7 ms·

I used a song, with permission from the artist, on a demo reel and got a copyright claim on YouTube. I was surprised to find that the claim was on behalf of a F

by TipVFL 9y ago

I used a song, with permission from the artist, on a demo reel and got a copyright claim on YouTube. I was surprised to find that the claim was on behalf of a French band who covered the song and added lyrics to it. I tried to dispute the claim, but there was no option or possible way to indicate that their match wasn't correct, you could only dispute whether or not you had a license to the track they matched. In the end I just gave up, and let some French band monetize my video that contained a song written and recorded by my friend's dad. Enjoy the 25 cents you earned!

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Since there appears to be no consequences to making a false or misleading claim, and although I wouldn't call it a solution, one course of action would be to make a claim against their song. Kick 'em where it hurts.
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  The cover band's claim that they were acting in good faith would likely hold more water. Not sure if you want to be playing games with the law like that.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    > Not sure if you want to be playing games with the law like that. There's no law involved here. "Infringement" in this context relates to a term defined in YouTube's TOS with regards to the ContentID take-down service provided to the big right-holders industry. Not the legal sense of "copyright infringement", because nobody is making a copyright infringement claim in this whole story. The entire ContentID take-down service is designed so that YouTube will have to deal with as little copyright infringement claims (from the big right-holder industries) as possible. From the perspective of the uploaders and viewers, ContentID is just this thing that helps YouTube take down videos, which they have the right to do (as per the TOS) "for whatever reason". The dispute procedure is just something to make that easier to swallow, but unsurprisingly it's not at all effective in getting a more just result. That's what you get when you upload your work to a platform like YouTube instead of publishing it yourself. As a small player you can't really get YouTube to sign a contract detailing the license under which you allow them to publish it on their platform.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Meh, it's not a major indictable: no one's going to gaol for misusing a copyright claim system. Anyway, as others have noted, I believe you agree to an arbitration clause when you sign up. Lawyers aren't likely to get involved, you'll just get kicked off when a human works out you're abusing the terms and conditions. (I didn't down vote you)
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > The cover band's claim that they were acting in good faith would likely hold more water. This claim of the cover band can only hold water if they made strong investigations to ensure to their best that the creater of the video did not have a permission of the original copright holder of the song that they covered.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Wouldn't Content ID just be a civil matter if the revenue is under a certain amount, given that it operates outside of the DMCA?
    - tripzilch 9y ago
      It's in fact just a TOS matter. It's entirely YouTube's call.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  IIRC there are penalties if you lie about who you're bringing the claim for.
gwbas1c 9y ago
US copyright law has very stiff penalties for false copyright claims. Just sue YouTube directly.
- zerocrates 9y ago
  It was probably a YouTube internal content ID claim and not a DMCA takedown request per se.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  You probably 'agree' to an arbitration agreement when you make a youtube account.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Sue them in any country that ignores arbitration clauses.
    - ozim 9y ago
      IANAL but seems like you cannot just sue people/companies in any country. I think you need to be at least resident of such country.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - bluGill 9y ago
        Each country has their own laws. The EU is mostly harmonized, and most other countries have similar laws. However if you want to do jurisdiction shopping you might find a country (in Africa?) that will allow you to sue.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  No, it doesn't. For example, in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. And YouTube doesn't even use the DMCA system; it uses its own separate terms-of-service-governed system.
reboog711 9y ago
That's no longer the case. I post a bunch of game playthrough vids and there are a lot of options to contest claims like that now. I had a recent one where the sound effect from a game released in the 1990s was claimed as being part of a song released in 2015.
- donkeyd 9y ago
  I had a similar thing happen with gameplay videos containing wind noise. The videos were uploaded in 2014, but I get copyright claims from a song that was released in 2017. This seems like a major oversight in Content ID, it should force the claimant to provide a release date for the song and exclude videos that were uploaded before that date.
  - radicalbyte 9y ago
    You should make a copyright claim against the song that was released in 2017 because they clearly sampled your work without permission and without payment.
    - TuringNYC 9y ago
      This is exactly what I was going to say -- but it is worse! Since they (2017 song) already claim a violation, they are essentially admitting to a violation (except, on themselves!)
      - viridian 9y ago
        I would actually consider doing this if I were in the same position. You'd have to wonder what the consequences were, considering that by filing a claim against someone you are establishing that you believe there to be a violation. If the claimant then is shown to have the newer work by several years, I wonder how such a claim would be taken?
        Navarr 9y ago
stordoff 9y ago
I didn't even get that far on one video I tried to upload. I had the permissions to distribute the video (video game trailer direct from the publisher, so the entire purpose is to redistribute it), yet the upload was rejected outright with a "This video violates the YouTube ToS message" (no nudity/violence etc. either, so I can't think it should have tripped any other content filters).
MisterTea 9y ago
> In the end I just gave up, and let some French band monetize my video that contained a song written and recorded by my friend's dad. Enjoy the 25 cents you earned! I would have elected to not post the video. NEver let anyone profit from your efforts if they have done nothing to contribute. Don't cave to these bottom feeders.
- mcsb1 9y ago
  > NEver let anyone profit from your efforts if they have done nothing to contribute. Don't focus on the "bottom feeders". Focus on those to whom you have brought joy. Github would be an empty place otherwise...
  - MisterTea 9y ago
    Ah! But in the case of open source, a person willingly releases code, usually with a license, fully knowing someone will profit from it. That is their choice. Git hub is full of open source licensed code at the will of the authors. In the case of the parent post I was addressing earlier; This is akin to a company claiming part ownership of your open source code because you used part of a public domain library your friend's dad wrote which they copied and incorporated into their closed source product.

