YouTube's Content ID Disputes Are Judged by the Accuser

Last Friday, a YouTube user named eeplox posted a question to the support forums, regarding a copyright complaint on one of his videos. YouTube’s automated Content ID system flagged a video of him foraging a salad in a field, claiming the background music matched a composition licensed by Rumblefish, a music licensing firm in Portland, Oregon.

The only problem? There is no music in the video; only bird calls and other sounds of nature.

Naturally, he filed a dispute, explaining that the audio couldn’t possibly be copyrighted.

The next day, amazingly, his claim was rejected. Not by YouTube itself — it’s unlikely that a Google employee ever saw the claim — but from a representative at Rumblefish, who reviewed the dispute and reported back to YouTube that their impossible copyright for nonexistent music was indeed violated.

Back at YouTube, eeplox found himself at a dead end. YouTube now stated, “All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content.” No further disputes were possible, the case was closed.

Whether caused by a mistake or malice, Rumblefish was granted full control over eeplox’s video. They could choose to run ads on the video, mute the audio, or remove it entirely from the web.

A History of Screw-Ups

On Sunday night, Reddit took notice. Within hours, the thread was on the homepage, commenters were freaking out and, to his credit, Rumblefish CEO Paul Anthony was fielding questions in an IAmA interview until 2:30am.

His argument: One of Rumblefish’s Content ID reps made a mistake by denying the dispute, and they released the claim on Sunday night. “We review a substantial amount of claims every day and the number is increasing significantly,” said Anthony. “We have millions of videos now using our songs as soundtracks and keeping up is getting harder and harder.”

This is the latest in a long series of foibles or outright abuses of YouTube’s Content ID system. Content ID was intended to help copyright holders manage the chaos of YouTube. They’d provide copies of their audio and video for analysis, which would then algorithmically match newly-uploaded videos. If a match was found, rightsholders could automatically block the video or, increasingly, claim money from video advertising.

Content ID’s monetization was a huge boon for copyright holders. Uploaders could keep their videos online, while copyright holders profited from the creative reuse of their work.

But the last couple years have seen a dramatic rise in Content ID abuse, using it for purposes that it was never intended. Scammers are using Content ID to steal ad revenue from YouTube video creators en masse, with some companies claiming content they don’t own, deliberately or not. The inability to understand context and parody regularly leads to “fair use” videos getting blocked, muted or monetized.

Bypassing the DMCA

The problem is that media companies and scammers are using Content ID as an end run around the DMCA.

With the DMCA, the process works like this. A rightsholder could file a claim against a video with YouTube, and YouTube would immediately take the video offline. If there was a mistake, the uploader could file a counter-notice. The video would then be restored by YouTube within 10-14 business days of the counter-notice, unless it went to court.

It wasn’t perfect, by any means, but it was fair. Disputes could always be appealed, and both parties were given equal power. And if a claimant lied about owning the copyright to the material in question, they could face perjury charges.

The current system, led by Content ID, tips the balance far in favor of the claimant.

Rumblefish never needed to prove they were the copyright holder, but were still given ultimate control over the video’s fate. Uploaders can dispute claims, but the only people reviewing claims are the Content ID partners that filed the claim in the first place, who are free to deny them wholesale.

A Simple Fix

The solution is simple: if a copyright holder wants to pursue a disputed Content ID match, they should file a DMCA claim. That’s the only way to guarantee their rights, and make the copyright holder legally responsible for telling the truth.

In fact, this is exactly how YouTube says that Content ID “fair use” claims should work. In practice, this doesn’t appear to be true any longer. Content ID partners, of course, can file a DMCA notice at any time, but why bother if they can reject the counter-claims themselves?

(Preferred partners like Universal Music Group can go a step further and block videos directly without filing a claim.)

This problem has been on YouTube’s radar for at least two years, but it’s only getting worse as unsavory companies discover this nascent business model. Claim copyright on media you may or may not own, and let Content ID do the rest.

By letting Content ID partners have the final word, and not trusting their own users, YouTube is violating its trust with its community and damaging fair use in the process.

Update

I originally published this article over at Wired, where a commenter pointed out that this process may actually violate YouTube’s “safe harbor” granted through the DMCA. If they choose to ignore disputes, they’re effectively giving content providers an end run around fair use and the DMCA.

Selfish Crab wrote:

It seems like by providing the Content ID system, Youtube was trying to pre-emptively identify copyrighted material, like a first-pass dispute system. Their lawyers probably concluded that so long as the content ID system falls back onto DMCA takedown procedure, they are still in compliance with the DMCA sufficiently to retain their safe harbor.

So if Content ID claim disputes do not fall back onto DMCA takedown, as Andy’s article suggests, there’s a case to be made that YouTube no longer has liability protection from users. It is a whole another can of worms to analyze what a legal claim against youtube would look like. You’d have to look at the YouTube Terms of Service (i.e., the contract) to see if maybe they contracted around this problem already, you’d have to figure out damages, etc etc. Or I guess you can just raise a shitstorm and that’s enough of a moral victory.

In a Google+ comment last December, senior copyright counsel for Google and former EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann acknowledged the problem.

Yes, we’re aware of that problem in the Content ID dispute process and are looking at what we can do to fix it. It’s the result of a complicated collision of how to handle geographically limited Content ID claims, disputes, and global DMCA removals. Turns out to be a hard problem to figure out. But we’re thinking on it.

Virginia law student Patrick McKay got in touch with Annie Baxter, a public relations manager at YouTube, about this issue.

