[dylan604]

The easiest thing to do would require the claimant and defendant to produce proof of ownership. In this case, it really seems like the claimant's case would have been over as soon as the defendant produced his proof.

If there is conflicting claims of ownership that seems valid from both sides, then send to a 3rd party to decide. Whether that is arbitration or courts. Why should YouTube be responsible at all? During the term of dispute, the ability to earn money is suspended. If the defendant wins, then the claimant should be required to reimburse lost earnings. At this point, YT would have acted in a reasonable manner such that they should not have any liability in it.

How naive am I being for making it seem like a really simple thing to handle?

[icebraining]

Proof of ownership seems complicated to produce if you're a regular person uploading your own videos. What would you produce?

[jnbiche]

There are plenty of timestamping services out there, both blockchain-based and otherwise. If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims.

Also, these services are usually reasonably priced, and sometimes even free, so it would be reasonable to use even if you're making several videos a day.

[jackvalentine]

> If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims.

The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.

[jnbiche]

If you're goal is only to prove that you invented something before some random patent troll did, then that issue doesn't matter so much.

At the least, it's very, very strong evidence for a trial. Along with also emailing your lawyer or notary public a copy of the timestamp as soon as you create it, these factors would be virtually unassailable in a court of law.

[jackvalentine]

What’s stopping me timestamping a tonne of other people’s content before they do, and then claiming that they stole it from me?

Then we’re literally back where we started - proving ownership by other means.

[mkl]

Raw takes including stuff that was edited out of the uploaded video seem like a simple way for many types of video.

I think the real problem is that evaluating such proof would need to be done by a human, and YouTube want a completely automated system.

[DenisM]

Register a hash of the (video + your name) on blockchain, that's the proof that you had it first.

Just needs a nice UI, and, well, Google giving a damn about it.

[pilif]

How would that work with some third party uploading (and registering on the blockchain) something to youtube they ripped off another place?

[DenisM]

Well, you just do it first? If you made the video, then you should register the hash before uploading it anywhere at all.

[manigandham]

What would be proof of ownership exactly?

[singularity2001]

Sounds reasonable.