Commons:Deletion requests/File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm

I'm really inclined to think we need indepdenent verification of this. It's not clear that this company has a general principle of releasing content under CC, they don't seem to do it with other content, and so it seems likely that some intern just clicked the wrong button. The uploader as an individual obviously wouldn't own the IP and so wouldn't be able to release it, regardless of what the youtube description says. GMG^talk 18:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. It's not our place to theorize on whether it was released intentionally or not. Not to mention that Nick Rewind's YouTube channel has released multiple other videos under the CC license, so it may very well be intentional anyways. We have precedent for this sort of thing at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy. There's really no reason to distrust Nickelodeon releasing their own content. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep but mute - Keeping for same reason as Di (they-them). However, the music is possibly owned by Sony and per COM:PRP, we cannot definitely say that Sony approved Paramount releasing their music, "Leave It All to Me", under a CC license with this video. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 'I have no clue what my social media manager is doing' is not a valid legal defense. --Trade (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. CC is irrevocable so even if they released it under a wrong license it's their problem. Commons shouldn't be (and highly likely is not) responsible for a social media manager's licensing mistake. S5A-0043^Talk 03:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. This assumes the person releasing it is the owner, and this has...good lord...a dozen copyrights attached. GMG^talk 13:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. This is another instance of the problem mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco. It's more likely that whoever put these files up on YouTube clicked the wrong license or did not understand that CC-BY means "commercial use allowed"; YouTube's guide doesn't mention that, I noticed. In order for this file - or anything on the Nick Rewind channel, to be honest - to have its license valid, not only would both Sony and Paramount have gone through their chains of command to agree to this, but they also would have to intend to license things under a license that allows commercial use by the general public, despite being very trigger-happy to take down YouTube Poops of SpongeBob SquarePants. For all of this to be the case would require Dream speedrun levels of luck. That is, you're more likely to win the lottery than get all of these stars to align. And as a wise hedgehog once said, "if it sounds too good to be true, it's probably false." -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9: I think the Bandai Namco situation is not comparable. The Bandai Namco files were files that BN did not have the rights to release, IE files depicting games from other publishers such as Adventure Time, Dragon Ball, etc. In this case, Nickelodeon released a video that they own. I think a far more appropriate comparison would be the Hogwarts Legacy files which were released by their own publisher, Warner Bros. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them): The thing is, the closing admin in the Bandai Namco case did not draw a distinction between files containing only BN properties and files containing non-BN properties, deleting them all. (Full disclosure: I would have voted delete on the Hogwarts Legacy files had I caught the nomination in time. I worry that this sort of thing will end up being another fracture point akin to our handling of URAA-affected files...) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete copyrights aren’t irrevocable if they’re invalid; the rights involved here are a nightmare, Nickelodeon are notorious copyright trolls, and we don’t need a useless muted video (per Oinkers’ suggestion). Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even a muted video will wtill be useful to represent the show Trade (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. We have no reason to doubt the licensing; the video has been published for years under that license and, had there been a mistake, surely it would have been corrected long ago. Gawaon (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the mistake doesn't come to the rightsholders' attentions, and in this case I'm not sure it would. It's very difficult to believe they would intentionally release this video under a CC license. The Earwig (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I just find it extremely dubious on it's face that Paramount would release any IP at all under a free license. They don't do this with their other YT channels and as it happens, "a social media manager's licensing mistake" is actually a valid defense on their part. You have to own something to give it away. With a big chonker like Paramount, it's really the kind of thing you would expect to come from legal, and at the very least with some self-serving press release touting how they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

Corporate YT accounts aren't the same as channels where the content is directly produced and therefore owned by the creator. Those are definitely binding and irrevocable because they own it and they can give it away. But these bits are elaborate works created by significant production teams, and owned by a company rather than any single individual. We're supposed to be doing our due diligence and exercising caution with the wellbeing of our reusers at heart. I'm not confident any of this is going to be a stellar defense when someone gets hit with a copyright strike and has their YT channel nuked for resusing something we approved on a technicality. GMG^talk 05:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We should trust that large companies know what they do when choosing a license; they did not change it after the upload. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]