This is one of those corner-case outcomes that emerges from several different rules, none of which was intended to yield the result you’ve encountered (i.e., DMCA takedowns are global, but Content ID ownership claims are territorial). Unfortunately, addressing it YouTube-wide is going to take some time, both for pondering and implementing.

So while we can promise you that we’re thinking about this, we can’t promise you a fix or time-table. And feel free to tell the OVC we’re looking at it and trying to come up with something.

In the meantime, anyone in the Content ID program is offered free reign to claim copyright on your videos and profit directly from them. I’m hoping this gets cleared up soon.

58 thoughts on “YouTube's Content ID Disputes Are Judged by the Accuser

  1. This is currently happening on two of my videos where I teach Radiohead songs (I learned and taught them and uploaded the videos long before any songbooks were published):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDmN7FtVGNE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBbvRo5KtNM

    Warner Chappell used Content ID and then reviewed their claim. Nothing I can do. I have left messages at WC and no one has responded to my questions.

    I called the EFF and they won’t take my case on just yet because nothing has “escalated,” legally speaking. But WC is monetizing my lessons, theory insight, and the skill I have earned through training my ear my entire musical life.

    Warren

  2. Not true. In my experience using CMS if a video/music is removed and the uploader feels that’s it’s wrong, then they can file a counter-notice. If such a notice is filed then the CMS account holder (ie copyright holder) must go to court in order to enforce the takedown. In my experience this actually favors the uploader since they can essentially force the copyright holder to go to court to enforce the takedown. If the copyright holder doesn’t have deep pockets, the uploader can essentially win by default. That has been my experience with takedowns and counter-notices.

  3. It seems to me you have two recourses.

    1. sue those erroneously claiming copyright on your work.

    2. sue youtube.

    I think 1 would be easier to win. IF you win 1 can you then more easily win 2?

    Will discovery in 1 give you evidence that would be usable in 2.

  4. Is this just a problem at YouTube? How are similar issues handled at Vimeo and other similar sites?

  5. Great article and thank you for bringing much needed attention to an issue I have been trying to get YouTube to take notice of for months. I am the creator of the site FairUseTube.org, which you linked to in your article quoting the response I received from Annie Baxter.

    Minor correction: my name is Patrick McKay, not Patrick Bateman. I’m not sure where you got that from. =)But yes, I am a law student in Virginia. I’m glad you found my site useful in researching this issue, and I appreciate your continued work to call attention to the flaws with the Content ID system.

    ~Patrick McKay

    FairUseTube.org

  6. I have a suggestion for youtube that should be easy enough for them to implement with their army of software engineers. The ID process should highlight the section of the video that was identified, and whether it was audio or video or both.

    I work for a government access station and we produce anywhere from 400 – 600 programs a year. 75% of our programs are over 15 minutes and we probably upload 80% of our total programming at http://www.youtube.com/user/SAINTLOUISTV

    Content ID has become a huge pain in my a** mostly due to Viacom and Hearst Television. Anything they falsely identify is automatically blocked worldwide which basically kills my uploads.

    The first time it happened I filed a dispute and waited… 3 months… for Viacom to review a video they had flagged. In the mean time we could not upload board meetings or any other programming over 15 minutes without breaking it into pieces. Now I just delete it and get on with my life.

    We don’t monetize our videos, but it still costs us money in additional time administering the videos. I’m in the process of trying to identify the offending segments in two programs flagged by Hearst in the last two weeks. I think they may be claiming rights on PSA spots, which is just wrong since PSAs are distributed freely with the hopes of being seen.

  7. We must help FBI and Deprtment of Justice to find an illegal scheme in youtube content id, and take care of them as they recently did with Megaupload. I recommend saving and archiving all screenshots of your communications with youtube and their partenrs, so, everyone can make a solid case of every misuse of the system. That’s a time to let law enforcement to take care of youtube practices.

    I personally see no differences with the following screenshot at Megaupload and practices by Youtube.com content id system

  8. I uploaded Night of the Living Dead on March 11, 2012

    I have not been able to monetize this well known public domain video because the claims keep rolling in. The funny thing is they all didn’t happen when I uploaded it. I just got another claim on it today.

    Damn it Google and Youtube! When are you going to take some action to eliminate this fraud. This has been going on for a couple years now, and all we get out of you is, “were pondering it”. All the while crooks are stealing public domain, user made and other works. People are being deprived of income because Youtube and Google refuse to address this growing problem. Good people are getting copyright strikes on their account, and some of them terminated accounts, because some lousy thieves are claiming property that is not their own, and Youtube and Google are siding with the thieves.

    While Google and Youtube sweat and wring their hands over a $1 billion copyright law suite with Viacom, they try to look tough on copyright violations by artificially inflating their performance with bogus contentID matches and copyright strikes. I can’t say if that is truly the case, but I am left to speculate because Youtube and Google don’t want to talk about the failings of the contentID system.

    For sanity’s sake, just look at all the claims on Night of the Living Dead! How many times are people going to have to prove that this is a public domain movie? I should not have to wait for months to monetize a public domain video. If Youtube has even one monetized copy of a public domain film on file, all other copies of the same film should not be disputed.

    CLAIMS ON NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD:

    “Timothy Regan-Beyond the Grave”, sound recording administered by: rumblefish

    “George Romero – Night of the Living Dead – Trailer”, audiovisual content administered by: Content Lizenz Agentur

    “Sek-Johnny Didn’t Come”, sound recording administered by: IODA

    Audiovisual content administered by: eOne Your dispute awaiting response by 05/11/12

    Audiovisual content administered by: Weinstein Claim released.

    “The Banner-Zombie Onslaught”, sound recording administered by: WMG Claim released.

    “Microfilm-Death race ’68”, sound recording administered by: Believe Claim released.

