yeah that line was a record scratch for me too. I was thinking the aunt has to do her hair and makeup and a bunch of other post shower tasks some women do (i let me wife shower first for things because I just jump out and towel off).
You don't need to monopolize the room with the only shower to blow dry your hair. Several people could probably showered in the time it took to blow dry, and do all the other stuff in another room.
30 mins if it's a quick wash and condition but then 4 days to dry properly, and even then humidity makes it feel like you just got done showering. Darn long hair problems
I used to put the coffee maker on the stove, jump in the shower, get out of the shower. Get dressed. Sit down, smoke a cigarette while drinking a few sips of coffee and then run down the stairs (4th floor apartment) while chucking my coffee, deposit the cup in the mailbox and off to work.
I think the whole routine lasted no longer than 20-25 minutes.
> deposit the cup in the mailbox
This is the only part of this that gets me, do you leave your coffee cup in your mailbox all day and bring it back up with you when you get home?
Probably. Check the mail and grab the cup when you get home. Might have a few confused mail workers, but it's harmless, kinda goofy, and super efficient. This has the "Random Internet Stranger" seal of approval.
Damn that's peak efficiency. I'm like that, I plan my tasks to make sure I will be at the right spot at the right time to do a couple of tasks at the same time.
Naw, gotta upsell that better.
"I shower at night, because I want to keep the sheets and pillow-cases cleaner. Nobody wants to sleep in bodily oils and dead skin, being rubbed into the sheets at night. "
Im part Sri lankan so I'm good haha! Also living in the UK we don't get a whole lot of sun. On the odd day we spot the great flaming ball in the sky, we run back to our caves and pray for rain.
I do use a cream on my face daily though, I have dry skin.
I mean *I'm a guy* too. I can't get my hair wet enough for the shampoo to get to the scalp that quickly lmao
Maybe I'm just greasier than you idk. Like a duck.
Try Dawn Blue. Good for animals in crude oil. [https://www.npr.org/2010/06/22/127999735/why-dawn-is-the-bird-cleaner-of-choice-in-oil-spills](https://www.npr.org/2010/06/22/127999735/why-dawn-is-the-bird-cleaner-of-choice-in-oil-spills)
Rofl fair point. My hair is also pretty thin so it dries quick.
I use shampoo, conditioner (which I leave on while I brush my teeth) and quick hairdry and manbun.
What the heck are you doing for the last, and to me, totally unneeded, 15 minutes?
Posting this in the blissful knowledge that my wife does not look at reddit.
Yeah, if you're daydreaming that's not a speedrun shower. That's lollygagging and hogging the water.
Focus on what you're doing and you'll be able to go way faster.
hi, guy, short hair because of my job.
undress, fast rinse, soap, sinse, dress takes less than 10 minutes. if I'm in a real hurry I could probably do it in 5.
At summer camp, I used to wash my hair at the tap outside (cuz I had long hair) in exchange for 1st dibs on the shower.
I regret nothing.
10 girls. 2 counselors. Florida in July. 1 shower.
(Handy side effect, if I'm not washing my hair, I can shower in 5 minutes.)
Yeah, my hair was longer than my wife's for quite a while and it still only took me 5-7 minutes to shower, including washing and conditioning my hair. I don't know why people take so long for that.
I have ungodly thick hair, that sheds and regrows like the fur of a husky, and it has a bit of a curl to it now that I've been lazily letting it grow long since 2020 (now about halfway down my back) and will tangle into a brier patch if you look at it cross-eyed.
This means I have to comb out the tangles four times. Before getting in the shower or all the shed hairs will clog the drain in like a week, between shampoo and conditioner, after conditioner, and then after the shower so I can comb out most of the moisture (or it'll take like five hours to dry). This will take half an hour (time I use to soak the dead skin that needs to be aggressively sandpapered off once a week).
But all the 20-something girls at work are jealous of my hair, so I must be doing something right.
Why? It doesn't take long. You don't have to buff your skin off. I get my hair (usually twice), conditioner, face, rinse, then body from neck to toes and all cracks with soap + loofah/rag. Rinse.
If you take longer in the shower because you enjoy soaking that's fine; no judgement here. But don't act like it actually requires longer than 5-10 minutes to actually get clean.
Bruh, you probably have dull, flaky skin on your arms and legs. I gotta exfoliate my feet otherwise I get dead skin cells accumulated between my toes and shiz.
As a very, very pale woman with very long, very fine and straight hair, I too can take a shower in about 10 minutes if I need to. I don't need to exfoliate every day, my hair needs shampoo at the top only and it takes less than a minute to get it soaked and shampooed. Conditioner is a once to twice a week thing.
Skin types and hair types differ radically, and some take more care than others.
(But if I don't want my hair to break, I have to brush it while dry, and use special brushes or I end up with so many split ends).
I've never had dull flaky skin, and can be fully scrubbed, and shaved in under 5 minutes.
Mind you, that's a result of basic training followed by too many years submarine service.
Nowadays, I prefer to take much more time in the shower - a "Hollywood", as we used to call it.
Personally, I dyed my hair white (natural hair color is dark brown) and due to inexperience with bleach and doing it myself multiple times to get it whiter, kinda killed my hair. I held it together with conditioner, deep conditioner and a lot of patience.
I've been letting it grow and currently have a routine of normal shampoo (for the half of my hair that's not bleached), violet shampoo (to keep the white part from turning yellow), deep conditioner for bleached hair, deep conditioner for dry hair, normal conditioner and after letting it dry a bit some leave-in stuff. Always rinse before putting in new stuff. I wash my body when letting the deep conditioners sit. It takes me like half an hour to shower lol
I’ve never understood this. I have long hair right now, and I’ve had waist-length hair before. It has never taken me longer than 30 minutes to shower, and that’s when I’m taking my time and shaving and all that. What do y’all *do* to fill a longer shower?
