Mr. Beast video taken down due to CSS toggle copyright claim | Hacker News Reader

Mr. Beast video taken down due to CSS toggle copyright claim

twitter.com

52 pointsFlamingMoe26 comments

Here is the link to the CSS code that generated the video animation, afaict: https://codepen.io/jasontyler/pen/qEXzOQ

But its not exactly the same, so maybe many other people have altered it.

To be clear, the copyright strike is for a small two second animation in the middle of a much larger video.

The correct course of action here is for Mr Beast to apologize to the animation owner (AO) and to reupload the video with the animation removed. Or, to license the animation.

YouTube should then lift demonization.

AO didn't suffer any damage so there's no compensation owed. Legally, AO might be able to chase this but the payout will likely be far less than the court costs.

Mr Beast seems to be a pretty upstanding guy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he licensed the animation for a generous price.

Ultimately, it was the editor who messed up so the Mr Beast team need to review their processes.

> Mr Beast seems to be a pretty upstanding guy

How many people would have said the same about Linus Sebastion before Gamers Nexus' Steve Burke pointed out how they treated Billet Labs?

Mr. Beast's actual job is cultivating a public persona. Being good at that doesn't make him a good person.

Having watched plenty of both of their videos, if I had to guess which was an asshole I’d have guessed Linus.

How is this different than a big brand stealing a design and putting it on a Tshirt? The product in question is a video and it used art without permission.

The difference is that YouTube has a user friendly button to ruin people's channels, while big brands actually need a lawyer to send a C&D

"ruin" ohhh puleaze.

It turns off monetization for one video. Unless you fuck up 3 times, then maybe it "ruins" your channel.

And if it's a fraudulent strike the person who filed the fraudulent strike gets a strike. Meanwhile you can send as many phony C&Ds as you want.

> Unless you fuck up 3 times, then maybe it "ruins" your channel.

So by "fuck up" you mean having at least 3 videos on your channel which can receive fraudulent claims. Only stupid content creators make the mistake of having more than two videos I guess.

> And if it's a fraudulent strike the person who filed the fraudulent strike gets a strike.

If only it were that simple. If you try to tell Youtube it's fraudulent you get a response 12 seconds later that they reviewed it and it's valid.

But in this case it wasn't fraudulent. So what is the issue?

I think the issue is all the other cases, where it is fraudulent. For example, millions within 6 months [1].

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22820318/youtube-copyrigh...

"The 2.2 million incorrect claims represent less than 1 percent of the more than 729 million total copyright claims issued in the first half of this year, 99 percent of which originated from Content ID, YouTube’s automated enforcement tool. When users disputed these claims, the case was resolved in favor of the uploader of the video 60 percent of the time, according to the report."

You're using numbers from a completely different issue. This isn't the automated Content ID system this is a manual claim.

Most videos like this make the majority of their money in the first few days. If they get demonetized, they're effectively dead. Considering the huge costs involved, that's pretty bad.

The 'fuck ups' can be retroactive through. So you could do something that was totally fine and make multiple videos of said things, then have all of them individually flagged at some point in the future.

Nintendo has done this on multiple occasions.

Last time I checked MrBeast was a big brand though.

This is more equivalent to a transition image in a video featuring the T-shirt at some stage, and part of the transition is copyrighted, not the shirt itself.

Because all public code on Codepen is MIT Licensed?

https://blog.codepen.io/documentation/terms-of-service/#your...

weird case for sure, but if you run a billion dollar youtube channel you probably should vet your assets for copyright

Not a lot of context here. Was the "CSS toggle" an image inside a video?

Yes, it's poorly titled. The copyright was for the image/animation.

I still don't understand. What was the topic of the video, and how was the image/animation involved?

it was just used as interstitial animation to show the time of day changed between shots

it doesnt really have anything to do with CSS

Some video editor is getting fired.

Non-Twitter, archive link: https://archive.is/R2sRo

*supposedly

Explained properly here - https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/mrbeasts-lost-at-sea-v...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com