Waxy.org is the sandbox of 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.
12:49 AM
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
9:43 PM
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.
5:29 AM
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.
2:27 PM
Is this just a problem at YouTube? How are similar issues handled at Vimeo and other similar sites?
3:02 PM
As far as I know, no other video hosting community has a Content ID-like system. They just rely on the DMCA for takedowns.
7:34 AM
Content ID is a good idea but the fact that it is an automated system is always going to create problems. There should be a good appeals process.
5:52 AM
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
12:32 PM
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.
10:55 AM
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
5:43 PM
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
1:32 AM
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.
8:28 AM
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.
5:36 PM
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.
5:41 PM
I wanted to give the link for the video, but
had posted it in the wrong place.
youtube.com link to "Heaven Backs Me Up":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECcKL33OX8w
Thanks for any help anyone is able to give this matter.
2:39 PM
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
3:44 PM
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
9:02 AM
Given the sheer volume of misdeeds by Rumblefish, would a class action be the most effective corrective? I am not a lawyer; just asking.
3:24 PM
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.
12:54 PM
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.
10:46 PM
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.
6:27 PM
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?
8:11 AM
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...
8:55 AM
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.
1:40 PM
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.
1:42 AM
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.
3:29 AM
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.
11:49 AM
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
11:03 AM
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.
11:12 AM
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.
8:06 AM
The system is obviously broken. Although I imagine it's a huge undertaking considering the sheer volume of content that YouTube is hosting.
2:09 PM
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.
8:52 PM
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.