just by your well deserved respect in the Who community, part of the problem and not the solution. What absolute guff, Justin! In what possible way is it counterproductive, other than to counter made-up notions about how things supposedly work? If this was indeed one of the test pieces Dan asked for in 2012/2013, then the only ones that would know about it are the people who made it and Dan Hall himself (and I'd lay odd that he wouldn't have a clue now). Lots of companies put in bids, but as I was involved with one of them, I can tell most certainly you that no one had any clue as to who the other people in the process were, so there's no reason why the origins of the piece would be public knowledge. I'll have to take your word that you feel you cannot find out who created the animation. Yes...counter-productive because you are a Who personality (like it or not  ) and as soon as one of you chaps begins to protest about something that is taking hold, you draw attention to the issue more and people start to wonder whether "the lady doth protest too much" .....You have to see that surely? Oh and "guff" yourself ya cheeky bleeder  |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Aug 22, 2016 17:37:38 GMT
Yes...counter-productive because you are a Who personality (like it or not ) and as soon as one of you chaps begins to protest about something that is taking hold, you draw attention to the issue more and people start to wonder whether "the lady doth protest too much" .....You have to see that surely? Nope, not really. That seems to imply that all people want to therefore read on the forums are wild theories and baseless notions and have no interest at all in anything that actually might be based in truth. A bit of a sad reflection that. LOL! That reminds me of my recent visit to the dentist, who had to do an extraction on a failed foot canal. "Good job you're not a big bleeder" he said. It's not good to laugh with a mouth full of dental equipment! |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Watson on Aug 22, 2016 18:10:05 GMT
Yes...counter-productive because you are a Who personality (like it or not ) and as soon as one of you chaps begins to protest about something that is taking hold, you draw attention to the issue more and people start to wonder whether "the lady doth protest too much" .....You have to see that surely? Nope, not really. That seems to imply that all people want to therefore read on the forums are wild theories and baseless notions and have no interest at all in anything that actually might be based in truth. A bit of a sad reflection that. Much of the time that might well not be far from the truth and there are certainly no end of gufftitudes (I'm copyrighting that) out there. Of course, that doesn't take away from the fact that anyone seen as "connected" who then jumps on something once it has taken hold is perceived to be doing so deliberately to hide a secret (whether that be valid or invalid)...so if the goal is to dismiss the current zeitgeist, then disclaiming it is going to be counter-productive. - that might have ended up looking like a scene from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. *(I'll pretend I didn't see the unfortunate "foot in mouth" spelling mistake there  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Aug 22, 2016 18:11:28 GMT
...an extraction on a failed foot canal. That is one hell of a way to get a tooth pulled! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Aug 22, 2016 18:19:07 GMT
Sometimes, I really hate spelling correction systems! |
|
|
|
Post by ianphillips on Aug 22, 2016 20:56:40 GMT
Sometimes, I really hate spelling correction systems! Believe me, it could have been worse. Much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by George D on Aug 22, 2016 21:35:10 GMT
...an extraction on a failed foot canal. That is one hell of a way to get a tooth pulled! :-) It's related to foot in mouth disease;) |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Aug 23, 2016 11:29:19 GMT
It's a bit too soon to make conclusions based on one experiment. What if both are possible?
|
|
) and as soon as one of you chaps begins to protest about something that is taking hold, you draw attention to the issue more and people start to wonder whether "the lady doth protest too much" .....You have to see that surely?
).