    Visual content administered by:

    Music Video Distributors

  9. I’ve recently had this rigged process performed against my account, and while the video was not removed, I still take great offense.

    I posted a parody commentary of 30 seconds of a popular 120 minute commercial film.

    the fair use provisions of copyright law clearly protect public commentary and parody so long as samples are short and not reasonably impactful to sales of the original work.

    I now have “dispute rejected, claim reinstated.” with no option to file legitimate counter-notice.

    If there is a class action lawsuit or some similar action being built against youtube, i’d like to see a publication on it.

    This is something worth fighting for in court, and I should have a right to compel them to file a true legal injunction and defend the public’s right to fair use.

  10. I am dealing with this now and it’s not even a fair use issue. The song in question, I wrote, recorded and own the sole copyright to myself. No other samples or clips were used in it and the visuals (not disputed) were either my own or used in compliance with CC.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVB5eDE7EFg

    I guess I’ll see how this plays out. I’ve submitted my dispute and am awaiting a reply.

  11. This note is to Eva Moon, or to anyone else who can let me know where/how to dispute a claim. Rumblefish is claiming content ownership of a duet I’ve co-written with Ray Lani. The song, “Heaven Backs Me Up” is totally original and there is no way anyone can claim ownership to it, other than Ray Lani or myself. Youtube wrote that ads may be used next to the video, but that it will still be available there and I am not being penalized with this claim. Perhaps all one has to do is answer the questions asked when one clicks on the copyright notice; however questions there seem more to do with the video contents (pictures that go along with the song)than the copyrighted song itself. Since I had a friend add the pictures to the soundtrack and upload it at youtube.com, I can’t answer that portion. Other questions, that concern the song, can be answered by me and/or Ray however.

  12. This has happened to our videos, by the same Rumblefish. We’re a band, these are our songs, and even the video material is handmade by us. This could not have been a mistake. This was on purpose.

    Mind you, Rumblefish doesnt actually take the video’s down. They place ads alongside them, which Google allows them to do, as alleged copyright holders. And then they wait for you to fill out a dispute.

    Which I did, and it got granted rightaway. So Rumblefish is just stealing adspace, and Google lets them … what to do ?

    *-pike

  13. I take back what I wrote above. Thru and by, Rumblefish did have copyrights, from CDBaby, which one of the record companies distributing the album is using. If the ads would have made money, the money would have come our way.

    And they were kind enough to answer my (angry) mail, promptly. So +1 for Rumblefish in this case.

    *-pike

  14. Given the sheer volume of misdeeds by Rumblefish, would a class action be the most effective corrective? I am not a lawyer; just asking.

  15. Think internet moves faster than laws but I put copyrighted music on my videos I purchased. I do own video myself to them. People need to look at law not passed S.978 which makes what we do legal as long as we are not promoting or making money off of what we do at a personal level. Will video taping us doing kareoke be illegal too. Rediculous.

  16. I uploaded this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXOtYPcC4tQ,

    but didn’t see any third party warning until it had gone viral a few days later.

    The claim was from ADREV regarding the sound track only.

    When I uploaded a shortened version of the same video with my own sound track

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpykmJThcOg

    Youtube immediately age restricted it.

    Google, Youtube and companies like adrev or rumblefish are all in this together.They deliberately screw all of us while the lion share of advertising revenue goes to members of the club. Class action is the only way to make the system more transparent.

  17. Google is a freaking FAR LEFT LIBERAL outfit and you ‘all are wondering why “content ID” or any other google-implemented BS is screwing things up? Come on. Get a clue. Google is the most self-centered change-for-no-reason don’t-care entity on the earth. They do not care about doing things right. THEY CARE ABOUT MONEY period, for political investment reasons. Do 5 minutes of your own research online please and get a clue about google.

  18. im having a problem with a slideshow i made for youtube showing some artwork. to try to get over copyright put together a midi based around a well known peace by Beethoven. his 7th symphony. all of a sudden both Warner chappell and EMI are claiming ownership.

    first listen to:

    Beethoven Symphony No 7 In A Op 92

    then listen to:

    FIGLIO PERDUTO

    the irony is that they are trying to claim ownership of a tune that clearly ripped off of a 200 year old classic

    fortunately Warner chappell have already released there claim, and EMI have apparently still 2 weeks to decide.

    does anybody know what happens if that deadline runs out?

  19. I posted Franklin Roosevelts “day in infamy” speech declaring war on Japan and Google upheld its claim

    Rebeat Digital GmbH has reviewed your dispute and reinstated its copyright claim on your video, “FDR declares War on Japan – 1941”. For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page

    I can’t fight city hall and won’t monetize…so I took it down..the only losers in this are people that would love to hear FDR making that speech…

  20. I took a home video of my high school band playing The Stars and Stripes Forever, an 1896 work by Sousa. It is the United States’ national march, and codified as such in the US Code.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athb3PYuZhU&feature=plcp

    Warner Chappel claimed copyright, I protested with public domain, but the claim was reinstated.

    Here is the appeal warning I have from Youtube:

    Are you sure you want to appeal? You will be required to provide your contact information to the claimant. An appeal will result in either: the release of a claim on your video OR a legal copyright notification from the claimant. In this event your video will be taken down and you will receive a copyright strike on your account. If you have received additional copyright strikes, this may suspend your YouTube account.

    This seems pretty frivolous. If anyone’s rights are being violated, it might be the school band, not Warner Chappel.

  21. Copyright disputes stop me from uploading videos on YouTube often. I’d rather not get stressed over stuff when I should be having fun. Having matched third party content over public domain musical compositions is wrong. I am still waiting for some responses before the one month period is complete.

