What's he doing here?

General Moho topics.

Moderators: Fahim, Distinct Sun, Víctor Paredes, erey, Belgarath, slowtiger

francesprince
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:08 am

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by francesprince » Fri May 20, 2016 7:34 am

Really nice. Mind blowing .
User avatar
Víctor Paredes
Posts: 4952
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Ireland/Chile
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Víctor Paredes » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:27 pm

Alexander Ptichkin just claimed there was a copyright infringement in the tutorial and the video was removed from YouTube.
It's a ridiculous situation, this is a tutorial that uses the tools contained inside of the software and none of that belongs to him. I'm contacting him back and hope to fix this soon.
Víctor Paredes
Former Moho Product Manager
Rigger and animator in Cartoon Saloon
My Youtube Channel - My webinars
User avatar
Greenlaw
Posts: 4664
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Greenlaw » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:31 pm

Ugh, that's annoying. Does YT have anything in place for responding to the challenge?

I mean, otherwise it sounds like anybody could challenge the copyright holder of any video then, and there wouldn't be any videos left up.

Besides, you can't copyright a technique. That's just silly.
D.R. Greenlaw
Artist/Partner - Little Green Dog | Little Green Dog Channel on Vimeo | Greenlaw's Demo Reel 2019 Edtion
Lead Digital Animator, Dreamworks Animation

Image
User avatar
Víctor Paredes
Posts: 4952
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Ireland/Chile
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Víctor Paredes » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:39 pm

Greenlaw wrote:Ugh, that's annoying. Does YT have anything in place for responding to the challenge?

I mean, it sounds like anybody could challenge the copyright holder of any video then. There wouldn't be any videos then.
Yes, it's very annoying. I also thought the process was harder than just claiming the video uses your content. For now, the video won't be available until July, just because of his notification. After that, YouTube will decide if erasing it or not.
The first step is to contact him asking to remove the claim. If that doesn't work, YouTube gives you some tools to submit a counter notification.
Víctor Paredes
Former Moho Product Manager
Rigger and animator in Cartoon Saloon
My Youtube Channel - My webinars
User avatar
troypicou
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by troypicou » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:07 pm

I just had the same thing happen to my video that i did of a biped technique. He claimed copyright infringement on me as well. i reached out but he will not respond. I would love YouTube to show proof of copyright.
User avatar
Maestral
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:44 pm
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Maestral » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:13 am

Is it possible that you guys have never seen some plug-ins for Ps or similar over the web, also protected by copyrights? In most cases, these are just packed actions so all that the end user has to do is to deploy the given button/s or similar. Nothing more than a hole in a pot but someone wrapped it up for the lazy consumers.

I`m not quite along the line with Alexander Ptichkin but he is clearly selling his ideas to the mentioned targeted group. Does SM advertise those techniques? No. Could those techniques be treated as his intellectual property? Well, most likely - yes.

One of the most valuable aspects of Moho/AS, to me, is this community where we are prone to exchange the ideas and from my POV it looks almost like Moho/AS is an open source sw. We all know that there are places on the web where you have to prove how many of your blood cells are animated in order to come closer to some other achievements or techniques. So, nothing new except this guy found his way to earn some money. Leave him be and thanks for all the fish ,)

I`m pretty sure that nothing could stop you from posting gif`s here with the same content.
User avatar
synthsin75
Posts: 7241
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by synthsin75 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:56 am

Maestral wrote:Is it possible that you guys have never seen some plug-ins for Ps or similar over the web, also protected by copyrights? In most cases, these are just packed actions so all that the end user has to do is to deploy the given button/s or similar. Nothing more than a hole in a pot but someone wrapped it up for the lazy consumers.

I`m not quite along the line with Alexander Ptichkin but he is clearly selling his ideas to the mentioned targeted group. Does SM advertise those techniques? No. Could those techniques be treated as his intellectual property? Well, most likely - yes.
PS plug-ins do not copyright a technique, they copyright the specific assets included, otherwise anyone who used the same or similar techniques in a commercial work could have their whole work deemed a copyright infringement...if they didn't purchase the plug-in. If this guy wants to monetize his idea, he should package it, like similar PS plug-ins, for those seeking shortcuts. But either way, techniques cannot be copyrighted...and thus cannot be called copyright violations.