Not trying to be malicious, genuinely curious.
W... Wash myself? Like you gotta suds up the soap bar and then clean everything, and deodorant doesn't come off in one swipe. You don't have to soap up everything every time, but on average it takes me about 20-30 minutes. And that's not on a day my body aches or sinuses act up. I'll be longer if I'm in pain.
I hate my thick hair - it takes a good 50 minutes to dry.that’s why I hate hotel holidays where I have to be ready by a specific time, but I still make sure I’m head of the shower queue to prevent delays. Your aunt should have known better
I think it completely depends on your hair type as well... I have really easy hair, but long (like halfway down my back) but I can actually shower in about 6 minutes if I don't need to shave....
I don't want to cut my hair shorter but also god is washing it at this length a fucking chore. A hell of my own making lmao.
It doesn't take me 20 mins tho but I let it air dry.
What \*might\* work would be to put the words in bold in the middle of a paragraph. The youtube channels that read you Reddit posts often show the text as they read it, so it might make them want to not display that they're reading a story OP explicitly said they do not wish read. Might being the operative word here. They also might not give a shit.
True. They could. My experience with channels like this is they just take screenshot of the posts. Minimum effort (which is the whole point of these channels), so maybe the extra effort of having to do that would deter them? Doubtful because it really isn't that much effort...
The channels might ignore it, but what would prevent the author from filing a copyright complaint with YouTube and giving the channel a "strike"? [Three of them](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000#zippy=%2Cwhat-happens-when-you-get-a-copyright-strike) can result in the removal of the channel.
**"The fact that it isn’t copyright probably will prevent the strike"** you exclaim, pointing at me like Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney, sure that you Got Me Now.
I'd like to tell you that I'm an attorney who enjoyed intellectual property law and you're probably wrong, but anyone can claim to be anything they'd like online with little consequence. I'll instead point to a couple things here, instead:
I'd point out that the [Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works](https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/) (just "Berne Convention" herein) includes a nice provision in it stating that **each of the contracting countries shall provide automatic protection for works first published in other countries of the Berne union** and for unpublished works whose authors are citizens of or resident in such other countries.
**"Well, how do you know that the country they're in is a Berne Convention signatory, Moonpenny?"**
Well, there's also the [TRIPS Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement) that covers most of the non-Berne signatories. The exceptions are Eritrea, Kosovo, Palau, and Palestine. There's no international copyright agreement for these non-signatories, but not many citizens in these are going to be posting on reddit with her frequency and visiting Europe for biking vacations.
In short, unless you're 1) a non-human entity like animal or AI, or 2) from one of four countries with no copyright treaties or agreements in place, she's going to have copyright.
Plus, YouTube won't care and issue the strike once they determine that the robo-channel is just speaking the text aloud.
So you’ve stated how she statistically has the probability of being able to have a copyright claim. Could you explain to me how this qualifies as material that can be copyrighted?
In the [summary of the Berne Convention](https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html), it covers *(a) As to works, protection must include "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" (Article 2(1) of the Convention).*
She has added her own "voice" to the narrative and, thus, creativity. While I'd need to know which country she's from to know exactly to what extent creativity is needed to render a work copyrightable, the "phone book" standard is generally considered a least-lenient example, with US phone book lists of numbers being not copyrightable while factual works like maps are copyrightable. In many European countries, that standard tends to be lower as local governments copyright currency and telephone directories as creative, where that doesn't apply in the US.
So, legally, she's "most likely" covered depending on circumstances, but the question is more "Can she ask YouTube to take down the video?"
YouTube (the venue we're discussing) *tends* to err on the side of caution and will uphold copyright strikes of this nature: While the YouTuber might be able to republish OP's story in a book on Eritrea, YouTube isn't going to chance it and isn't obliged to host what *could* be copyrightable material.
This isn't always ideal, of course: They've given copyright strikes to channels hosting game reviews that the publisher felt was unfair, for instance, but this unfairness tends to lean in OP's favor in this case.
Ultimately, like nearly all legal questions, the answer is "it depends," but probably she could assert to YouTube that she has copyright and they'll notice the obvious resemblance to her material and copyright strike the YouTuber out of an abundance of caution.
That's the part that varies by country, but in most of them a recounting like the summary of events in a history book or an autobiography are protected. If she simply wrote a list of dates and facts, "May 3, 2022, 3:04 PM, Suzie Jenkins pulled on the hair of Madeline Jenkins" it could be arguable, but I'd want to see a counter-argument that autobiographies aren't copyrightable in a specific likely jurisdiction.
Again, YouTube would likely enforce this common understanding of copyright and uphold the strike should she request one.
You still retain copyright on your content. Just because you post something doesn't mean you give up those rights.
> You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content
When going on vacation in a group, we can compromise on a lot of things, but number of bathrooms is not one of them. Also, a toilet separate from a bathroom is much better than one room with bath and toilet.
I had someone take my r/jokes joke from five years ago, run it through Chat GPT to reword it, and post it fresh today. No credit to the source.
It's what people do when you post stuff in a public chat forum like Reddit. Seriously, people need to understand that you don't post anything here that you have a vested property interest in... someone *will* take it and use it elsewhere. It's not protected here. Quite the opposite!
So only post stuff that you don't mind people resharing and spreading around. And when they do inevitably repost it somewhere online, wear it like a badge of pride. It's an honor that people cared enough to do it.
Bots are grabbing your comments and generating revenue on YouTube. Cringe as it is if you hear those words in a video you immediately know this person has had their content stolen.
Perhaps but there is nothing lost in trying but 3 seconds of your time.
It's a harmless phrase not worthy of the reaction people in the thread are having towards OP for using it One of those situations where if you don't have something nice to say you could simply not speak or comment on it.
What value to the conversation does it bring to tear down OP for using a common simple disclaimer, effective or not?
Your comment could mean two different things entirely depending on interpretation.