    At this moment these MPRCS are still on the list:

    Warner Chappell

    EMI Music Publishing

    The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA)

    At least some of the claims have been released punctually.

  22. this is happening to a song that I CREATED AND RECORDED MYSELF right now and they are claiming my song is a song by a shitty band called disconnect and that they own my music i have nothing i can do i emailed rumble fish, no response and i don’t expect one, youtube makes it easy for corporations to steal music from individuals and it gives them absolutely no possible options to refute their claims to my music all i can do is claim that my music is public domain when it is MINE and even if i did claim it was public domain they wouldn’t do anything i had a video banned completely by sony and EMI about 6 months ago and nothing at all has been rectified about it they can just push us around all they want i think we should bomb rumblefish or google/youtube and kill as many of these piece of shit copyright thieves that are stealing ad revenue in their massive corporation. I will not stand for this if they don’t revoke their claim to my music in the next 2 days i WILL buy a plane ticket and go down to rumblefishes headquarters and kill as many people as i can. These people are fucking piles of shit and they don’t deserve to live.

  23. One can’t go worst then this, we are original producer and also owner of all the music and sound of this video and initially some 2 content administrator claimed on our video, after we submitted the dispute now the video is forever rejected for monetisation.

    We can’t send any dispute report, can’t make any comment in other words, lot control on our own creation, because some frauds were trying to claim on our video.

  24. HERE’S MY TRUE STORY TO ADD TO THE COLLECTION:

    I have been under-assault from YouTube for the last two weeks – based on completely bogus/false copyright claims; referred to at YouTube as “Matched Third Party Content.” I’ve never ever claimed to be Krishna, or Jesus, or Buddha…so it’s still hard for me to deal with some issues in life that someone like the aforementioned would have been able to deal with spiritual indifference. In a word, I’m MAD about this faceless entity’s claimed false claims – not only against me, now that I’ve found, and made copies of, old posted statements from others; including this one guy who was actually “falsely attacked” – to the extreme mind you – because there were birds singing/talking (bird-talk don’t ya know!) in his gardens while he was filming his garden video! It was claimed, and he was “assaulted” because someone was able to claim that the bird “ambiance” was from their video – that he had “stolen” it! Last week’s upload by me was similarly assaulted by some faceless capitalist entity by the name of: Rebeat Digital GmbH. It’s similar to the aforementioned bizotic true story in that when I started the MATCHED THIRD PARTY CONTENT inquiry process, I was informed via that process, not only the name of the referred to song (Relaxation – Kliffküste) and artist (Lernen auf Meisterniveau), but also a YouTube video player set to start at the point that the copyright infringement is being claimed! You can find my original AVPs at my little music stage (YouTube): MrLZWG. The specified start time for said “copyright infringement” starts at said time of: 3:11 of my AVP. With this said, it’s obvious that my original cover of this great song by the late great Kate Wolf is not in any way being claimed as a copyright infringement! And with that said, if one goes to starting-point 3:11, that’s where the ending credits/info starts! That’s also where one of the seashore wave files from my personal music archives was used for background ambiance on this AVP. I went looking for this guy who claims to own the sound of the ocean upon a seashore – and obviously every seashore recording ever made – and finally a place where I could actually hear – without paying any money mind you – any of this song – and this only about 40 seconds worth! ALL THAT I HEARD WAS THE SOUND OF THE OCEAN UPON THE SEASHORE – with what sounded like some “new-age” style synthesizer in the background! The AVP that I uploaded the week before last Friday, also received an immediate Copyright Infringement Notice (or whatever name)! That notice was based on the original song itself that I created and performed and recorded myself – that totally came out of me, with no idea whatsoever to copy someone else’s composition! When I researched my YouTube data files, I realized that this was one of the same songs that someone else claimed belonged to them when it was uploaded in its first form/version (using my Graphic Art Creations) back on 9-28-11. The “third party copyright claim” ended suddenly Saturday (3-16-13) while I was disputing the new upload and re-examining the claims on this upload (STILL NOT SURE WHICH WAY TO GO ver.B).

    This is what I said to YouTube as my seemingly only defense against this baseless assault against me concerning Friday’s upload (3-15-13) of my original arrangement & AVP: YOU’RE NOT STANDING LIKE YOU USED TO ©2013 GandharvaMusic-LZWG GM-Mp4 AVP

    THIS IS MY “LEGAL” DISPUTE STATEMENT:

