I don’t really see it that way. Youtube is under pressure, I assume, to keep copyright violations off their website. Many users still manage to find ways to circumvent audio copyright detection by manipulating the audio track, like pitch shifting it a certain amount, (one popular way to get around it, at least back in the day.) So Youtube has to use less naive algorithms to catch some of this “slop” and identify possible copyright violations. Occasionally, perhaps many times, it will be wrong and misidentify something like a copyrighted performance of a public domain song with a user’s or performer who has given permission’s performance of a public domain song. Seems reasonable. They have a mechanism in place to report these false positives and upload the material.
I really don’t see the problem. If Youtube is serious about patrolling copyright violations on its site, this doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something. Are they actually asking you for money for licensing or something? If so, yeah, that’s a little sketchy. If not, well, what’s the problem?
That’s my guess as well. It would be nice if the notices were more specific but they don’t seem to be motivated by fraud unless there’s addition evidence.
But that’s not what they claimed. They made a claim on the composition. Re-read the thread - CD Baby is the second claim made on this video, and both were for the composition. The first was from “One or more music publishing rights collecting societies” which I assume means ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or the Harry Fox Agency.
Cash directly? No. But if I don’t contest their bogus claim, they will receive a cash equivalence by placing free ads next to my video.
This is my recording of this particular performer, done with his permission, of a solidly public domain work. The whole idea that they can claim a copyright on it is offensive.
Exactly.
The first bogus claim is still listed, but now says “claim released”.
ETA: I just checked, and the second bogus claim now says “claim released” as well.
I know. That’s why I said “sloppy wording on their part.” (Or perhaps it’s a sloppy algorithm or database, either way. It probably just found a close match, and then either the boilerplate warning says “composition by” or somebody filled in the CD Baby database field incorrectly or whatever.)
Highly unlikely. I had challenges resolved in a matter of seconds.
I record and publish a lot of guitar music in my channel (mainly classical music that is clearly in public domain but also some works by living composers). I get a lot of copyright claims for my videos - most of them bogus, a few of them legit.
Please keep in mind that even if a piece of music is in public domain the edition you are using may be not. If you play from a modern edition (edited by xyz or with fingering by zxy) then this edition is protected and there is some ground for claims even if the composition itself is public domain. A good way to deal with this is to always use first editions (for guitar music there are a lot of libraries that have digitized their 19th century collections - free to use)
I hope it may help to clear things up if I mention that I was privileged enough to be friends with Franz before his death, and he was most emphatic — even to the point of grasping my wrist on his deathbed — that 150 years after, his royalties should continue to be collected and payments made to a random bunch of sleazy businessmen who had no connection with him whatsoever.
Such artist’s wishes are an essential element of modern copyright.
But that’s the thing. Because of the DMCA, YouTube is not under said pressure. They only have to remove things if they get a takedown notice. You are not responsible for copyright violations you are not aware of, as long as, when you do find out about them, you do something about them.
No, the reason is entirely contractual. YouTube has contracts with a lot of content producers, and these contracts basically say that, if YouTube allows fair use, they will lose the rights to this content. It’s not a legal issue at all, just a business decision.
And, what’s worse, is that what you are seeing here are the good responses. This is where the whole this is resolved quickly and painlessly. But I know a lot of YouTubers who do game playthroughs where they get permission from the game developers themselves (often indies) but then are still unable to put ads on the videos. Fair use isn’t even involved here–they have written permission. But, due to contracts with other reviewers who have shown a bit of said content in their videos under fair use, the video is permanently flagged. The appeals will not go through, because the content is actually there. It doesn’t bother them that said official reviewers do not own that content. (and that’s the best possible interpretation. Some think that actual humans are involved in the initial process.)
Because of this, I have actually went back on what I said about Blip, and now enable ads there while disabling them on YouTube. Due to the YouTube user agreement, there’s pretty much nothing you can do legally about their stupid system. So the only way YouTube will change is if they have serious competition, and Blip is pretty much the only contender.
Here’s the hilarious part - the video is not public. I have it set to “unlisted” for the client and pianist to view. It’s been viewed 8 times! 8 plays, and 3 accusations of copyright violation!
Yes, it is. But if you aren’t being penalized by it and can’t fix it, let it go. The tech world is filled with millions of annoyances just like these that we see every day, and it’s not likely to get better.
Every time this happens, I have the opportunity to writes some text challenging the bogus claim, and I will continue to do so. And I will write about it here. Because they don’t have a valid claim, and they should be taken to task for making bogus claims. Hopefully enough complaints will pile up that YouTube will change their system to filter out obviously insane claims, and these jerks will be prevented from illicitly getting free ads.