Few days ago I received an email from Reddit that was noticing me about the removal of one of my post:
The removed post is this: Photographer meticulously light paints 686 photos for stop motion project
Nothing to be worried, this can happen, as the message says. But what has surprised me is that the copyright violation was for a video uploaded and set to public on YouTube, and also linked from a lot of sources on the web. Indeed I’ve found it on a famous photographer website, PetaPixel: Photographer Meticulously Light Paints 686 Photos for Stop Motion Project.
The point here is that the request arrived only after the Reddit post went “quite viral” with +3.1k upvotes and the front page of subreddit.
So I was just asking myself: what’s the point of ask to remove a video when it’s public on YouTube and on other sources?! Looks like the author noticed that a lot of people are watching it not from YouTube and, since it was made in order to be sold as NFT, he took the decision to ask for the removal.
It can be understood, but to me looks totally pointless, maybe a lot of people are thinking “it will be sold as NFT, no one must download or re-use it”. But this is not the way a NFT works, I’ve linked the original source in the comments and I also said that it’s for a NFT project. The author should be happy for the “free advertising” (also considering that it’s not already sold), not ask to remove it.
In this case there’s nothing serious and it’s fine the video has been removed but imagine if, in the future, every owner of a NFT video/photo/etc… ask for the removal to ‘every’ online platform/service! It would be terrible, like if someone buy a Bored Ape NFT and set it to avatar on Twitter, everyone will be able to take a screenshot and re-use it. But the owner couldn’t ask to remove all those identical avatar of every other Twitter user. This would make internet even less “free” than now.
I hope this will never happen in the future and that the “Web3” will be a very different place like the one I’ve just described.