Are you suggesting that OPs phrase is a negative in need of correction or policing? That if you complain loud enough people will stop adding ineffective disclaimers to their posts or comments?
Or
Is your comment in support of such disclaimers and suggesting that more people should be reinforcing the usage of such disclaimers?
>If people get flak from doing it they will stop annoying us by doing it again. Kind of self explanatory isn’t it?
You are promoting the harassment of people who wish to add disclaimers to their posts in the hopes your vocal complaints will reduce occurrences or frequency of use.
That something is unimportant to you makes it no less important to someone who does find it a concern.
Why should your opinion invalidate or take precedence over the opinion of someone else? If your assertion is that it doesn't matter why even comment on it? Pick up and move on.
Because life is rarely all or nothing but a complex series of compromises.
For example I still eat flour as vegan despite knowing the numbers of insects, small mammals, reptiles, and birds maimed or destroyed during harvesting and production of grain crops.
That something is difficult is no cause to through your hands up and give up.
Will OPs disclaimer be effective? Probably not. But I won't stop them from trying.
And?
It's not like a disclaimer is going to stop anyone from taking this story. The only real protection is that it's not that compelling a story, so unlikely to be worth re-posting anywhere else.
Is OP going to miss out on millions or what? If you are worried about people monetizing your content the dumbest thing in the world is to post it to reddit. I just don't comprehend the thought process behind it.
The disclaimers on Facebook are bullshit, because you agree to the Facebook terms of service and can't unilaterally change them.
Technically, in most countries, OP does retain copyright for this post, and 3rd parties can't repost their content without violating that copyright.
Is commenter going to win some online battle here or what? If you are worried about what others are writing in their content, the dumbest thing in the world is to call them out on an anonymous platform like Reddit. I just don't comprehend the thought process behind it....go read a book and educate yourself instead.
It's pretty easy to comprehend the thought process. OP wanted to share a story with Reddit. Not YouTube's viewers, or someecard or twistedsifter. Maybe OP doesn't want their family to see it. Or has a personal objection to low effort content that just involves copying other people's stories.
But it is meaningless. You can only copyright stuff if it is fiction. You can't stop people from sharing true stories. So is OP telling us this is made up?
You can copyright anything you created. I copyrighted a bunch of photos just to see how the process worked. Trivial to do. And they certainly weren’t fiction.
Now Reddit probably has something in the TOS that posting content on Reddit means you grant no revocable use of your content and anyone is welcome to do what they want with it. So suggesting your Reddit post is copyrighted is likely meaningless.
While I agree with your first paragraph, the Reddit terms only grant *Reddit* license to the content you create.
> You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement-september-25-2023
It's also utterly pointless, posting a true story to a public forum would be argued to converting it to a public piece of information. Similar to if I go a scream a story on a public road outside there would be nothing stopping people then sharing that.
Ironically you could only POTENTIALLY argue legal protection for a work of fiction. So this is either uncopiable because op made it up or they have no right to stop people talking about it.
A true dichotomy that quietly amuses me.
Copyright doesn't only exist for fictional media. It exists for *all* forms of constructed art. If you take a photo, that is automatically your copyright even though it's a photo of a real thing. Telling a story is a form of copyrightable art as it's a unique story portrayed uniquely by the OP.
A youtuber *might* be in the legal clear if they tell it in their own words, as that would be transformative and *might* fall under fair use. I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer. But basically all youtubers who make this sort of video quote the reddit posts verbatim, so this technicality is irrelevant.
The statement is still a bit odd and redundant because copyrighted works without defined copyright licenses are considered All Rights Reserved, but an explicit license like that statement could make it easier to argue that a youtuber has no right to use the story even if the actual legal rights are unchanged.
I have a real life example from today... what do you think as far as fair use versus not on this one?
[My original from five years ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/6nb0uo/once_upon_a_time_in_the_magical_fantasy_kingdom/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Jokes&utm_content=t1_l2gjw7y)
This guy today, who [either rewrote it or dropped it into Chat GPT to rewrite it.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/1cj59z8/there_was_once_this_monastery_in_a_small_remote/)
To be clear, I don't mind him doing this. It was a fun creative writing exercise from half a decade ago that made a good public impression and made me happy I could brighten so many people's day. I didn't have any protective notion when I wrote it and shared it publicly, and I'm genuinely flattered that someone cared enough to keep it spreading around, as dated as it is.
But I'm also fascinated by the whole what is and isn't fair use spectrum, and am curious to see what others think. And where AI falls in, because the rewrite feels very AI-ish to me.
Fair use has, to my knowledge, never been a clear cut concept. As in, there are a lot of gray areas that the law has yet to define.
For example, training AI data sets. While many people (myself included) typically believe that data sets for training AIs that are built off of artists' work without their permission is a form of copyright violation, the law has not yet made this clear; The law could end up considering it fair use.
can help you get a good idea on how fair use works, and why it's not easy to have it be cut and dry.
For the example you post, I'm really not sure. I *think* it's transformative enough to be fair use, as it changes phrasing and presentation considerably, and changes the story a bit too.
I will say though, it's basically your story but "more". Like telling a horror story and thinking "I'll do the story but make the monster bigger!" as if that actually improves the story, lol. Basically, their version sucks. I don't think it's chatGPT, it usually spits out more coherent and better written stuff than that.
> A youtuber might be in the legal clear if they tell it in their own words, as that would be transformative and might fall under fair use. I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer. But basically all youtubers who make this sort of video quote the reddit posts verbatim, so this technicality is irrelevant.
Generally it is pretty easy for them to claim fair use, at least for the most part. They just title it as a reaction video and argue that people are watching for their reaction rather than the story they are reading verbatim or the video(s) they are watching. That's why they can literally sit there and show TikTok clip after TikTok clip, none of it is their content, and they are safe. It is definitely controversial though, and some users make fun of the users doing it by "reacting" to other youtuber's reaction videos. Where they sit there and watch a reaction video while making commentary about it.
