The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
False copyright claim on youtube, how jesus, here we go.
Shaboubalah
ShaboubalahGermanyRegistered User regular
ShaboubalahGermanyRegistered User regular
(first of all, this is my first post, hope im in the right place, feel free to send me in the correct direction if im not)
So, i uploaded a second video in an LP series to youtube, i dont monetize (besides the fact i only have 5,000 views at this point, money isnt my goal here) and am more than willing to give credit where its due, fuck i dont even care if companies make claims on my videos, as long as theyre correct. you see, the claim was for a song, that sounds vaguely similar to another song (both songs are public domain in sheet form) but its NOT the same song. now, i want to dispute it but youtube gives me really silly options that dont include the above situation. any advice? for now ive just made the video private, and itll stay like that, forever. im just going to edit the songs completely out of the video and reupload.
So, i uploaded a second video in an LP series to youtube, i dont monetize (besides the fact i only have 5,000 views at this point, money isnt my goal here) and am more than willing to give credit where its due, fuck i dont even care if companies make claims on my videos, as long as theyre correct. you see, the claim was for a song, that sounds vaguely similar to another song (both songs are public domain in sheet form) but its NOT the same song. now, i want to dispute it but youtube gives me really silly options that dont include the above situation. any advice? for now ive just made the video private, and itll stay like that, forever. im just going to edit the songs completely out of the video and reupload.
0
Posts
Just because the song is public domain in sheet form doesn't mean the recording is also public domain. If you really want to contest it, just use any option like "i have permission" and say "The matched song is not present in this video" in the section where you are supposed to write your comments.
no its not really affecting me, but ill admit, im a bit peeved that all of a sudden in the description theres a link to buy a song thats not even in the video. ill take your advice though and try that out, or just re-record it, im just worried this will keep happening. i have 5000 video views and 50 subscribers, weird how my stuff would be of concern to the filter.
But yeah, follow Nick's advice for getting started. The main problem is that they're simply wrong, as you note, but Youtube certainly has not actually listened to their claim and your song -- they've just posted it up against your video automatically.
oh, i was under the impression that theres a certain program that matches sound content to existing copyright claims.
im going to go ahead and dispute this one, i just hope it works in my favor and i dont get a strike against me. i did some basic research and found people claiming their completely original work was being claimed and they were losing money because of it, thats just crazy. i know im new to all of this, but wow, it just seems like a huge injustice.
There's not much of an appeals process.
Can you give more detail about the audio of the video? Is it a performance or an mp3 you have or what?
to be more specific, the game is "stacking" the song was written by Frederic Chopin, the sheet music itself it public domain, although, the recording itself is copyright of the orchestra/etc who performed it. in this case specifically, the claimant is claiming a completely different song, by a different classic composer, mozart, who also happens to be in this soundtrack, but at a different point than claimed.i listened to both the time mark of the claim in my video, and the song that they claimed it was, very similar, both classical flute, ALMOST sound the same but yet theyre very obviously different songs when expanded.
Youtube has a copyright detection thing that flags videos based on copyrighted things given to them by the owners of media. This is why some TV clips have their video reversed and the time sped up or slowed down slightly so it doesn't match when the detector does its thing.
You seem to be getting upset about split hairs here. You acknowledge the track you used is copyrighted material but you're upset because the claim is about the wrong track and this is somehow a great injustice to you.
as i said, it doesnt affect me personally, id just rather give credit where its due rather than have someone rampantly claiming things for themselves with no basis, THAT does irk me.
and its my account in the middle of the people who own the songs and the people claiming it. Ah well, i think i got some solid advice here and know what ill do about it.
haha, but its just so, heartless.
Does that actually work? If Google's automated system simply keys off the audio, then I doubt it bothers reading anything in the text of the video or the description.
I stitched together some GoPro footage years ago and used a mix of license free music as well as a long portion of a copywritten song. YouTube informed me that they detected a match to the copywritten song and I didn't contest it. The only annoying restriction I noted was the inability to watch the video on a mobile device. My friend later sent me a TED Talk where a Google/YouTube representative spoke about the power of the automated system that detects copywritten material as each video is uploaded. I'm curious if YouTube would ding me in the same way for using a snippet of audio from a track that they offer for free within their paltry editing tool.
- annotations don't mean anything, it's an automated match based on content or some intern combing through popular videos to claim specific songs the bots don't catch
- matching classical music correctly is an absolute mess. Think of all the works called "Symphony" or "First Movement". Now imagine every orchestra or joe schmo who records a version has a legitimate claim to a recording and an arrangement of the work. You have thousands of versions of every possible work, and it creates a giant tangle of misinformation
- 99% of rights holders and 100% of Googles just want to make money. From the music side, they won't take a video down if it has their stuff on it unless they find it personally offensive, they'll just claim it and throw an ad on it. TV Networks and movie companies are different, they'll usually prefer to take it down so people buy the video or watch through a licensed streaming service like Netflix.
- Where it gets annoying for all parties is when the person who uploaded the video fights the claim. Sometimes the bots screw up, it happens. But there are people who are like "I don't want to put an ad on my video, it's my art, I don't want it to be tainted by corporations" or whatever, even though they used copyright material. Don't be that guy. People just want money, and they'll leave you alone otherwise.
It might be doing its job right. Even if the sheet music is in public domain, does that mean a performance that is new is in the PD? Derivative works can be copyrighted.
But yeah, this is all bots claiming anything under the sun as theirs. Theres currently a problem where a company is claiming nature sounds from videos as their copyright(ie bird calls heard in home videos) so they can monetize them. how do you fight a copyright claim on something that cant be copyrighted?
Edit: attributing a source is the right thing to do, but wont actually cause/solve anything. its like those facebook/irc/ftp pages that have a disclaimer boiled down to "police arent allowed to read this!" or whatever is C+P about that stupid internet law from the Clinton days that doesnt do what people think it does.