A technique or method must apply for a utility patent. Two crucial things to keep in mind about patents:
  • The invention must be "non-obvious," meaning its use or function can't be something that is simply the next logical step of an already patented invention. Much of the argument between the USPTO and patent applicants revolves around the issue of non-obviousness.
  • The invention must not have been "disclosed" to the public prior to the application for the patent. For example, if you've written an article describing the invention before you apply for the patent, the USPTO may deny the application because you've already disclosed the patent and therefore it's public knowledge.
Since simply seeing the rig in action allowed Victor to reconstruct it, it's "non-obvious" nature is dubious. And did this guy have a patent before he posted the video? If not, it's public knowledge.
User avatar
Maestral
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:44 pm
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Maestral » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:46 pm

I`m not quite sure what is your stand or POV but regarding the obvious, public etc...

Let`s say, I took a photo and posted it here where later on someone (some guy or girl, blog, tv, newspaper...) used it prior to asking for my permission. Do you still think I`ll be left short if I hadn`t already patented it?
- You can`t claim any rights on this photo. You just snapped it. You just pointed the camera and clicked. There is no artistic value or anything of that sort in your photo.
- Then, why did you used it?

The technique we are talking about is shown as a part of the promo for his "lessons" (or something like that) which he is obviously selling. He presented the given technique but without the how-to explanation, from obvious reasons I`ll say. Now, a year and a half later he is claiming for a removal of these explainer videos. If he made a claim a day and a half later, it might be considered as a truly rotten move but as is, willingly or not, he left the window for sharing open for quite a long time, right?

Again, I`m prone to sharing and exchanging but it doesn`t have to be nor it is everybody`s cup of tea. And there are some jobs and fees out there as well...
User avatar
SimplSam
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by SimplSam » Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:24 pm

Sheeesh. Nobody is stopping him selling his wares or courses. He appears to have a good following, and good luck to him.

What matters is whether he has the right to stop anyone else demonstrating techniques that may be similar to the one that he has used. Victors technique took a path to arrive at a destination, which may or may not be the same path that AP took.

AP's approach to his assumed 'copyright' can only serve to stifle education and learning in the wider community.

And... The worst thing about YT - is that you don't even need to demonstrate how the rights were violated, or even demonstrate your rights of ownership.
Moho 13.02 » Win 10 Pro 64GB » NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB

Sam
Stan
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:22 pm
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Stan » Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:46 pm

Hey Victor, if you still have the video file, I can host it on mohoscripting.com.
________________________________________________________________________
http://mohoscripting.com/ - Unofficial Moho (Anime Studio) Lua Scripting Documentation
http://2danimator.ru/ - Russian Anime Studio Forum
User avatar
synthsin75
Posts: 7241
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by synthsin75 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:06 am

Maestral wrote:I`m not quite sure what is your stand or POV but regarding the obvious, public etc...

Let`s say, I took a photo and posted it here where later on someone (some guy or girl, blog, tv, newspaper...) used it prior to asking for my permission. Do you still think I`ll be left short if I hadn`t already patented it?
- You can`t claim any rights on this photo. You just snapped it. You just pointed the camera and clicked. There is no artistic value or anything of that sort in your photo.
- Then, why did you used it?
A photo, like artwork, is a specific asset that is considered copyrighted upon creation (but needs to actually be copyrighted to protect).
Doesn't matter the subject or artistic merit.
The technique we are talking about is shown as a part of the promo for his "lessons" (or something like that) which he is obviously selling. He presented the given technique but without the how-to explanation, from obvious reasons I`ll say. Now, a year and a half later he is claiming for a removal of these explainer videos. If he made a claim a day and a half later, it might be considered as a truly rotten move but as is, willingly or not, he left the window for sharing open for quite a long time, right?

Again, I`m prone to sharing and exchanging but it doesn`t have to be nor it is everybody`s cup of tea. And there are some jobs and fees out there as well...
Nope. Only a utility patent can legal protect a technique or method, and those are only granted if it is novel and "non-obvious".
hayasidist
Posts: 2195
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:12 pm
Location: Kent, England

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by hayasidist » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:14 am

SimplSam wrote: What matters is whether he has the right to stop anyone else demonstrating techniques that may be similar to the one that he has used. ...

AP's approach to his assumed 'copyright' can only serve to stifle education and learning in the wider community.