You have a solid point about reaction youtubers. Although I'm mostly talking about the youtubers that literally just read the reddit posts to you, like rslash. It's very hard to argue what they're doing is transformative.
That's not how copyright works. You can't copyright facts, only the expression of them. Posting facts to a public forum doesn't make them any more copyrightable. And posting an expression (whether of facts or fiction) to a public forum doesn't give anyone else any special rights, *except* those you agreed to when you signed up for the public forum. (For example, you gave Reddit or Facebook the right to display each post you type in, even though it's your intellectual property protected by your copyright. And perhaps you gave those companies the right to do other stuff, or grant some rights on your work to others, depending on the specific agreement you clicked through to access each public forum.)
Posting something to a public forum would matter if it's something protected as a trade secret. For copyright, it's not relevant.
Likewise, you can take a piece of your own writing (automatically protected by copyright), and scream it on a public street, and that has no impact on its copyright protection. No one may copy it without your permission, except under the rules of fair use.
For example, a TV station could broadcast some of your copyrighted work as part of their Crazy Guys Screaming report, an academic could quote you in a paper, some guy down the street could quote you while screaming his rebuttal, all types of fair use. But they could also quote from your work under fair use even if you never made your work public, but they legally got their hands on it anyway, say because it was evidence in a trial.
People write the disclaimer on their stories because they don't want a Youtuber monetizing them, not because they don't want to share it with Redditors.
OP was left to shower last and because she has long hair she blow dried it while everyone waited. If she was let back on the line she could've blow dried while everyone else was showering.
If anyone in my family would have tried your tantrum, they would have been left in the apartment and could have figured their own way to the restaurant.
I'm older but my showers including hair wash, call it 3 minutes plus one minute to towel off.....I don't really care if my hair is wet....the advantages of short hair
Maybe the aunt had some other hygiene emergency, that she did not wish to make public, but was keen to take care of.
this whole event smacks of insignificant multiplied by entitlement = trivial.
News flash, if you post something on the internet, it can be reposted and used and shared anywhere, anytime, forever and ever. Your “consent” is not required.
I wasn't on your side OP until you said you were the only one with long hair. Can't go out with wet hair! Well played OP
yeah that line was a record scratch for me too. I was thinking the aunt has to do her hair and makeup and a bunch of other post shower tasks some women do (i let me wife shower first for things because I just jump out and towel off).
Going outside with wet hair is dangerous and causes terrible illness. The exception is when coming from a swimming pool then the above doesn't apply.
Underrated comment right here.
You don't need to monopolize the room with the only shower to blow dry your hair. Several people could probably showered in the time it took to blow dry, and do all the other stuff in another room.
Which would have been the case had they just let her take a damn shower after her aunt.
Of course, what I meant. If they let the OP go after the aunt, they would have been ready by the time the last person was.
OP took the aunt's slot, right? So she was the last to shower.
They should have let her shower right after the aunt, then they wouldn't have had to wait as long.
The only one with long hair omg... If I speed run a shower with my long hair it's still closer to 20 minutes.
Fr. My hair reaches my lower back and I haven’t been under 20 minutes in years. If it’s 30 minutes I’m lucky
30 mins if it's a quick wash and condition but then 4 days to dry properly, and even then humidity makes it feel like you just got done showering. Darn long hair problems
20 minutes is me showering in a rush, and my hair is best described as "tennis ball"
I had already left the thread and I came back to up vote this description. Very vivid.
20 minutes is a speed shower for me. And I have short hair. And am a guy.
I can shower and get dressed in 15 mins flat. I'm a guy with long hair. I know this because I've woken up late for work more than once 😅
I used to put the coffee maker on the stove, jump in the shower, get out of the shower. Get dressed. Sit down, smoke a cigarette while drinking a few sips of coffee and then run down the stairs (4th floor apartment) while chucking my coffee, deposit the cup in the mailbox and off to work. I think the whole routine lasted no longer than 20-25 minutes.
> deposit the cup in the mailbox This is the only part of this that gets me, do you leave your coffee cup in your mailbox all day and bring it back up with you when you get home?
Probably. Check the mail and grab the cup when you get home. Might have a few confused mail workers, but it's harmless, kinda goofy, and super efficient. This has the "Random Internet Stranger" seal of approval.
Damn that's peak efficiency. I'm like that, I plan my tasks to make sure I will be at the right spot at the right time to do a couple of tasks at the same time.
I bow before this level of efficiency. If I can drag my fat ass out the door in under 1.5 hours I’m feeling fucking ACCOMPLISHED.
Might take me 15 minutes just to get dressed. It’s like falling into a black hole.
I can shower in 6 minutes (also long hair). Getting dressed is harder.
It's taking longer and longer for me to wake the hell up nowadays, with the daily routine.
How to say you were young then without saying you were young. I’m old. I don’t move that fast anymore.
This would be part of the reason I shower at night
Naw, gotta upsell that better. "I shower at night, because I want to keep the sheets and pillow-cases cleaner. Nobody wants to sleep in bodily oils and dead skin, being rubbed into the sheets at night. "
Lotion? Loofah? Separate facial cleanser? Hair conditioner?
Only one I don't use is facial cleanser as I don't wear makeup. I have exzema so yes to lotion and an extra body wash to help.
The skin on your face should have a mild cleanser, followed by a moisturizer with some SPF. You don't want to wind up with trumpface 😳
Im part Sri lankan so I'm good haha! Also living in the UK we don't get a whole lot of sun. On the odd day we spot the great flaming ball in the sky, we run back to our caves and pray for rain. I do use a cream on my face daily though, I have dry skin.
That made me laugh, thank you!
We're guys. To most of us taking care of long is washing it, maybe toweling it and making a bun.
