I’m in the middle of shooting three days of classical piano concerts.
I just uploaded a sample song for my client. And up pops a copyright claim:
“Danse Macabre, Op. 40”, musical composition administered by:
One or more music publishing rights collecting societies
What the hell?
Franz Liszt died July 31, 1886
Camille Saint-Saëns died December 16, 1921
Even in the case of Saint-Saëns, 1921 + 70 = 1991
YouTube makes me acknowledge several times that:
I have a good faith belief that the claim(s) described above have been made in error, and that I have the right(s) necessary to use the contents of my video for the reasons I have stated. I have not knowingly made any false statements, nor am I intentionally abusing this dispute process in order to interfere with the rights of others. I understand that filing fraudulent disputes may result in termination of my YouTube account.
Why are these people claiming they have a copyright on the composition? Are they just basically phishing?
Phishing is a term reserved for someone trying to capture credit cards, account numbers, or passwords, not copyright infringment.
YouTube uses some aggressive sound-analysis software, and it is often wrong. They have backed down every time I have challenged them for similar messages.
What they may be objecting to in your case is not the composition, but the arrangement or the performance, either or both of which may be more recent and subject to copyright.
It may also be a false positive. I got a similar message for a classical work performed by the Moscow Symphony. YouTube was correct in detecting the work, but incorrect in which particular recording it was. In my case, it was from a royalty-free collection that the producer had paid to acquire the rights and licensed to the public. The producer told me he has that happen all the time, but nothing ever comes of it.
Since he never hired YouTube to search, they took it upon themselves, with bogus results. So we can’t tell if the copyright owner was behind this or not. It may be a bluff.
You might dig deeper in that claim. Most of the time when I get notices like this, Youtube says that it won’t affect anything, and they won’t remove the video, even if I don’t contest it. In the worst case, they may put ads on top of my video. Since the punishment is so mild and theoretically they could delete my account if my challenge didn’t get the charge dismissed, I sometimes just let it go as the safer alternative.
Gaffa, some further thoughts…it looks like you are recording music for a client, so the performance rights aren’t in question. Arrangement rights? Dunno. Composition? Way too old; no problem here.
So my advice is: don’t get yer panties in a bunch. Either contest it or forget it, but be grateful that YouTube is available for us to use for free.
I mean phishing. I theorize that some sheet music publisher or classical music label is sending out an absurdly wide net of bogus claims looking to get free ads next to my video.
In this case, they are making a claim on the composition, not the recording. The recording, video and audio, is my work. The performance is by an amazingly talented 17 year old girl. I was hired to record the performance, and since it was “work-for-hire” they own the copyright.
If it was the arrangement, they should have made that claim.
Right. That’s what I’m objecting to. Nobody should have the right to put ads on MY work, and I suppose I should let one of these go through just to see whose ad it is.
Could be, but I doubt it. As I found out, this scanning may not be driven by the copyright owner at all. And this doesn’t match my defininition of the word phishing, either:
Unless you are claiming the notice was NOT from YouTube, it’s not phishing. Of course, this should be checked.
Next:
I’m sure you’re in the clear there, but from what you pasted from the YouTube complaint, which they deliberately make vague, I don’t think we can zero in on their specific claim.
They are trying to scare you.
If you feel that strongly about ads, I suggest you contest the claim. Any ads they put on there may be random and may be tailored to the recipient, not you. Just because you see an ad for Company X doesn’t mean that everyone else will see the same ad, and the ads probably rotate. It’s a crapshoot from your angle.
Keep in mind that YouTube is providing a service free to you to post your video and making it readily available to search. If you feel that your control of this isn’t sufficient and the benefits too few, you are free to post it somewhere else, like Vimeo, or your own server, at your own cost. Consider the relative advantages. Maybe sleep on it before doing anything rash?
It happens everywhere, not just Youtube and not just for music. Basically, while the DMCA does specify penalties for filing a false claim, those penalties only apply if the victim manages to successfully take them to court. Which is not worth the risk and expense, so it almost never happens.
I think the term in this case is “copyright trolling.” Patent trolling is a serious thing; it’s not surprising that something similar happens with copyrights (and, presumably, trademarks).
I got a second claim on the same video this evening! The first one was by “One or more music publishing rights collecting societies” and it now shows up as Claim released." But now, I get:
In what way is this not phishing? If the same thing was being done by a 14 year old, it would be. CD Baby does not own Franz Liszt’s work, and should be punished for this sort of behavior.
Because CD Baby is not pretending to be youtube. It’s trolling. As in, they’re trolling for people who will fold under pressure and give them what they want.
Because phishing is an effort to trick you into giving them information under false pretenses. In this case it doesn’t look like they are trying to get information from you.
So how many people fall for these fraudulent claims, and why hasn’t YouTube put in a sanity filter so they are not passing along any of these fraudulent claims? As in “There is no fucking way CD Baby has any valid claim on Franz Listz’s Hungarian Rhapsody No.6”!
It is conceivable that CD Baby has A recording of that work that they are distibuting. The copyright for THAT recording would be held by the artist, though of course, the composition is in the public domain. What CD Baby’s netbots can’t tell is that the recording YOU are uploading in not the one that they’re looking for.
YouTube still has a tough time sorting out titles of works and numbers of movements in classical music.
What amazes me on YouTube is the precise opposite - people who have no rights to a recording, upload it anyway and then have the sand to put advertizing on it.
As I said, they are making a claim on the composition. I have no doubt that this particular pianist has recorded this particular piece of classical music. But the performance is his, the recording is mine and the composition is firmly in the public domain.
Indeed. This 8:38 second recording was claimed variously as:
“Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6 In B Flat Major”, musical composition administered by:
One or more music publishing rights collecting societies
…and:
“Hungarian Rhapsody No.6 in D flat major, S. 244/6”, musical composition administered by: CD Baby
Oh, I did. The point, of course, is that they should never have asked in the place. This is like sending out bills to random people who own nothing, in the hope that some percentage will mistakenly pay it.
I think that’s just sloppy wording on their part. What seems to be happening here is what Ministre supposed. The YouTube algorithm is matching the performance with a similar sounding and copyrighted performance that CD Baby has the rights to. That’s all.