|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Aug 23, 2016 16:35:50 GMT
I am unclear what if any point is trying to be proved here!
|
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91 
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 23, 2016 16:58:53 GMT
I am unclear what if any point is trying to be proved here! The purpose of yesterday's experiment was to try and determine what triggered the copyright on the animation video: the video itself, or the audio? So I separated the two. I first uploaded the audio with a picture of a pigeon (now named the 'Omni-Pigeon') with the original audio from the video. No copyright claimed. I then uploaded the actual animation, but with the audio muted. Within 15 second of going up, the video was copyrighted for 'Visual content'. Point being, the video triggered the copyright whereas the audio did not. The audio definitely belongs to the BBC, and I was assuming it would be flagged upon upload. It wasn't. The ownership of the animation is unknown, yet was claimed by the BBC within 15 seconds. The audio-only pigeon video was claimed this morning at about 10:30 AM, but was manually detected (I assume someone reported it). So, have the BBC claimed something that doesn't belong to them? |
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan Stanger on Aug 23, 2016 18:01:00 GMT
I am unclear what if any point is trying to be proved here! The purpose of yesterday's experiment was to try and determine what triggered the copyright on the animation video: the video itself, or the audio? So I separated the two. I first uploaded the audio with a picture of a pigeon (now named the 'Omni-Pigeon') with the original audio from the video. No copyright claimed. I then uploaded the actual animation, but with the audio muted. Within 15 second of going up, the video was copyrighted for 'Visual content'. Point being, the video triggered the copyright whereas the audio did not. The audio definitely belongs to the BBC, and I was assuming it would be flagged upon upload. It wasn't. The ownership of the animation is unknown, yet was claimed by the BBC within 15 seconds. The audio-only pigeon video was claimed this morning at about 10:30 AM, but was manually detected (I assume someone reported it). So, have the BBC claimed something that doesn't belong to them?I'd guess the animation is a test piece produced a few years ago under a contract that specified that the ownership of it resided wholly with BBC Worldwide. If so, they are now within their rights to request the video (without the audio) be withdrawn. As for why they permit use of their audios in amateur recons... anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Aug 23, 2016 18:04:07 GMT
You appear to be assuming that the system is foolproof and instantaneous. All the evidence shows that it is neither! Automated content-identification is a very long way from being an exact science, and there's never been anything to suggest that YT/DailyMotion/whoever are able to detect in real-time such that infringing material is tagged as soon as it's uploaded.
The fact that both the separate audio and video streams *were* tagged indicates that the system worked correctly.
|
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 23, 2016 18:24:49 GMT
You appear to be assuming that the system is foolproof and instantaneous. All the evidence shows that it is neither! Automated content-identification is a very long way from being an exact science, and there's never been anything to suggest that YT/DailyMotion/whoever are able to detect in real-time such that infringing material is tagged as soon as it's uploaded. The fact that both the separate audio and video streams *were* tagged indicates that the system worked correctly. No, what it indicated was that the BBC are more interested in the visual animation itself, more so than the audio - hence why the animated video without audio was flagged immediately and it took about 14 hours for the pigeon video to be flagged and taken down, and even then it had to be submitted to the BBC for manual evaluation. Clearly, the BBC are more interested in the animation itself. ...I wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by David Fade on Aug 23, 2016 18:30:32 GMT
I get what you're saying Owen and having had stuff flagged and then removed myself from youtube, this is definitely not all that it seems.
Incidentally, there are lots of videos with audio from 'Power of the Daleks' on youtube, so I think your pigeon one could have been singled out because of your experiment with both elements posted separately.
Time will tell...
|
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 23, 2016 18:47:15 GMT
I get what you're saying Owen and having had stuff flagged and then removed myself from youtube, this is definitely not all that it seems. Incidentally, there are lots of videos with audio from 'Power of the Daleks' on youtube, so I think your pigeon one could have been singled out because of your experiment with both elements posted separately.Time will tell... Almost certainly..! Evidently someone reported it to YouTube. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Aug 23, 2016 18:57:38 GMT
It's an automated system. "The BBC" don't have someone sitting at a screen obsessively refreshing YouTube in case something interesting's been uploaded!
Detecting audio content and detecting video content are two completely unrelated beasts. There is no 'one tool does everything' here. Two tools - in fact, given how the algorithms work, almost certainly many many more than two - running to different schedules and priorities. No conspiracy needed.
