Damn, this sucks. I hope Youtube refunds you the money you paid them to host your videos, and compensates you for the harm that you’ve suffered.
How much will that come to, again?
How is that relevant? The public library is free to use but that doesn’t mean I want con men running illegal scams there.
In this case, this is like someone trying to copyright Shakespeare, or at least claiming they have the right to put ads in all the copies of Shakespeare’s works in your public library.
I don’t see your analogy. Someone could put ads in printed copies of Shakespeare’s works if they negotiated with the publisher. YouTube is acting more like a publisher than a library. You might want to check Youtube’s fine policy print – you know, the dense tl;dr page you agreed to? I’ll bet there are numerous clauses that allow them to do exactly that.
I think a better analogy would be to compare YouTube with a stadium offered to you free for basketball games. But they won’t let you play basketball using shoes that might damage the floor. They question your shoes, and you show them they won’t hurt anything, so you keep playing.
But it’s not a public library; it’s a commercial video website. They want to run ads, because that’s how they make money. You know that when you upload videos there. Now it’s not right that these companies are claiming copyright violations that they don’t own, but that’s an artifact of the automated pattern recognition systems needed to keep up with the pace of videos being uploaded. And Youtube, who needs the cooperation the legitimate copyright owners, has set up a system where it is easy for people to make the claims.
The system also seems pretty easy for you to dispute and remove those claims. It’s a bit of a pain but it’s the price you pay for the free service that Youtube is offering. And they aren’t taking any money out of your pocket so the damages are non-existent.
The system is set up so copyright owners can assert their rights. By nature of a site like Youtube these claims are going to be automated and they will make mistakes. They are erring on the side of caution as they see it.
Not exactly. If a Youtube video is eligible for ads, the owner of the content is entitled to a share of the revenue. So the copyright troll is getting, at least briefly, ad revenue that should be going to gaffa.
Exactly. There’s no scam, and no harm. The absolute worst that could happen is the Youtube could withdraw the free service they offer to gaffa.
Also, it’s not like copyrighting Shakespeare. It’s like copyrighting a particular performance of Shakespeare, and not allowing others to profit from uploading that performance to Youtube.
Does the copyright claim actually divert the revenue stream right away? I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s something that happens down stream once the claim is resolved.
Other people have waved this flag as if it justifies everything. YouTube benefits as much or more from people uploading content to them. In this case, I uploaded a wonderfully played and beautifully filmed performance of a piece of music that is solidly in the public domain.
Did you read this thread before writing what you wrote? I assume you did not, so I’ll recap:
I was hired to videotape a piano performance. As far as I know, the pianist was hired by the same person. I uploaded a song from this performance to YouTube for approval by my client and the artist.
And not once, but FOUR TIMES, bogus copyright claims have been made on this work created by two people - me and the pianist - and paid for by a third, her patron. The musical performance was HERS. The video and audio recording was MINE. And the piece of music is every single bit as solidly in the public domain as Shakespeare.
They only benefit if the video is legal, and can be monetised by them, either directly or indirectly by bringing more views to the site as a whole. Hence the strong copyright checkers.
And you were harmed by this how? Do you understand that, without these strong copyright tools, Youtube probably wouldn’t exist? If you have a problem with copyright laws, that would be one thing (hell, I do), then complain about that.
What exactly is your problem? Do you think individual performances of classical pieces should not be subject to copyright, or just that the holders of that copyright should not have the right to prevent other people monetising it on Youtube? You had to click a button to say that they did not, in fact, have copyright on your recording, and that harmed you how, exactly?
Why don’t you host it yourself? Or try Vimeo? Or is YouTube supposed to be the final destination of your product? I certainly wouldn’t use it for client proofing.
Try it. Or at least try reading the OP. You don’t just “click a button”, it is a multi-stage process that includes repeated dire threats. And I’ve had to put up with this shit FOUR TIMES on the same video.
Because I have Google Fiber, and uploading to YouTube is significantly faster than to any other video site.
Gaffa, I think you know this, but just to be sure, are you aware that there may be a copyright (or not, if in public domain) on a work, but a performance right on the actual performance? They are not the same. It is also possible that there is a copyright on a particular arrangement (example: a J.S. Bach work for organ arranged for 2 kazoos and a theremin). While I agree that YouTube is overly aggressive in pursuing violations, often wrong, and disgustingly ambiguous as to the claim specifics, just because you recorded a 200 year old composition doesn’t mean that they have absolutely no claim at all.
Are you aware of these fine legal details?
And I wasn’t aware that Google fiber didn’t allow fast access to the Internet, only to specific Google sites. Tell me more.
This was on piano. No additional arranger was credited in the program, nor was a specific, particular arrangement claimed. Nope. Again, read the OPs. The claims have been for various wordings of “Hungarian Rhapsody” NOT “Hungarian Rhapsody as arranged by Joe Schmoe”.
They are welcome to give me a valid claim on a specific arrangement.
My YouTube channel is filled with valid, acknowledged claims on music that is in copyright. They make these claims, I acknowledge them, they get to place their ad next to my video.
That is not what we are talking about.
This is about utterly bogus claims made on the generic, public domain composition.
Is that what I said? (re-reads what I wrote) Nope, that is not what I said.
What I said, as anyone can plainly see, is that Google Fiber offers better service to Google-owned properties. Nobody other than Google has any reason to make accommodations for 100 megabyte+ Internet connections.
Seriously, if you’re doing this professionally, get a Vimeo Pro account for $199/year, and be done with the hassle. All the pro videographers I know in my industry (wedding) use Vimeo. I don’t know a single one who uses Youtube for this.
I agree that their claims are ambiguous, but that (a copyrighted arrangement) may indeed be the basis for their claim. Have you confirmed that Jo Schmoe’s arrangement was not used?
You said:
It looks like you said that Google Fiber allows faster access to their site (YouTube) than others, because that’s what you said. Isn’t that what you said?
It’s a little silly for you to fight me on this issue. I’m on your side. YouTube is too aggressive and often wrong. But they are an incredible and cheap resource for both you and me, and for that reason, I can put up with some minor inconveniences to reap the rewards. If you do not feel that way, please, please, please, use some other service with my blessing.
Like Yahoo or SDMB Fiber. Or Vimeo (thanks, Pulykamell).
Not to hijack this thread, but I’d be interested in your take on why. What does Vimeo offer for $200 that YouTube doesn’t?
Please note that the OP wrote that the copyright claim was related to the MUSICAL COMPOSITION. It is not the soundtrack, interpretation, visuals etc, it is the original core musical work. In almost all countries in the world a musical composition holds a copyright of composer’s life + 70 years (variations exist). This is rooted in an international agreement called the Berne Convention (signed in late 19th century) which almost all countries in the world have ratified.
So this is a very serious matter. Anyone claiming copyright need to know the rules.
This applies to you, too. Please note that the OP wrote about compositions from long dead composers in the previous century, with “core musical works” now in public domain.
“So this is a very serious matter. Anyone claiming copyright need [sic] to know the rules.” Well put.