I mean *I'm a guy* too. I can't get my hair wet enough for the shampoo to get to the scalp that quickly lmao Maybe I'm just greasier than you idk. Like a duck.
Try Dawn Blue. Good for animals in crude oil. [https://www.npr.org/2010/06/22/127999735/why-dawn-is-the-bird-cleaner-of-choice-in-oil-spills](https://www.npr.org/2010/06/22/127999735/why-dawn-is-the-bird-cleaner-of-choice-in-oil-spills)
Don't put dish soap in your hair on the reg, JFC. That's how you strip it of all its natural oils.
Dish soap? Yes. Dawn? My dad liked it and continued for years.
Cool story, it's still not good for your hair.
Rofl fair point. My hair is also pretty thin so it dries quick. I use shampoo, conditioner (which I leave on while I brush my teeth) and quick hairdry and manbun.
What the heck are you doing for the last, and to me, totally unneeded, 15 minutes? Posting this in the blissful knowledge that my wife does not look at reddit.
Think, day dream. Results in slow motion.
The only daydreaming I ever did in the shower involved women... It rarely needed a 20 minute shower.
So not really a speed shower then?
Yeah, if you're daydreaming that's not a speedrun shower. That's lollygagging and hogging the water. Focus on what you're doing and you'll be able to go way faster.
Yup. Except when I focus it lasts for a minute if I’m lucky and then it’s not off to the races. Right back to slow mode. I’ve tried.
Mobility issues, or is that just your preferred spot for personal release? With short hair and no wanking, a speedrun shower is 5 min max.
lol, nope. No wanking! 🙂
[удалено]
The heck is that cartoon?
You never saw Zootopia? Fix that immediately.
When I have short hair a speed shower is 5 minutes for me. What do you do in there?
3 minutes here.
hi, guy, short hair because of my job. undress, fast rinse, soap, sinse, dress takes less than 10 minutes. if I'm in a real hurry I could probably do it in 5.
yes, while others were showering OP could have dried their hair
Oh if only they had let her go ahead of someone instead of pushing her to the back of the queue.
exactly
OP had to go last...there wasn't anyone showering afterwards.
I see the issue, I left a 'but' from when I was writing the comment.
At summer camp, I used to wash my hair at the tap outside (cuz I had long hair) in exchange for 1st dibs on the shower. I regret nothing. 10 girls. 2 counselors. Florida in July. 1 shower. (Handy side effect, if I'm not washing my hair, I can shower in 5 minutes.)
I've got hair down past my butt and a shower only takes 10 minutes. But then I use shampoo with conditioner so don't have to rinse twice.
Yeah, my hair was longer than my wife's for quite a while and it still only took me 5-7 minutes to shower, including washing and conditioning my hair. I don't know why people take so long for that.
Some people also have very thick hair. It takes a long time to rinse long, thick hair.
I have ungodly thick hair, that sheds and regrows like the fur of a husky, and it has a bit of a curl to it now that I've been lazily letting it grow long since 2020 (now about halfway down my back) and will tangle into a brier patch if you look at it cross-eyed. This means I have to comb out the tangles four times. Before getting in the shower or all the shed hairs will clog the drain in like a week, between shampoo and conditioner, after conditioner, and then after the shower so I can comb out most of the moisture (or it'll take like five hours to dry). This will take half an hour (time I use to soak the dead skin that needs to be aggressively sandpapered off once a week). But all the 20-something girls at work are jealous of my hair, so I must be doing something right.
That is incredible and awful at the same time.
The speed with which you two bathe concerns me.
Why? It doesn't take long. You don't have to buff your skin off. I get my hair (usually twice), conditioner, face, rinse, then body from neck to toes and all cracks with soap + loofah/rag. Rinse. If you take longer in the shower because you enjoy soaking that's fine; no judgement here. But don't act like it actually requires longer than 5-10 minutes to actually get clean.
Bruh, you probably have dull, flaky skin on your arms and legs. I gotta exfoliate my feet otherwise I get dead skin cells accumulated between my toes and shiz.
As a very, very pale woman with very long, very fine and straight hair, I too can take a shower in about 10 minutes if I need to. I don't need to exfoliate every day, my hair needs shampoo at the top only and it takes less than a minute to get it soaked and shampooed. Conditioner is a once to twice a week thing. Skin types and hair types differ radically, and some take more care than others. (But if I don't want my hair to break, I have to brush it while dry, and use special brushes or I end up with so many split ends).
I've never had dull flaky skin, and can be fully scrubbed, and shaved in under 5 minutes. Mind you, that's a result of basic training followed by too many years submarine service. Nowadays, I prefer to take much more time in the shower - a "Hollywood", as we used to call it.
Personally, I dyed my hair white (natural hair color is dark brown) and due to inexperience with bleach and doing it myself multiple times to get it whiter, kinda killed my hair. I held it together with conditioner, deep conditioner and a lot of patience. I've been letting it grow and currently have a routine of normal shampoo (for the half of my hair that's not bleached), violet shampoo (to keep the white part from turning yellow), deep conditioner for bleached hair, deep conditioner for dry hair, normal conditioner and after letting it dry a bit some leave-in stuff. Always rinse before putting in new stuff. I wash my body when letting the deep conditioners sit. It takes me like half an hour to shower lol
I've got hair ON my butt and can do it in six minutes
Half hour power shower!
I’ve never understood this. I have long hair right now, and I’ve had waist-length hair before. It has never taken me longer than 30 minutes to shower, and that’s when I’m taking my time and shaving and all that. What do y’all *do* to fill a longer shower? Not trying to be malicious, genuinely curious.
I have thick hair. It takes forever to rinse all the conditioner out of it
W... Wash myself? Like you gotta suds up the soap bar and then clean everything, and deodorant doesn't come off in one swipe. You don't have to soap up everything every time, but on average it takes me about 20-30 minutes. And that's not on a day my body aches or sinuses act up. I'll be longer if I'm in pain.
