I have a doubt about I title I added that may not be eligible after all

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 2 days ago
  • Answered
Many months ago, I added this title based on the evidence I found on the internet of its existence, which I included as the official link there. The point is that later I knew that the YouTube account that posted the video which I used as official source was really a fake account, not an official source of any kind. They probably reposted the video without permission and I erroneously thought it was official.

My doubt is that the video did really exist at one point and was available for some time through official sources, but as of today, I haven't been able to find it through any official source, and I'm certain it wasn't officially available when I submitted the inclusion on IMDb. Should that title be deleted or can it be kept? If kept, I must add that the title and most probably the release date are completely unknown as I included the release date and title from the repost, which are most probably wrong, the title being made up by the reposter. I can assume that the date will be earlier to the one appearing in the submitted link, but how much earlier, I don't know. I hope you can help me clarify this and what should I do, if anything.
Photo of manbemel

manbemel

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 7 days ago

  • 1
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27767 Reply Likes
official source was really a fake account, not an official source of any kind
They probably reposted the video without permission and I erroneously thought it was official.
How do you know this? Can you actually prove what you say?

If not then you really have done nothing wrong. Reposting a video that is publicly available with no copyright protection needs no permission.

Do you know if it is copyrighted?

My doubt is that the video did really exist at one point and was available for some time through official sources, but as of today, I haven't been able to find it through any official source
.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of silent films that can be proven exist, but are no longer viewable anywhere. Removing them would make the database inaccurate. So removal of your now missing video would be inaccurate too.

In conclusion. The title should remain.

Thanks.
Wait for a staff reply.
(Edited)
Photo of manbemel

manbemel

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The video I found was posted on an account that doesn't belong to the official owner. He has only two official YouTube channels and the video I found isn't in neither of those, but on a different one that copies the owner's name and supplants him, hence my mistake, I should have noticed it didn't have the verified blue mark next to the name. As for the copyright, the original video is copyrighted, all YouTube videos are by default copyrighted, at the very least with a CC-BY license, most frequently with the standard restricted YouTube license. The original owner then for some reason (probably because he himself didn't have the rights to make the cover of the song featured on the video) hid it or deleted it and the other user reposted it after it had been removed.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27767 Reply Likes
That does not negate the existence of it. It should remain as a historical reference.
Photo of Rida

Rida, Employee

  • 158 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Thanks for your post.

I can see the external links added here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10010644/externalsites
The title is eligible for listing based on the evidence provided.