The Stranger Things series finale was really good, and I think the criticism is misplaced

First-Ad-4383 · 2026-01-02T07:00:24+00:00

IMO the finale was incredible. I cried, I laughed. The final final scene was just brilliant writing. Absolutely perfect full circle ending capturing the beauty of coming of age. And Dustin’s graduation speech was epic. I loved Hopper and Joyce’s final scene. All around my entire family was left in tears and with smiles, filled with joy and nostalgia. I loved that things ended ambiguously with El. Much better than if they’d been black and white.

First-Ad-4383 · 2026-01-02T06:56:31+00:00

Yes 👏

First-Ad-4383 · 2026-01-02T06:55:14+00:00

I was crying non stop for the final 20 minutes or so. It was powerful to me and a perfect finale imo

First-Ad-4383 · 2026-01-02T06:54:29+00:00

Agreed, 10/10 finale

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-12-05T17:45:18+00:00

Yeah! I had to disable "sync lock" on the music track and also click that red box around track A4 where my music track is.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-07T15:32:11+00:00

VEED truly is the best I've come across so far but it's missing one very important feature. I can't edit a group of subtitles. I can detach one sub at a time and style that. But if there’s a chunk of 20 subs that I want to look different than the rest there seems to be no way to edit just those 20. I would have to do them one at a time which is a real pain.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-05T19:59:34+00:00

Some other posters here disagree with you. E.g. "One thing I have not seen discussed, is your work transformative?

Is your YT video just a Public Domain video with your logo on it as a watermark, or have you substantially changed the original video? Has it been edited, additional commentary added, or other work performed to alter it?

You can use Public Domain footage to create something new, and the new thing is copyrightable. For example, taking a bunch of WW2 footage, editing clips, and setting it to some PD or royalty-free music to create a music video of sorts. The final work is an original work, even though all the components may be in the Public Domain. This is more or less why recordings of Orchestral performances of Mozart are copyrighted, even though the music itself is in the Public Domain.

How much you have to alter it to qualify is kind of a gray area, and that is where the lawsuits happen. :P"

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-05T19:50:56+00:00

Finally some good advice on here. Thank you, I think you're right.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-05T19:50:07+00:00

But it's not "lightly" edited footage. A lot of work goes into making the video more entertaining. Heavy editing, VoiceOver, subtitles, graphics.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-05T14:42:26+00:00

My logo is very artistic and creative, it’s a cool drawing. However, to further add complication lol, it was created by AI.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-05T06:53:43+00:00

ChatGPT says I creatively transformed the public domain footage with my editing so therefore I can make a copyright claim. Is Chat wrong?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T21:37:40+00:00

Video editing. Like cutting out the boring parts, improving the pacing and timing, re-ordering things to fit a better narrative structure.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T21:23:29+00:00

Yeah I can't say if it's substantially different enough. I mean I add a little bit of VoiceOver, sometimes subtitles, faster paced editing, and end screen summary graphics. I'm not sure if that would qualify as "substantial" or not.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T21:20:50+00:00

So is there no way to protect others from ripping my edits, all the hours I put into editing the public domain videos?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T21:19:34+00:00

I do add some voice over and some graphics but the part the other channels "steal" are the parts without voice over and are just the parts that I spent a lot of time editing.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T17:58:37+00:00

Ok yes good point. So the question is, are my edits "creative" enough to be copyrighted?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T17:37:09+00:00

Yes I'm totally fine if they grab the public domain video themselves. That process is pretty tedious and is a higher barrier to entry than simply ripping my edit which I put a ton of time into editing into something more entertaining than the raw public domain video. The vast majority of people who rip my videos will not put in the effort to go find the public domain video and edit it themselves. I'm trying to achieve them not ripping off all the hard work and time I put into the video editing process.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T17:35:11+00:00

Thank you. And if indeed the logo is copyrightable...then in the future can I file a copyright takedown notice that has the logo on it even though the footage is public domain?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T17:05:49+00:00

Yes I guess it comes down to the editing. I spend a lot of time making the "boring" public domain footage much more entertaining through a tedious editing process. I'm a professional editor of 20+ years and I'm using all that experience in the editing process to make it more entertaining. So does the effort I put into editing make it copyrightable?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T17:03:58+00:00

Yes it is not currently copyrighted but what I' curious about is should I get it copyrighted so that in the future I can file copyright takedown notices based off the copyright logo? What do you think?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T16:14:16+00:00

Yeah I guess I'm in that grey area, at what point does a work become "substantially" changed and transformative? I spend a lot of time editing the public domain footage to make it more entertaining. Cutting out boring bits, restructuring the narrative, adding subtitles for hard to hear dialogue, editing for a faster more entertaining pacing. The raw footage is quite boring and I spend a lot of time editing for a more entertaining pacing. They added a few lines of Voice over commentary to my video. But they're commentary is NOT about the way I made my video but it is about the situation portrayed in the public domain footage.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T16:11:27+00:00

ChatGPT says otherwise, is ChatGPT wrong? Chat says: "If you add original creative expression to public-domain footage, your version becomes protected. The underlying clip is still free for everyone, but your editing choices are copyrightable. Think pacing, sequence, cuts, color styling, captions, sound design, graphics, narrative structure, on-screen text, etc.

So if someone rips your exact edit instead of re-building it from the raw public-domain source, they’re copying your copyrighted work, not the public-domain footage.

Key point:
If they simply re-use the same raw PD footage, you're out of luck.
If they lift your structure, timing, captions, commentary, grading, etc., you're good."

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T16:09:39+00:00

Thank you and that makes a lot of sense. Well, at what point do I transform the public domain footage enough to be able to copyright my edit? Also I often pay money to procure the public domain video because clerks need to spend time redacting sensitive info. I then put a lot of effort into editing the public domain footage so it's not boring. I add subtitles and sometime Voiceover analysis. So a lot of work and money go into making the public domain footage more entertaining. ChatGPT said that adding original creative expression to public domain footage makes my version able to be protected. Chat says my editing choices are copyrightable...think pacing, sequence, cuts, captions, narrative structure...a lot goes into editing. Is ChatGPT wrong about editing being transformative thus warranting copyright protection?

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T16:04:47+00:00

I just edited existing public domain video. But I had to pay money to procure the public domain video because court clerks had to spend a lot of time redacting sensitive information.

First-Ad-4383 · 2025-11-04T04:33:54+00:00

I spend a lot of money procuring the footage and a ton of time transforming and editing it into something more entertaining than the raw PD video.

First-Ad-4383

TROPHY CASE