And... The worst thing about YT - is that you don't even need to demonstrate how the rights were violated, or even demonstrate your rights of ownership.
+1 to all that.
troypicou wrote:I just had the same thing happen to my video that i did of a biped technique. He claimed copyright infringement on me as well. i reached out but he will not respond. I would love YouTube to show proof of copyright

Taken to extreme any video of a walk cycle rig that uses smartbones and target bones might consequently be a target for a copyright challenge??!!?? ... Maybe fight fire with fire and get someone in SM to challenge his videos?

synthsin75 wrote:Only a utility patent can legal protect a technique or method, and those are only granted if it is novel and "non-obvious".
And Wes is absolutely right about patents... and I'll add that the idea must not be "prior art" (i.e. not already known to those in the field). Further, patents only apply within the territories for which they have been granted (e.g. IOW a UK patent has no force in the USA and vice versa).

And just to be 100% clear: copyright protection CANNOT and DOES NOT include ideas, procedures, methods of operation, or mathematical concepts as such.

In short, unless the challenged videos use his artwork, IMO AP's copyright challenge is groundless.
User avatar
Maestral
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:44 pm
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Maestral » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:12 pm

In the late years of XX century, I was invited to provide a print design for paper cups, used in the vending machines. It was initiated as a part os some annual thing which involved some specific graphical elements and was followed with tech specifications and requirements.

Initial drafts went well, were accepted and approved for finalization. Once I sent the final designs, there was an error.

- You did not include all of the labels and warnings?
- What do you mean?!
- The label which clearly states "CAUTION Liquid inside is very hot..." (I can`t really recall the exact wording but it was more like a sentence rather than just a warning sign).
- Sorry for asking but can a blind person operate your vending machines?
- No
- You do realize that design relies upon, indicates and empowers the idea of the steaming liquid inside the cup?
- Yes

What do you think, were they able to accept my arguments?
Nope. They insisted on being covered from potential lawsuits.

So, I am aware of that behavior but as you may notice - I still can`t get used to it.
User avatar
jahnocli
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: UK

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by jahnocli » Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:09 pm

This all depends on how formal the process is. If you signed off all these items as part of the job specification, you don't have a leg to stand on. If the client introduced these ideas once your design had been submitted, they are just behaving unreasonably (that seems to ring a bell somewhere...).
BUT, if the whole process is informal, then it's clipboards at dawn, I'm afraid, and nobody comes out of the process looking good.
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
User avatar
Greenlaw
Posts: 4664
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: What's he doing here?

Post by Greenlaw » Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:56 pm

Just a few thoughts:

I don't really want to pick sides here. If AP's YouTube video is in fact an advertisement for a course on advanced Moho techniques that he is offering for purchase, then I understand his desire to protect the value of his work. But it's not clear from watching the video that this is the case (at least it wasn't by English speakers like me.) If this was made clearer in the video, I imagine Victor might have suggested buying AP's course instead of creating his own interpretation of what he thought he was seeing.

But returning to the to topic of copyright violations, Victor's video did not use anything from the original video. What he did was he watched a publicly posted video on YouTube that did not explain how the technique it featured was done, and then he engineered his own method for getting similar results, which may or may not be what was actually in the original video.

You are free to argue that Victor got his idea from the video, but that is not a legal copyright violation. As mentioned above, ideas by themselves are not eligible for copyright protection. If that were the case, you would not have movies like Star Wars, for example, which pulled its ideas from countless movies and stories that came before it.

As mentioned earlier, ideas can be subject to patent protections, and there is a process for getting patents before the idea is made public, but that's not what YouTube is supposed to pull down videos for anyway.

Now, AP's video presentation of the idea may be protected, and if Victor had used AP's original footage and called it his own, even with significant alterations to the content, that could and probably would qualify as a violation. But that is not the case here either.

Obviously there can be gray areas in some situations, and if one party feels the damages they are suffering are worth the trouble and expense, I guess they can take it to court. Personally, that seems like a extreme action for this case but then, I'm just a bystander here. :)
Last edited by Greenlaw on Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:20 pm, edited 6 times in total.
D.R. Greenlaw
Artist/Partner - Little Green Dog | Little Green Dog Channel on Vimeo | Greenlaw's Demo Reel 2019 Edtion
Lead Digital Animator, Dreamworks Animation

Image
Post Reply