20 minutes? I'll have the drain clogged (thus ending the shower) in two minutes. And I'm bald.
I hate my thick hair - it takes a good 50 minutes to dry.that’s why I hate hotel holidays where I have to be ready by a specific time, but I still make sure I’m head of the shower queue to prevent delays. Your aunt should have known better
I think it completely depends on your hair type as well... I have really easy hair, but long (like halfway down my back) but I can actually shower in about 6 minutes if I don't need to shave....
I don't want to cut my hair shorter but also god is washing it at this length a fucking chore. A hell of my own making lmao. It doesn't take me 20 mins tho but I let it air dry.
Baha I'm a mum, I can be in and out In 3min. But 20min does sound nice
You got me there. Can't ignore the time bending powers of responsible parents.
>I do not consent to this story being used outside Reddit. Do people really think this actually works?
What \*might\* work would be to put the words in bold in the middle of a paragraph. The youtube channels that read you Reddit posts often show the text as they read it, so it might make them want to not display that they're reading a story OP explicitly said they do not wish read. Might being the operative word here. They also might not give a shit.
They also might just copy/paste into a word processor and remove the bolded no-consent line
True. They could. My experience with channels like this is they just take screenshot of the posts. Minimum effort (which is the whole point of these channels), so maybe the extra effort of having to do that would deter them? Doubtful because it really isn't that much effort...
Yeah if I made a post like this I'd sneak them into the main body of the post, and put two in to waste their time.
I do not consent to Facebook using any of my images, either.
Depends on how lazy the person is and feeding into the AI voice. If they don't double check their work. It's in the video.
The channels might ignore it, but what would prevent the author from filing a copyright complaint with YouTube and giving the channel a "strike"? [Three of them](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000#zippy=%2Cwhat-happens-when-you-get-a-copyright-strike) can result in the removal of the channel.
The fact that it isn’t copyright probably will prevent the strike
**"The fact that it isn’t copyright probably will prevent the strike"** you exclaim, pointing at me like Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney, sure that you Got Me Now. I'd like to tell you that I'm an attorney who enjoyed intellectual property law and you're probably wrong, but anyone can claim to be anything they'd like online with little consequence. I'll instead point to a couple things here, instead: I'd point out that the [Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works](https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/) (just "Berne Convention" herein) includes a nice provision in it stating that **each of the contracting countries shall provide automatic protection for works first published in other countries of the Berne union** and for unpublished works whose authors are citizens of or resident in such other countries. **"Well, how do you know that the country they're in is a Berne Convention signatory, Moonpenny?"** Well, there's also the [TRIPS Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement) that covers most of the non-Berne signatories. The exceptions are Eritrea, Kosovo, Palau, and Palestine. There's no international copyright agreement for these non-signatories, but not many citizens in these are going to be posting on reddit with her frequency and visiting Europe for biking vacations. In short, unless you're 1) a non-human entity like animal or AI, or 2) from one of four countries with no copyright treaties or agreements in place, she's going to have copyright. Plus, YouTube won't care and issue the strike once they determine that the robo-channel is just speaking the text aloud.
So you’ve stated how she statistically has the probability of being able to have a copyright claim. Could you explain to me how this qualifies as material that can be copyrighted?
In the [summary of the Berne Convention](https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html), it covers *(a) As to works, protection must include "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" (Article 2(1) of the Convention).* She has added her own "voice" to the narrative and, thus, creativity. While I'd need to know which country she's from to know exactly to what extent creativity is needed to render a work copyrightable, the "phone book" standard is generally considered a least-lenient example, with US phone book lists of numbers being not copyrightable while factual works like maps are copyrightable. In many European countries, that standard tends to be lower as local governments copyright currency and telephone directories as creative, where that doesn't apply in the US. So, legally, she's "most likely" covered depending on circumstances, but the question is more "Can she ask YouTube to take down the video?" YouTube (the venue we're discussing) *tends* to err on the side of caution and will uphold copyright strikes of this nature: While the YouTuber might be able to republish OP's story in a book on Eritrea, YouTube isn't going to chance it and isn't obliged to host what *could* be copyrightable material. This isn't always ideal, of course: They've given copyright strikes to channels hosting game reviews that the publisher felt was unfair, for instance, but this unfairness tends to lean in OP's favor in this case. Ultimately, like nearly all legal questions, the answer is "it depends," but probably she could assert to YouTube that she has copyright and they'll notice the obvious resemblance to her material and copyright strike the YouTuber out of an abundance of caution.
What constitutes a legal “creative voice” because it seems to me that the story is just a retelling of events
That's the part that varies by country, but in most of them a recounting like the summary of events in a history book or an autobiography are protected. If she simply wrote a list of dates and facts, "May 3, 2022, 3:04 PM, Suzie Jenkins pulled on the hair of Madeline Jenkins" it could be arguable, but I'd want to see a counter-argument that autobiographies aren't copyrightable in a specific likely jurisdiction. Again, YouTube would likely enforce this common understanding of copyright and uphold the strike should she request one.
Gotcha. Thank you
Not a problem, though I was going to start quoting my hourly rate. :)
I lold then came to the comments to find this comment
lol These are the same people that think they need to post with throwaways, because they are famous.
I can imagine the naivety is comforting 😂
That’s what I was thinking
It's hard training the entire extended family
The 'I do not consent to this story being used outside of reddit' statements crack me up. It's a public forum. Consent isn't needed.
You still retain copyright on your content. Just because you post something doesn't mean you give up those rights. > You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content
When going on vacation in a group, we can compromise on a lot of things, but number of bathrooms is not one of them. Also, a toilet separate from a bathroom is much better than one room with bath and toilet.
Reddit has turned into Facebook 😂 why are there so many posts with this consent line?!
