Yes, at least in the US. The copyright office uses a P in a circle (“Protected”) to differentiate from C, Copyright of the work. At least that was the way it was in the 1980’s when I worked with this stuff (the law made this possible starting in 1976); maybe it’s changed now.
Not a factor here, though, since the specific live performance I recorded was not available anyplace else, so the audio could not be compared 1:1 for a match. This was not a case of my ripping off a commercial CD into a YouTube file, or posting a MP3 from a copyrighted source.
The disturbing thing to me is if YouTube sends me a copyright complaint from a contemporary royalty outfit, how do I know it is legitimate or not? If they do so badly for 1741 music, how can I trust other claims?
So I always tell them to shove it for obvious mistakes (and I win, they back down) but I am reluctant to challenge claims in other cases.
ETA: I’m not sure (P) stands for Protected or Performance.
It is indeed bizarre that YouTube would be giving you grief over that.
My only WAG is that perhaps Vivaldi’s Four Seasons is such a popular piece that people have been using it as background music for their videos, but one or more of the recordings they have been using have been copyrighted (and perhaps the copyright holders have complained), so as a result YouTube has become hyper-vigilant about people posting this particular piece…?
One problem with that page is that it makes no mention at all of Fair Use. It talks only about having the rights, and does not touch on the fact that using material belonging to someone else is quite permissible if the amount and the purpose fall within the Fair Use provisions of Title 17.
And therein lies a problem with using software to identify this stuff: all it does is look for the material, but can’t place it in context to determine whether the material is being used in a way that is permitted under Fair Use.
For example, if Jon Stewart uploaded one of his Daily Show news criticism segments to YouTube before it aired on TV, it would probably be flagged as a copyright violation for containing clips from Fox News, CNN, NBC, etc. But because those clips are being used for the purposes of commentary and criticism, they fall well within the Fair Use guidelines.
They didn’t. If it were actual DMCA notices, they wouldn’t be handing them out so freely, as you can get in a lot of legal trouble for frivolously handing them out. YouTube created a bunch of tools to help copyright owners fight this stuff, and does not as a rule investigate when the software says it’s wrong, although they could without legal problems. They leave it up to the users, and it always takes so long that you might as well not bother, unless your videos get high traffic–then it resolves in a week.
This is why most people who get popular producing Internet content that comments on other content, which should be fair use, all eventually move away from YouTube to Blip.tv or Springboard.
It’s stuff like this that makes me incredulous when the SOPA supporters were claiming Google was a piracy haven. They bend over backwards for content providers.
And, yes, my advice to the OP is to put up the video on a more reasonable host. You can even create a YouTube video that consists entirely of a link to the other video provider–that’s what two of my favorite reviewers, SFDebris and ConfusedMathew, do.
Yeah, I got a laugh out of that crap too. They could get into a lot of trouble, but they rarely do (I’ve only heard of a couple of instances) and take a calculated gamble that they won’t. The firms that the media houses contract with to issue DMCA notices toss them out irresponsibly, totally ignoring any potential for negative consequences.