    2 WEEKS IN A ROW NOW!!! LAST WEEK I RECEIVED A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE CLAIMING THAT SOMEONE ELSE OWNED MY SONG! OBVIOUSLY I DISPUTED THE CLAIM 100% AND ASKED FOR THE NAME OF THE LYING PARTY – SO I COULD PERSONALLY & PROFESSIONALLY GET IN TOUCH WITH SAID “PARTY.” NOW TODAY WHILE I WAS UPLOADING ANOTHER ORIGINAL AVP – USING AN ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT OF A GREAT SONG – I IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE! The specific claim for this “STRIKE AGAINST ME FROM GHOST ENTITIES OUT THERE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO THROW SPEARS ANONYMOUSLY” SPECIFICALLY INDICATES – ACCORDING TO WHERE THE AVP STARTED IN THE AREA YOUTUBE HAS CREATED TO SHOW THIS INFORMATION TO THOSE OF US GUILTY OR NOT OF ANY ALLEGATIONS – THE STREAM AMBIANCE BACKGROUND USED FOR THE ENDING CREDITS/INFO SECTION OF SAID AVP! Once again, I would like very much to have the exact name & address of said party who claims that I am using something out of their said song. PLEASE! Once again – like I said last week, and have said many times over the last 2 years that I have been sharing my own original AVPs & music here – thanks to y’all at YouTube for allowing me to do this! But with that said I would be totally brain-dead if I didn’t state for the record that I have many variations of this stream ambiance recording that have been in the Archives of my Independent Music Company: GANDHARVA MUSIC, since the late 1990’s – along with all the other cassette tape recordings I have personally sat by streams (etc) over the last 40 years recording myself! Yes I have been an aspiring and ever-learning recording engineer since circa 1970! From audio tape reality to digital reality!! This ambiance recording is one of many that I had to transfer to digital format myself, in order to be able to utilize them in this digital recording world! UNFORTUNATELY GANDHARVA MUSIC HAS YET TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL DEPARTMENT – SO PLEASE DON’T MISUNDERSTAND WHERE I’M COMING FROM CONCERNING MY ATTEMPT TO SPEAK UP FOR MYSELF CONCERNING BOTH OF THESE SANCTIONING NOTICES THAT HAVE BEEN LEVELED UPON ME! Maybe some enterprising documentary film-maker will make a movie about the tears & laughter (to put it lightly) of trying to share at this place called YouTube – before YouTube gets replaced by some other “faceless” corporate entity. But I doubt anything that doesn’t respect open honesty in the future is going to embrace open honesty. Some us – fortunately – will hold on to it until we die. I COUNT MYSELF AS ONE OF THOSE CITIZENS (BOTH USA & WORLD) AND I HOPE THAT YOUTUBE GETS THINGS WORKED OUT, AND THOSE OF US STILL TRYING TO CREATE ORIGINAL MUSIC, AND ORIGINAL ENTERTAINMENT, WILL BE AFFORDED THIS “POTENTIALLY” SWEET MUSIC STAGE! Without y’all, people in India, Ireland, and countries I’ve never even heard of, would never have heard my attempts to communicate through the universal language of music (and a diverse range of that here at MrLZWG)! Hopefully both of these “bogus” copyright infringement claims – strikes against me (ALTHOUGH THE STRIKE WILL NEVER GO AWAY!!!) – GET CLEARED SOONER INSTEAD OF LATER!!! It would be nice to go to MrLZWG and not have to see these bogus claims noted there & yet still have a green light of OK on my “Channel Standing Info”………I DON’T WANT TO SEE MY STANDINGS EFFECTED OR AFFECTED BY EITHER OF THESE CLAIMS AGAINST MY AVPs THAT WOULD RESULT IN ME GETTING BOOTED OFF YOUTUBE!!!

    IT’S ALSO SAD THAT IN THE “I BELIEVE THIS COPYRIGHT CLAIM IS NOT VALID BECAUSE:” SECTION OF THE DISPUTE PROCESS, ONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SELECT MULTIPLE APPLICABLE REASONS FOT DISPUTING THE CLAIM! In reference to today’s copyright infringement claim, Reason #2, 4, 6, and 7 seem to apply to my counter claim! But because of the “default” created process I chose option #4 this time………NOT TO BE COMBATIVE WHATSOEVER WITH YOUTUBE – FOR TRUE! BUT I AM STATING FOR THE “LEGAL RECORD” THAT THIS CLAIM IS BASED TOTALLY UPON THE STATED CLAIM THAT THE INFRINGEMENT SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE WAS IN DIRECT REFERENCE TO POINT 3:11 INB MY AVP! I NOW HAVE A COPY OF ALL SAID INFORMATION THAT PROVIDED TO ME IN ORDER TO MAKE AN HONEST REPLY TO SAID CLAIM! NOWHERE IN SAID CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS STATED THAT THE INFRINGEMENT WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT/COVER SONG AND/OR ANY OF THE VISUALS CONTAINED THEREIN. I BELIEVE MY ARRANGEMENT OF KATE’S BEAUTIFUL SONG IS ORIGINAL ENOUGH TO BE IN FACT AN ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT (IN THE COPYRIGHT WORLD) AND I’M NOT IN SOME BAR SOMEWHERE MAKING MONEY OFF OF KATE’S SONG EITHER! IF THE STATED CLAIM WAS IN REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE PICTURES – EXCEPT THE ONE’S I PHOTOGRAPHED – THEN I COULD ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISPUTE AND REMOVE MY ORIGINAL AVP! THIS I UNDERSTAND – AND YET YOUTUBE IS OVERFLOWING WITH SITES THAT ARE ENGAGING IN VARIOUS FORMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND DOWN RIGHT STEALING – IN THE MIND’S EYE OF SOME ARTISTS TRYING TO SHARE THEIR ART ON YOUTUBE……OM PEACE…Z

    Bless all of you who have shown any concern about this issue! And thank you Andy for maintaining this info for people like me who actually take the time – even when it turns out to be a waste of time – to seek out codified truthful thought…in a word: KNOWLEDGE……PEACE

  25. I am currently going through this exact Nightmare, with an Audio track I composed myself using audio from Productions sources (acquired on CD in 1988) and manually recorded on analog stereo then sampled digitally being flagged by Leader Music (out of Argentina, Mexico, and Chile). They have already rejected my initial dispute, and are currently selling the rather mediocre quality 20 second environmental clip on Itunes. I am intent on fighting it, but it is clear Youtube does not honor the DMCA, US Copyright Code, or International Copyright Code.

  26. I should make it clear, when I say “Production Sources…acquired on CD” I mean specificly CD audio sources sold for the specific intent to be used in production, broadcast, and performance, sold through various audio and video supply companies and sources, long prior to the internet. The companies names on the CD sources are not Leader Music who is making the claim of infringement either – and of course, the audio I recorded by analog can not be claimed to be anyones property but mine.