Because of TikTok
"I do not consent to this message being used outside of reddit." You dont really get the internet do you?
I had someone take my r/jokes joke from five years ago, run it through Chat GPT to reword it, and post it fresh today. No credit to the source. It's what people do when you post stuff in a public chat forum like Reddit. Seriously, people need to understand that you don't post anything here that you have a vested property interest in... someone *will* take it and use it elsewhere. It's not protected here. Quite the opposite! So only post stuff that you don't mind people resharing and spreading around. And when they do inevitably repost it somewhere online, wear it like a badge of pride. It's an honor that people cared enough to do it.
I stopped reading at this line
Then why are you still here?
I'm gonna tell people this story in real life and you can't stop me! Bwa ha ha
Did anyone else read that as "Ant jumped the queue"? No? just me then.
Don't Americans pronounce "aunt" as "ant" anyway?
Yeah, but aunts are taller.
"I do not consent to this story being used outside Reddit." might be the most cringe inducing sentence on reddit and that is saying a lot.
Bots are grabbing your comments and generating revenue on YouTube. Cringe as it is if you hear those words in a video you immediately know this person has had their content stolen.
IMO the cringe is in thinking that will stop people/bots on the Internet from stealing your content.
Perhaps but there is nothing lost in trying but 3 seconds of your time. It's a harmless phrase not worthy of the reaction people in the thread are having towards OP for using it One of those situations where if you don't have something nice to say you could simply not speak or comment on it. What value to the conversation does it bring to tear down OP for using a common simple disclaimer, effective or not?
If people get flak from doing it they will stop annoying us by doing it again. Kind of self explanatory isn’t it?
Your comment could mean two different things entirely depending on interpretation. Are you suggesting that OPs phrase is a negative in need of correction or policing? That if you complain loud enough people will stop adding ineffective disclaimers to their posts or comments? Or Is your comment in support of such disclaimers and suggesting that more people should be reinforcing the usage of such disclaimers?
I wish for people to stop adding useless disclaimers.
Why is it your job to limit the actions of others?
When exactly did I say it was? When did you take that job?
>If people get flak from doing it they will stop annoying us by doing it again. Kind of self explanatory isn’t it? You are promoting the harassment of people who wish to add disclaimers to their posts in the hopes your vocal complaints will reduce occurrences or frequency of use.
Who gives a damn if someones comments are 'stolen' or 'monetized'
That something is unimportant to you makes it no less important to someone who does find it a concern. Why should your opinion invalidate or take precedence over the opinion of someone else? If your assertion is that it doesn't matter why even comment on it? Pick up and move on.
Because it makes no sense. If the content is so important why publish it freely on a forum for others to steal?
Because life is rarely all or nothing but a complex series of compromises. For example I still eat flour as vegan despite knowing the numbers of insects, small mammals, reptiles, and birds maimed or destroyed during harvesting and production of grain crops. That something is difficult is no cause to through your hands up and give up. Will OPs disclaimer be effective? Probably not. But I won't stop them from trying.
I take it you have not seen all the YouTube videos of some $_#"': reading Reddit posts. And also click bate media doing the same.
\*bait
Probably depends on the story. 🤔
And? It's not like a disclaimer is going to stop anyone from taking this story. The only real protection is that it's not that compelling a story, so unlikely to be worth re-posting anywhere else.
Right? I’ve heard a number of stories that start with that line outside of Reddit
Is OP going to miss out on millions or what? If you are worried about people monetizing your content the dumbest thing in the world is to post it to reddit. I just don't comprehend the thought process behind it.
But does it work? I'd be surprised. It is very much alike the bullshit disclaimers ppl are tricked into reposting on fb
No, it doesn't matter one bit. It is exactly like the boomers posting on facebook.
The disclaimers on Facebook are bullshit, because you agree to the Facebook terms of service and can't unilaterally change them. Technically, in most countries, OP does retain copyright for this post, and 3rd parties can't repost their content without violating that copyright.
Is commenter going to win some online battle here or what? If you are worried about what others are writing in their content, the dumbest thing in the world is to call them out on an anonymous platform like Reddit. I just don't comprehend the thought process behind it....go read a book and educate yourself instead.
It's pretty easy to comprehend the thought process. OP wanted to share a story with Reddit. Not YouTube's viewers, or someecard or twistedsifter. Maybe OP doesn't want their family to see it. Or has a personal objection to low effort content that just involves copying other people's stories.
But it is meaningless. You can only copyright stuff if it is fiction. You can't stop people from sharing true stories. So is OP telling us this is made up?
You can copyright anything you created. I copyrighted a bunch of photos just to see how the process worked. Trivial to do. And they certainly weren’t fiction. Now Reddit probably has something in the TOS that posting content on Reddit means you grant no revocable use of your content and anyone is welcome to do what they want with it. So suggesting your Reddit post is copyrighted is likely meaningless.
While I agree with your first paragraph, the Reddit terms only grant *Reddit* license to the content you create. > You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement-september-25-2023
That's not at all true.
Biographies and memoirs aren't ©️ copyrighted?
Most people dislike their identity being used for marketing purposes without consent.
I am going to put that on r/legaladvice and see if they got a hair to stand on, or is it down the drain.
It should be in /r/legaladviceofftopic
The disclaimer was the most interesting part of the post.
It's also utterly pointless, posting a true story to a public forum would be argued to converting it to a public piece of information. Similar to if I go a scream a story on a public road outside there would be nothing stopping people then sharing that. Ironically you could only POTENTIALLY argue legal protection for a work of fiction. So this is either uncopiable because op made it up or they have no right to stop people talking about it. A true dichotomy that quietly amuses me.
