at the same time of figuring out how to keep stolen content away, what stops someone from using iphone’s screen recorder and changing the pitch by the smallest bit and reverse the screen so it’s not recognized by an algorithm?
this is very probable
I was pretty popular on Vine in the fandom editing communities, so my edits were reposted all the time and I hate to say it but watermarks did not help at all. Watermarks are cropped out and even when the watermark was incorporated into edits, the person reposting doesn’t care. Unfortunately many viewers don’t notice watermarks and don’t call out the reposter for stealing the content. I think there should be a way to report the repost specifically as a stolen post (or edit in my case).
Netflix blocks you from screenshotting or even recording the screen while watching a show, could something like this be implemented?
Or similar to how Googles Reverse Image search works could you detect when a video that looks the same as been uploaded and notify the “owner” of the original, allowing them to report it if it’s the same video?
This sounds good
couple ideas i have might not work, just throwing out some ideas:
- check the exif data to make sure any video uploaded to v2 is either recorded in the v2 app or recorded on an iphone (however this would disable the ability to edit videos and reuplod them to v2).
- somehow color code the content to the specific user, so if it is resposted to another account, it would be obvious it wasn’t created by that user.
- snapchat has the ability to know when screen recording is in use, so one way to disable basic reposting of content would be to make the screen go black as soon as v2 detects screen recording in progress. (this wouldn’t disable people from just downloading the video but it would make it harder to easily steal content.
- give users the ability to flag a post as stolen and post the link to the original content. then maybe somehow display on the post that the content is stolen and display the link to the original post.
just brainstorming i’m not sure if half of these even make sense but i’ll keep thinking of more ideas.
Encrypted cloud storage, encrypted video transmission, backend authentication, viewer based watermarking?
Follow what YouTube does, uses similar images/audio that has already been uploaded to test on other videos to see if it matches up with another video posted before.
My thought on this was maybe a form people could fill out. It seems archaic but a submission where you can prove that this is your work like with link to the original post that has the date or something.
I think if something like this were to exist it would follow the general fair use laws in the sense that the content couldn’t be used as a market substitute and some transformation had to be made.
Obviously there’s a ton of flaws in this idea but it could be a start.
Right, please excuse the essay because this is based on years of work and research.
A simple watermark on a video leads to 97.5% less conversion than a link or a quote for the original creator. Plus, as somebody pointed out, they can be cropped. In reality, and this is based on rules on the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) a watermark isn’t even nearly enough if we’re looking at credit to the original creator. In fact, even a link back, which is far more effective, is technically still a violation of the DMCA, but as it’s mutually beneficial most creators accept it without any issues. HOWEVER, most smaller creators accept a watermark as sufficient credit, when they really shouldn’t, and larger creators know this is the case. A watermark is put in place to identify when content has been ripped so something can be done about it, not as credit.
Allowing content to be embedded on sites stops the issue somewhat as larger sites know they’re violating rules if they rip the content and then embed it their end.
However, it doesn’t solve the issue on content being ripped from V2 and then reuploaded on V2. I know of several solutions to the issue, some of which are free, others are more expensive but more effective.
In reality, by the rules set out, in order to use somebodies content in any capacity you require their permission unless you’re using it under fair use terms, which I’d argue don’t apply here as it’s short hand content.
This doesn’t work because there are apps that can easily bypass it. In regard to Googles reverse image search that type of software would costs an absolute fortune for video.
I’m not sure about the code behind it but I know that apps like Snapchat know when your screen recording. I know screen recording isn’t the only way to copy videos but it didn’t exist for the previous version. Maybe the app could detect the recording and instead of putting a giant watermark on the video just but a big one across the whole app page which would make recorded videos less appealing.
or just black out the screen altogether
it’s true that some solutions (machine learning and “reverse video search”) are very expensive both in implementation and operation, so we will probably favor other approaches if we think they might work. this is an important topic and the ongoing discussion is helpful
Honestly, I think the best way to deal with it is through manual review. Make it very clear that content should not be directly ripped (as it’s short form) without the agreement of the creators involved. If the original source (who has to own the content) files a claim against the person who has ripped it that should form a strike and three strikes should be account closed. If you make this clear from the off you should get ahead of it becoming endemic.
will there be a web version of v2?
if so, it’ll be a lot more difficult keeping content stealers from doing their dirty work.
any attempt to prevent downloading or recapturing is probably futile. someone will always find a way around that. besides taking action against bad actors, the solution needs to be around creating a strong (and hopefully portable) connection between the artist and the work
A big part of this is that it’s not only v2s themselves may risk subject to theft, but ideas. Like recreated vines often became more popular when remade by more popular viners with no credit to the original poster. A watermark would essentially solve the theft issue, I have no doubts about that. Credit to original posters and content creators is unfortunately an accountability issue. Again, potentially a clause making credibility an item to be addressed for content. If a creator were to make money off a stolen idea, some profit should go to the original creator. HOWEVER. Some ideas are bound to be shared, some punchlines are so inevitable that two v2s could be exactly the same without the intent of theft. I don’t know the way around this. Maybe someone can help.
Again, I don’t know what I’m saying. Please forgive me being ~trash~ thanks!
What if you had a system that allowed v2 to detect if a video is being downloaded and/or screen recorded and the finished video (on the other persons device) is watermarked like a peice of paper. It might sound confusing, but yaknow how pictures from certain businesses will have a watermark going diagonally down the side of a picture like stripes. That way its sort of like a cover… and its nearly impossible to erase on a video. Heres an example:
Ik its pretty distracting but its the best idea i got that will help the creator.