  27. I have two YT channels and each has a claim by Nintendo. I can’t tell if the ad revs are going to them or not… Now that I think about it, it’s basically the same content, just on two different channels. In the meantime, the channels are still in good standing so I don’t get it.

  28. For a musician or band that records their own original music, it is difficult enough to earn money with that music. For a site like YouTube to continue to allow people to take advantage of people claiming rights to their music is just sad. YouTube is a huge business, but has grown too big, and is now hurting the very people who helped YouTube grow.

  29. Quite reluctantly, I filed a YouTube counter notification on 1 minute (out of 5) of an unknown to me copyrighted Bernard hermann soundtrack main title put to in Undoubtaly NONCOPYRIGHTED Internet film stills. The claimant (as was customary) could have blocked the audio entirely or muted it. He chose to remove the video completely thereby ending my account. I found this highly revengeful when my embarrassingly apologetic letter to his music site on you tube went unnoticed with no response to me, As such, I am gambling that his current company (it appears from my research) in Australia is in insolvency) will not file a suit against me and my 300 videos will be reinstated.

  30. I run a not for profit website to encourage kids to follow their dreams and talent. As part of this we ran an event as follows:

    1) Ensured all insurances were in place as it was a public event.

    2) Hired a DJ who pays all relevant dues to allow them to play music for performances.

    3) Held it in a recognised venue.

    etc etc…

    Suddenly EMI placed a copyright notice for part of a mix that some young dancers were using – the dj held a licence for public performances.

    It seems EMI want to make money:

    1) When they sell it (very fair and right)

    2) When someone who pays for a licence to publicly play such works (fair-ish I suppose)

    3) Every time they hear it somewhere on You Tube without regard to the circumstances or effective licences that were in place when the music was played.

    No wonder people copy music illegally as the perception is even when you do everything right and you are not making money, they want their cut.

    £££’s and more £££’s – it is what started people off copying music in the first place.

    So if there is any music on a utube video under any circumstances they want their slice! Which puts the following situations (and many more) under the noses of corporate b@stards to screw us yet again:

    1) Kids birthday party

    2) Properly organised public event

    3) Anything that sounds like or even remotely like something they own.

    4) Video of mechanic fixing a car because a radio is on in the background!

    Seriously the world is going mad! For some people and corporations too much money is not enough!

    I removed my video and simply ran it from my website instead – f@ck them. It’s a bunch of kids trying to follow their dreams by dancing to music that was legally broadacast at an organised event. I didn’t see EMI at the event making everyone pay a slice for hearing this stuff when it was broadcast or for recording it either.

    Now I see copying EMI’s music as fair game – they have changed my attitude. If they can be money grabbing leeches using unfair practices then I can save money by copying their stuff. One bad turn deserves another! Seems fair to me as they give us no alternative when we do things right.

    As a musician I wouldn’t like people to copy my music but I know it goes on – such is life.

    However, what goes beyond sense is birdsong, using a synth that sounds like a synth used on a track! Completely bonkers.

    Soon they will enforce copyright for series of chords or even the key a song is in. When will this stop? Never, while there are greedy b@stards running corporations, but who else would run them.

    Follow the money!

  31. I legally use Royalty Free music in my dance teaching videos. Companies like Adserve / Godigital? and Believe Digital, claimed the songs using YouTubes content id. I had to go through the Royalty Free music companies (and original composers) to get them to contact the copyright trolls and get the flags removed.

    I’ve lost adsense revenue for months at a time on some videos, and was blocked during the upload process for others.

    Contact me if you use Royalty Free music and need help fighting Adserve or Believe Music on YouTube.

    https://www.facebook.com/blong206b

    http://www.youtube.com/blong206b

  32. I had uploaded a video more than a year ago. I used royalty free music from Danosongs dot com. And now I got a notice of third party music match from Rebeat Digital GmbH. The match starts at 1:53 in a 2 minute video. I have disputed the claim by providing the DanoSongs-dot-com links. I do not know how it will work.

  33. I just paid $200 for the use of a song in a short film I’m making. I got YouTube rights and Film Festival rights. Easily $40K in the project. CD BABY is claiming rights to one song. Perhaps their claim is legit? Perhaps this other company is wrong? Or perhaps the musicians are at fault?

    I will be finding out soon I hope. If it’s the band at fault or the company I purchased from I will hopefully get a refund. The ID system immediately started monetizing my 40 minute film for CD Baby. If CD Baby is right I will take the film down and put in new music. I’m pretty sure this is a mistake on CD Babies part.

    There have been many cases documented with these large rights management companies now. They should be held to the same standard we all are. If they make a false claim they should get a STRIKE – 3 STRIKES suspend their Content ID account.

    WHY NOT?

  34. If only there was a way to solve this problem. My videos have ben repeatedly flagged by the same party. Each time I file a counter claim, wait 10 days and the claim against my video is dropped. Then a few days later they (NFL) file another claim against me. On the same video. For the same reason. I’ve made it clear I am willing to go to court to fight for my right to use the content, but it never comes to that. No. They simply file claim against me, let 10 days burn off and then file another claim against me. WHat the heck? This is some kind of loop hole in the system that allows them to keep my video constantly blocked, while not having to go to court to do so.

