No, it’s the opposite. By giving the cop permission to play her music, then the video of his/her conduct doesn’t get taken down.
Thing is, it’s not usually the artist is the one who decides. This is all handled by the label, or likely an even bigger group. Plus it would be hard to get the bot to be okay with background music but people actually using copyright infringement, so that would have to always be handled manually.
To me it seems like the solution then would be more about reporting it. Sure, the video takes longer to get out, but it still gets out. Plus there are other tactics like adding your own intro song and setting things up where you get revenue from that.
Honestly, that’s something all YouTubers should probably be looking into.
I meant allowing the person filming it to “use” her music. Then the guy with the camera can post it to youtube without it being taken down. Not supporting police violence, helping push back against it by make sure LEOs can’t hide behind her music.
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you.
I think a possible idea would be to have the bot delete the sound portion of a video when there’s a copyright issue but allow the visual portion to remain online. This would prevent people who were using the music as music but it wouldn’t allow a bad cop to use the music as a shield.
If they could actually do it in a way that isolated the foreground sound, sure. But the idea is that they play it while they are talking, so they can’t keep the audio. Otherwise the camera operator and/or video uploader would just mute the audio whenever the music was playing, and unmute it when they were talking.
What is promising, however, is a technology from Nvidia that is really good at removing background audio, formerly called RTX Voice. It can work both live and on prerecorded streams. And it has successfully filtered out background music before.
Unfortunately, Nvidia ties this in with their graphics cards, with the latest version only working on their live streaming app Nvidia Broadcast.
I would think the uploader could simply mute the audio entirely and only unmute it during the times when someone is speaking over it, possibly even reducing that to the times when someone is saying something that they want to make sure other people hear. The idea being (maybe) that the bots are less likely to pick up on the music if it’s only being played in very short samples and always with at least one person talking over it.
Plus, they could distort or otherwise alter the audio.
Remember, as long as you have the original, unaltered, unedited version, it really only needs to be online long enough to gain some traction and get people talking about it (and even better, downloading it and reuploading it around the internet). It doesn’t even need to get that popular for local media outlets to notice it and ultimately, they’re the ones that can actually put some pressure on a local PD by making the local public aware of what’s going on and demanding answers.
Hell, you could even strip out the audio entirely and replace it with subtitles. Again, it just has to get noticed by enough people that questions start getting asked and the PD will eventually have to respond, in a perfect world* by forcing their hand into releasing the body cam footage of the same interaction or at least confirming the details of the uploader’s video.
If this was an actual thing cops regularly did instead of just something that a handful of cops have done a handful of times, I could see people attempting (and possibly successfully) to get copyright laws changed so they wouldn’t apply in situations like these. Might not help for youtube with their bots (though human interaction can unflag those videos), but at least media outlets wouldn’t have to worry about copyright issues if they want to replay the videos.
*actually, in a perfect world, the officer would face punishment for purposely destroying evidence. I could see it being treated similarly to how turning your body cam off should be treated (essentially an admission of guilt).
I don’t think YouTube takes down a video when it demonitizes it, you just don’t get YouTube money from it. I’ve had many of my fav YouTubers thank a sponsor for paying them for a video that they know would not make money otherwise.
Destroying evidence would mean making it so the video was not admissible in court. AFAIK, a video that has music playing in the background would still be admissible in court.
I’ve noted that happening on comments sections where the word “dick” gets asterisked out, so I took to using the term “Manpart” instead. As in Manpart Cheney, Phillip K. Manpart, and Manpart VanLesbian.
You’re right, I hadn’t really thought about it like that. I know it’s legal for bystanders to film LEO’s (provided they aren’t interfering etc etc etc), but are there any laws on the books that make it illegal for LEO’s to prevent bystanders from filming. Specifically, via entirely ‘passive’ methods. Yes, it would be illegal for them to arrest the bystander, just as it would be illegal for them to take the person’s phone, but in this case, all they’re doing is playing music.