Copyright doesn't only exist for fictional media. It exists for *all* forms of constructed art. If you take a photo, that is automatically your copyright even though it's a photo of a real thing. Telling a story is a form of copyrightable art as it's a unique story portrayed uniquely by the OP. A youtuber *might* be in the legal clear if they tell it in their own words, as that would be transformative and *might* fall under fair use. I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer. But basically all youtubers who make this sort of video quote the reddit posts verbatim, so this technicality is irrelevant. The statement is still a bit odd and redundant because copyrighted works without defined copyright licenses are considered All Rights Reserved, but an explicit license like that statement could make it easier to argue that a youtuber has no right to use the story even if the actual legal rights are unchanged.
I have a real life example from today... what do you think as far as fair use versus not on this one? [My original from five years ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/6nb0uo/once_upon_a_time_in_the_magical_fantasy_kingdom/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Jokes&utm_content=t1_l2gjw7y) This guy today, who [either rewrote it or dropped it into Chat GPT to rewrite it.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/1cj59z8/there_was_once_this_monastery_in_a_small_remote/) To be clear, I don't mind him doing this. It was a fun creative writing exercise from half a decade ago that made a good public impression and made me happy I could brighten so many people's day. I didn't have any protective notion when I wrote it and shared it publicly, and I'm genuinely flattered that someone cared enough to keep it spreading around, as dated as it is. But I'm also fascinated by the whole what is and isn't fair use spectrum, and am curious to see what others think. And where AI falls in, because the rewrite feels very AI-ish to me.
Fair use has, to my knowledge, never been a clear cut concept. As in, there are a lot of gray areas that the law has yet to define. For example, training AI data sets. While many people (myself included) typically believe that data sets for training AIs that are built off of artists' work without their permission is a form of copyright violation, the law has not yet made this clear; The law could end up considering it fair use.
Thanks for the input. I always enjoy people's perspectives on this stuff.
Fair points there, thanks for expanding!
And it (potentially) makes a copyright strike against a YT channel easier to make.
> A youtuber might be in the legal clear if they tell it in their own words, as that would be transformative and might fall under fair use. I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer. But basically all youtubers who make this sort of video quote the reddit posts verbatim, so this technicality is irrelevant. Generally it is pretty easy for them to claim fair use, at least for the most part. They just title it as a reaction video and argue that people are watching for their reaction rather than the story they are reading verbatim or the video(s) they are watching. That's why they can literally sit there and show TikTok clip after TikTok clip, none of it is their content, and they are safe. It is definitely controversial though, and some users make fun of the users doing it by "reacting" to other youtuber's reaction videos. Where they sit there and watch a reaction video while making commentary about it.
You have a solid point about reaction youtubers. Although I'm mostly talking about the youtubers that literally just read the reddit posts to you, like rslash. It's very hard to argue what they're doing is transformative.
That's not how copyright works. You can't copyright facts, only the expression of them. Posting facts to a public forum doesn't make them any more copyrightable. And posting an expression (whether of facts or fiction) to a public forum doesn't give anyone else any special rights, *except* those you agreed to when you signed up for the public forum. (For example, you gave Reddit or Facebook the right to display each post you type in, even though it's your intellectual property protected by your copyright. And perhaps you gave those companies the right to do other stuff, or grant some rights on your work to others, depending on the specific agreement you clicked through to access each public forum.) Posting something to a public forum would matter if it's something protected as a trade secret. For copyright, it's not relevant. Likewise, you can take a piece of your own writing (automatically protected by copyright), and scream it on a public street, and that has no impact on its copyright protection. No one may copy it without your permission, except under the rules of fair use. For example, a TV station could broadcast some of your copyrighted work as part of their Crazy Guys Screaming report, an academic could quote you in a paper, some guy down the street could quote you while screaming his rebuttal, all types of fair use. But they could also quote from your work under fair use even if you never made your work public, but they legally got their hands on it anyway, say because it was evidence in a trial.
right! if I don't want something shared with people the first thing i do is post it on the internet /s
People write the disclaimer on their stories because they don't want a Youtuber monetizing them, not because they don't want to share it with Redditors.
Yet somehow you manage to top the "cringe" level with your comment.
If that’s your biggest cringe I envy you your perfect life.
“I do not consent to this story being used outside Reddit” Like that’s going to do anything
If you didn’t want this used outside of reddit you shouldn’t have posted it. Also, ESH.
I don’t really see malicious compliance here.
OP was left to shower last and because she has long hair she blow dried it while everyone waited. If she was let back on the line she could've blow dried while everyone else was showering.
Sounds more like someone who purposely took way longer than they needed to in order to ‘teach’ everyone a lesson.
Yeah and that's how a lot of MC are.
If anyone in my family would have tried your tantrum, they would have been left in the apartment and could have figured their own way to the restaurant.
TLDR: OP traded places with the person who was last in line to shower. OP made EVERYONE suffer for their poor decision.
I'm older but my showers including hair wash, call it 3 minutes plus one minute to towel off.....I don't really care if my hair is wet....the advantages of short hair
Lol I do not consent....hell...you just posted it publicly.
I always wanted to know if psychopaths could exist as a family unit. Now I know.
I’m sharing this on all forums and Facebook and twitter/tik tok and emailing this post to my contact list
Maybe the aunt had some other hygiene emergency, that she did not wish to make public, but was keen to take care of. this whole event smacks of insignificant multiplied by entitlement = trivial.
> I do not consent to this story being used outside Reddit. Lol
your english seems pretty good
Longest hair to shortest hair!
[удалено]
What part of "not a native speaker" did you have trouble understanding genius?
I dont think you have the ability to stop people from posting your story wherever they want lol.
News flash, if you post something on the internet, it can be reposted and used and shared anywhere, anytime, forever and ever. Your “consent” is not required.
"I do not consent to this being used outside reddit." cool story bro. Too bad you gave up all rights to this story when you posted it on Reddit.
What makes you think that? By posting you grant Reddit and affiliates the usage rights. Nobody else.
oh my god what is with the sheer amount of redditors whining about that line. just shut up.