  35. YouTube flagged me yesterday for “matched content” detection administrated by CD Baby, an online music store, really? So I’m disputing the claim with the reason category: “This video uses the copyrighted material at issue, but with the appropriate license or written permission from the copyright owner.” and included the text of Joe Stump’s (the music artist) original email to me from April 2014 giving me the right. If fact it was his suggestion to do so! Before I uploaded it Joe Stump told me (I didn’t ask him) to go ahead and post the music play along performance video to his instrumental guitar song “The Beacon” online wherever I want, since he knows I really like this song. Joe Stump is pretty cool about and and on my side. Last night he wrote back to me (while on tour) after I told him what was going on:

    “Hey Steve, you have my full permission to post the track, tons of people post stuff of mine all the time so hopefully nobody will give you any more grief. Back to the states tomorrow, all the best Joe.”

    So I’m waiting CD Baby’s decision and could possibly have my YouTube account removed over so-called “fraudulent claims.” Content ID matching is like a judge and jury without defendant lawyer representation! If online music stores are supplying music samples, then why aren’t they in violation? Two and a half years ago I got a less than 2 minute clip removed for a guitar instruction video that was the title and production segment in the beginning, with the guitarist playing an improvised piece in the background. I uploaded it to promote buying it because I’m a big fan! Instead I was reported by the musician’s management (my bad) and so have 1 out of 3 copyright strikes against me and I’m in bad standing. The strikes now automatically go away after 6 months but apparently when I did the offense the wording was “may” go away. Another injustice that I guess “depends on what the word is is,” to quote an impeached president.

  36. I wanted to update my post to say that the content id warning on the music video I uploaded went away. I assume they agreed with the artist’s written permission that I pasted copies of the email he gave to me. All seems good this time but I wish there was a way during the video upload process to declare your video has copyright content with justification that could be verified before getting a warning to worry about.

  37. Just discovered yesterday that PRS CS has disputed copyright for a music video I posted on YouTube last Feburary (2014), in which the entire soundtrack (the point of the video) is an original composition of my own creation!

    I have disputed PRS’s claim via the normal channel provided by YouTube, and written a letter to both PRS and Google suggesting that legal action against them may be an appropriate response to their false claim. We shall see how it goes…

  38. I’d never thought this would be an issue…

    My fiance’ passed away after a cancer relapse and part of dealing with it (which was not possible nor is it) was to make a music video that was original and self-published EVERY FRAME and EVERY SOUNDWAVE could not possibly be matched to a content ID submission. But the sound is irrelevant in this case, the last 8 seconds of VIDEO was claimed…it’s a short, three-panel-slide that says…

    1. For ****her name****(only her first name due to my vast awareness of media law including privacy and copyright)

    2. Rest in Peace My Love

    3. fin

    UFEA (????) made a claim on that 8 seconds of 3 strings with a gray background and blue left-border I made using the “windows media creator studio” I had at that time.

    UFEA is like a european soccer league! wtf?

    I’m the arranger, performer, recording engineer, I filmed MYSELF, I carefully edited it and it took me months to make it perfect I posted it to youtube for archive reasons and lucky I did cuz that laptop was jacked 2 months later. that was over 2.5 yrs ago…

    Some soccer league can have my last words to the love of my life if I can have the 1:44 of audio and film back. My artwork (that one most of all) …I put there for safe-keeping. My youtube account isn’t monetized…I have no cameras or mics right now but my site is …BY GOOGLE…the policy says they aren’t responsible “UFEA” (???) is…I’m at loss but to rescue the audio and see if it’s possible to rescue the video. b4 it gets pulled. I disputed as soon as I read it was red-flagged…I know the law – I break laws sure – but not media laws im a musician/writer it’s my goddamn job! Thanks to the author of this page for highlighting something I WISH I HAD KNOWN yesterday. (The 1st two blogs were shams as usual)

    take ‘er ez -Tapper

  39. I’m getting frequent claims against stock royalty free music that I have purchased in collections. All of the necessary copyright and license info is posted to YouTube at the time of upload. That gets ignored, a claim is filed, I waste my time countering the claim with the same info that I posted when I posted the video, and the claim gets dropped within a few days with this note:

    Good news! Your dispute wasn’t reviewed within 30 days, so the copyright claim on your YouTube video has now been released by AdRev for a 3rd Party.

    There is no acknowledgment that I have rights. So, rather than verify that my claim to license is valid, they pretend that the case has timed out. Is that so that they can come back and try again later? I don’t know. All I know is that it is dishonest and YouTube is allowing it.

    YouTube is making huge amounts of money on our content. They owe us the courtesy of defending the content provider’s rights.

  40. I have had so many problems with youtube, that I have switched to DailyMotion. I suggest you all do the same, as I have never had a content id problem with them!

  41. I don’t know if this thread is still live, but I have dealt with this fraudulent AdRev for third party BS this whole year off and on. My music is licensed from Videoblocks (no music is Audioblocks) the first one, we just switched the music out, then I was having videos that had been live for a year or so starting to get flagged by these liar theives. Audioblocks has been great at fighting the claim but when do I get paid for the time involved??? Why does this AdRev even exist??

    Now I’m working on a video for a client, and the draft video that I uploaded unlisted to my account for their review is getting part of the music (from audioblocks) flagged by AdRev, luckily I am the only one seeing this right now, but this is damaging to us that pay the money for royalty free assets to use and still have to deal with this bogus nonsense.

  42. Hi I know now how serious copyright is but before this mess I watched a u tube uideo about illuminate and. Put my own words on social network now im am being fined and haue redirect links html jsp index cached data can anyone please help me understand the laws .i haue a stack ouerflow and bunta#that takes passwords details and information is this right.?

    A sorry girl I am

    T.walker

    I thankfully respect assistance comments and aduice

    Please 🙁

  43. This has happened to me. After 7 months of daily videos. Rightster Entertainment A has sent copyright claims to all my videos and Youtube has rejected my claim that its false. I am left with nowhere to go.