Why is it so important that you know, and know now, anyway? If there's something to this then we'll hear about it sooner or later.
|
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 23, 2016 19:01:50 GMT
It's an automated system. "The BBC" don't have someone sitting at a screen obsessively refreshing YouTube in case something interesting's been uploaded! Detecting audio content and detecting video content are two completely unrelated beasts. There is no 'one tool does everything' here. Two tools - in fact, given how the algorithms work, almost certainly many many more than two - running to different schedules and priorities. No conspiracy needed. Why is it so important that you know, and know now, anyway? If there's something to this then we'll hear about it sooner or later. Yes, I already know all of this. The BBC still claimed copyright over a video we are unsure they even own, which still means they're more interested in the video thus my point still stands. Additionally, this process isn't just confined to YouTube - it's occurred on Vimeo too and on other sites, I hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Aug 23, 2016 20:13:18 GMT
It's an automated system! If it looks like BBC content - which it clearly does - then the system flags it. There is no evidence that the BBC have 'claimed copyright' as you put it. The system flagged it, possibly correctly, possibly in error - we simply have no way of knowing until and unless the copyright holder stands up and confirms it. The systems are not infallible - false positives and false negatives happen all the time.
|
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 23, 2016 20:21:19 GMT
It's an automated system! If it looks like BBC content - which it clearly does - then the system flags it. There is no evidence that the BBC have 'claimed copyright' as you put it. The system flagged it, possibly correctly, possibly in error - we simply have no way of knowing until and unless the copyright holder stands up and confirms it. The systems are not infallible - false positives and false negatives happen all the time. Oh dear - do I really have to go through all of this again? Very well...People who uploaded their video before the blocks came into place had a 'Manually detected' message. For YouTube to even acknowledge the existence of the clip, a claim has to be manually placed on the video (in this case, by BBC Worldwide). The BBC had manual intervention in this whole saga. Your argument is the same as Bigell's and has already been debunked. It's not an 'automated system' - not completely. |
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Aug 24, 2016 15:51:54 GMT
It's an automated system! If it looks like BBC content - which it clearly does - then the system flags it. There is no evidence that the BBC have 'claimed copyright' as you put it. The system flagged it, possibly correctly, possibly in error - we simply have no way of knowing until and unless the copyright holder stands up and confirms it. The systems are not infallible - false positives and false negatives happen all the time. I dont think an automated system could possibly have flagged a cartoon, even a cartoon of daleks, as bbc content!!!. The initial flagging must have been manual. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoleman on Aug 24, 2016 15:52:14 GMT
Woah, something just occurred to me. The only serials with animated episodes are those that are almost complete. Why would they suddenly decide to animate a missing serial unless...could they have...there were only segments of animations for episodes 2, 4, and 5. Could at least part of the serial have been found? That's exactly it. With only 1 set of film prints of The Power of the Daleks sent to New Zealand, and then to Singapore, we'd be enormously lucky to see even two or three complete episodes recovered. Such a ridiculously impossible discovery of that sort though would surely justify animating the rest. Unless other prints of Power were made prior to the wiping of the master tapes? Prints that no-one, as yet, knows about?  If there is a partial recovery of this story, why would the BBC commission animated episodes in 16:9 widescreen format and not 4:3 to match the recovered episodes? All animations to date have been 4:3. Mixing aspect ratios would be visually jarring. |
|
Owen Conway
Member
For some people, small, beautiful events are what life is all about...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Owen Conway on Aug 24, 2016 16:54:59 GMT
That's exactly it. With only 1 set of film prints of The Power of the Daleks sent to New Zealand, and then to Singapore, we'd be enormously lucky to see even two or three complete episodes recovered. Such a ridiculously impossible discovery of that sort though would surely justify animating the rest. Unless other prints of Power were made prior to the wiping of the master tapes? Prints that no-one, as yet, knows about? If there is a partial recovery of this story, why would the BBC commission animated episodes in 16:9 widescreen format and not 4:3 to match the recovered episodes? All animations to date have been 4:3. Mixing aspect ratios would be visually jarring. You know the opening clip, along with the end clip, are actually inaccurate. This may be a test - a demo of sorts, for the actual product. Maybe then it'll be scaled down to 4:3 for the actual release alongside found episodes. Either that, or they've animated the entire thing... |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 24, 2016 21:59:06 GMT
I am unclear what if any point is trying to be proved here! The purpose of yesterday's experiment was to try and determine what triggered the copyright on the animation video: the video itself, or the audio? So I separated the two. I first uploaded the audio with a picture of a pigeon (now named the 'Omni-Pigeon') with the original audio from the video. No copyright claimed. I then uploaded the actual animation, but with the audio muted. Within 15 second of going up, the video was copyrighted for 'Visual content'. Point being, the video triggered the copyright whereas the audio did not. The audio definitely belongs to the BBC, and I was assuming it would be flagged upon upload. It wasn't. The ownership of the animation is unknown, yet was claimed by the BBC within 15 seconds. The audio-only pigeon video was claimed this morning at about 10:30 AM, but was manually detected (I assume someone reported it). So, have the BBC claimed something that doesn't belong to them?Yes, the Pidgeon, Lol |
|