IOW, I know some places have talked about actions that should be taken against officers who turn off their body cam. Are there any laws on the books that would remotely cover this situation (a cop playing music to make it difficult for you to show your video to a large number of people)?
Does it matter that they’re using this tactic with the intent of covering something up, be it “I’m gonna rough this kid up and I don’t want it on the internet” or even “I want to make sure I don’t end up on the internet if I accidentally do something stupid” (ie legitimately accidentally trip someone in handcuffs)?
Maybe some kind of police transparency laws?
I’m just thinking it would be harder to create a new law against this than it would be to simply add it to an existing law.
While I think it would make the most sense to take action against the officer doing it, in the end it might be easier to not allow copyright violations in this specific situation.
Of course, in the end, I think it happens so rarely that unless it becomes more frequent, it’s probably not something worth worrying about.
I made a video about the famous British dessert pastry called Spotted Dick
It was demonetised for excessive profanity (the decision was made by an algorithm)
I requested for the decision to be reviewed by a human, who agreed it was excessive profanity
I appealed and escalated this outcome. The person I spoke with simply didn’t accept that there was a valid reason to use words that they considered profane.
I took down the video and edited it to bleep out the word ‘dick’ and cover it up on screen, this edited version remains monetised.
Edit: The most troublesome place to use anything that might possibly be mistaken for profanity, is in the first minute of the video. After that, the system is a little bit more relaxed about some things.
Wait, I was assured, in this very thread, that that was something YouTube does for you!
YouTube will mute the entire soundtrack of a video in some circumstances where it violates intellectual property principles.
There’s a post-upload editing tool that allows certain changes to be made to a video without taking it down and reuploading as a new video (which is often preferable if it already has comments etc), The functions of the post-upload editor are limited to:
Cut out pieces of the video footage entirely - creating a jump cut in most circumstances
Apply a blur to selected parts of the video. Getting this tool to actually do what you intend is like trying to grasp a buttered frog)
Replace the entire soundtrack of the video with silence or with an audio track from the YouTube library (you can’t upload a replacement audio track).
There is, as far as I know, no granular alteration done by the algorithm or humans on behalf of YouTube; it’s limited to demonetising and (in egregious cases) takedown.
That’s how I understand it as well. And that cop video is all over Youtube, so the “you can’t post it on Youtube!” gotcha he thought he had was, let’s put it charitably, completely misunderstood. You can post it; you might not be able to make money off it.
IIUC only the actual copyright holder can make the claim of copyright violation.
(Seems obvious that the idea here was to use someone else’s copyrighted material and then initiate the strike yourself on their behalf. It’s also pretty stupid. I’m betting, say, Disney cares less about minor infringements on their copyrights then they do about their music being used to hide police brutality videos.)
People do monetise videos that contain short clips of copyrighted content - in most cases, they keep it shorter than 10 seconds and the content matching algorithm doesn’t find it, so they get away with it.
People can also use longer sections of copyrighted material if it falls under fair use (for example if they are adding their critique). Sometimes completely fair use still gets struck down though.
That depends on who the copyright holder is. IIRC, some will only demonetize it, some will have it taken down entirely.
Try posting a video with a Prince song in the background and see what happens. I believe he was one of the people that flat out didn’t allow his music on youtube (with his okay).
I had uploaded a video from a wedding reception. It took a few weeks/months but eventually the copyright holder for the music found it and removed the audio.
OTOH, I had a short clip of LivePD as well and that one disappeared entirely once A&E noticed it. I’m not even sure how they caught it. It was maybe 10 seconds long, no music and recorded filming the TV while the clip I wanted was playing.
Actually, that’s a good point. I do remember cases where even a children’s group playing a cover of a Prince song was taken down. And School of Rock (or their parents) having many issues with posting videos of children’s concerts that were not monetized to begin with.
That’s the one I had in mind. I was trying to remember where I heard it. I think the person that filmed/uploaded it was someone here and they posted about it. Otherwise it would have been a youtuber (Rick Beato) that goes on rants about these types of copyright claims.
ETA: here it is.