  44. AdRev helps make money on YouTube for own content and I do it but its potential to be abused is over hyped. When a video is flagged simply respond with a counter notice, it is a kind of hidden in the options. If the original claimant does not file a lawsuit against you in 7 days, YT is required by law to restore your content. It is the best strategy because nobody in their right mind would file a lawsuit if they don’t own the content and even if they do they are going to lose.

  45. I love getting copyright notices for a film I posted as paet of a noncommercial education video made in 1908. Forget the fair use, no country recognizes copyright passed 90 years, but youtube.com doesn’t seem interested in verification of ownership or capable of doing simple math.

    We do have deep pockets and will file copyright perjury charges against the organization claiming ownership, even though they are in Italy. They seem to have a history of false claims. The company is called Made in etaly.

  46. One of the big problems with the content ID from someone who implements it is the lack of a way to contact the people you’re making claims against or re-instating a dispute, for example, if they have performed a piece of music, the claim may only be for the composition of that music – they still have rights over the performance, video etc. but there is no easy way to contact them over this, and I’m not sure that the YouTube copyright notification is simple/clear enough for people to see that this is the case when they see a copyright claim against their video.

    If they appeal the claim, all that is left for a Content ID manager to do is issue a Takedown, which means the video is taken down and usually a strike made against the account.

    This is often the last thing we want to do, and YouTube needs to make it easier to communicate with uploaders and also need to do more to educate people as to what the claim against their content actually means.

    I also think it would be useful for YouTube to have a kind of ChillingEffects.org type setup to route out repeat offenders in Content ID implementation and make the offending Content ID owners make sure their staff are compliant/trained/re-trained within 28 days or start disabling parts of the ContentID.

  47. For a musician or band that records their own original music, it is difficult enough to earn money with that music. For a site like YouTube to continue to allow people to take advantage of people claiming rights to their music is just sad. YouTube is a huge business, but has grown too big, and is now hurting the very people who helped YouTube grow.thanks for this post.

  48. I have recently had trouble when it comes to a video I livestreamed. I was livestreaming Call of Duty Black Ops 3 last night, everything was fine until I woke up today, to find there was and audiovisual content claim on the livestream, blocking it everywhere, the claim was laid on by Activision, I may be mistaken but I believe the Black Ops series is owned by Treyarch, not by Activision. I do not know the relationship between the two but I figured they were two competing companies who own the title of Call of Duty. The audiovisual content they labeled is not apparent at the times that they show it. I am not completely familiar with what it would be referring to but as far as I can see its just visuals FX and some dialogue there, along with me talking over it of course. Now, the thing about this is that I don’t ever plan on making money off of youtube and don’t see the big deal of needing to claim every little thing. If the person who made the video doesn’t plan on making money off of it with copyrighted content in it, it should be no problem. In all honesty it seems a bit ridiculous when it comes to someone, right or wrong, placing a claim on a video not meant to make money, if I wanted to make money off of it I would have been fine with it but I don’t care to make money off of it and it doesn’t seem right to rob viewers of a possible video, preventing them from any sort of entertainment.

  49. Some enterprising attorney and needs to find a way to monetize suing the horseshit out of these assholes doing this. In the meantime, offering an inexpensive service to research the false copyright claimants contact information and sending threatening legal action letters might clean up some of the small time sharks at least.

    Better Call Saul I guess!

  50. I’ve had a video taken down for using music, and am currently sitting with a strike by google, which limits my ability to function for 6 months. The music was used for satirical and parody and under fair use should not have triggered an alert. Unfortunately, the people at Warner Chappell may have used Youtube’s system to take down a video for political purposes, because “Donald Trump – Get Them Up Against The Wall” had In The Flesh by Pink Floyd. Funny thing is, didn’t Gilmore issue a statement recently slamming Mr. Trump?

    Anyway. Youtube’s labyrinthian copyright structure is weighted against artistic fair use. And that needs to change. Class action might be called for.

  51. I recently uploaded Night of the Living Dead for fun and had a few copyright complaints. The first was from a user called The2013Cinema which was going to a company called “Box Tube” from India. When I called them out on it the released their claims. Then a few others who are listed below stated a claim in the music on the video. I disputed all of them under the basis that the movie was available in the public domain and to please send me proof. I haven’t had an answer yet.

    The first one just looked like someone trying to skim off my adsense, but I would like to know if anyone has ever had these claims on the Night of the Living Dead and if they’re valid.

    If they are, I don’t mind giving them the Adsense, but if only 1 is or neither them are then it isn’t really fair to others sharing the video when there are illegal claims of copyright on the video.

    They Know We Are in Here Now – Model Rocket Scientist

    Sound recording

    13:12 – 14:19 play match

    CD Baby

    Inactive: Dispute in progress. Claimant response by Jun 1, 2016

    Space Drama – Ib Glindeman

    Sound recording

    16:29 – 18:47 play match

    IODA

    On behalf of: SINETONE AMR

    Inactive: Dispute in progress. Claimant response by Jun 1, 2016

    Okay He Is Dead – Donald Eugene Schwieger Jr.

    Sound recording

    1:29:33 – 1:31:13 play match

    CD Baby

    Inactive: Dispute in progress. Claimant response by Jun 1, 2016

    What happens if the claimant doesn’t respond? Is their claim revoked?

    Thanks

  52. Had a copyright claim filed on music I wrote the same day as I uploaded it, and the claim came in before I even hit publish. Some company called adrev, who claimed I had copied a song that when googled did not exist, and clicking “play match” does nothing in the copyright claim page.

Comments are closed.