by TipVFL 9y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

Since there appears to be no consequences to making a false or misleading claim, and although I wouldn't call it a solution, one course of action would be to make a claim against their song. Kick 'em where it hurts.

Waterluvian 9y ago
The cover band's claim that they were acting in good faith would likely hold more water. Not sure if you want to be playing games with the law like that.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  > Not sure if you want to be playing games with the law like that. There's no law involved here. "Infringement" in this context relates to a term defined in YouTube's TOS with regards to the ContentID take-down service provided to the big right-holders industry. Not the legal sense of "copyright infringement", because nobody is making a copyright infringement claim in this whole story. The entire ContentID take-down service is designed so that YouTube will have to deal with as little copyright infringement claims (from the big right-holder industries) as possible. From the perspective of the uploaders and viewers, ContentID is just this thing that helps YouTube take down videos, which they have the right to do (as per the TOS) "for whatever reason". The dispute procedure is just something to make that easier to swallow, but unsurprisingly it's not at all effective in getting a more just result. That's what you get when you upload your work to a platform like YouTube instead of publishing it yourself. As a small player you can't really get YouTube to sign a contract detailing the license under which you allow them to publish it on their platform.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Meh, it's not a major indictable: no one's going to gaol for misusing a copyright claim system. Anyway, as others have noted, I believe you agree to an arbitration clause when you sign up. Lawyers aren't likely to get involved, you'll just get kicked off when a human works out you're abusing the terms and conditions. (I didn't down vote you)
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > The cover band's claim that they were acting in good faith would likely hold more water. This claim of the cover band can only hold water if they made strong investigations to ensure to their best that the creater of the video did not have a permission of the original copright holder of the song that they covered.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Wouldn't Content ID just be a civil matter if the revenue is under a certain amount, given that it operates outside of the DMCA?
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    It's in fact just a TOS matter. It's entirely YouTube's call.
Terr_ 9y ago
IIRC there are penalties if you lie about who you're bringing the claim for.

gwbas1c 9y ago

US copyright law has very stiff penalties for false copyright claims. Just sue YouTube directly.

zerocrates 9y ago
It was probably a YouTube internal content ID claim and not a DMCA takedown request per se.
craftyguy 9y ago
You probably 'agree' to an arbitration agreement when you make a youtube account.
- user5994461 9y ago
  Sue them in any country that ignores arbitration clauses.
  - ozim 9y ago
    IANAL but seems like you cannot just sue people/companies in any country. I think you need to be at least resident of such country.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - bluGill 9y ago
      Each country has their own laws. The EU is mostly harmonized, and most other countries have similar laws. However if you want to do jurisdiction shopping you might find a country (in Africa?) that will allow you to sue.
ubernostrum 9y ago
No, it doesn't. For example, in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder. And YouTube doesn't even use the DMCA system; it uses its own separate terms-of-service-governed system.

reboog711 9y ago

That's no longer the case. I post a bunch of game playthrough vids and there are a lot of options to contest claims like that now. I had a recent one where the sound effect from a game released in the 1990s was claimed as being part of a song released in 2015.

donkeyd 9y ago
I had a similar thing happen with gameplay videos containing wind noise. The videos were uploaded in 2014, but I get copyright claims from a song that was released in 2017. This seems like a major oversight in Content ID, it should force the claimant to provide a release date for the song and exclude videos that were uploaded before that date.
- radicalbyte 9y ago
  You should make a copyright claim against the song that was released in 2017 because they clearly sampled your work without permission and without payment.
  - TuringNYC 9y ago
    This is exactly what I was going to say -- but it is worse! Since they (2017 song) already claim a violation, they are essentially admitting to a violation (except, on themselves!)
    - viridian 9y ago
      I would actually consider doing this if I were in the same position. You'd have to wonder what the consequences were, considering that by filing a claim against someone you are establishing that you believe there to be a violation. If the claimant then is shown to have the newer work by several years, I wonder how such a claim would be taken?
      - Navarr 9y ago

stordoff 9y ago

I didn't even get that far on one video I tried to upload. I had the permissions to distribute the video (video game trailer direct from the publisher, so the entire purpose is to redistribute it), yet the upload was rejected outright with a "This video violates the YouTube ToS message" (no nudity/violence etc. either, so I can't think it should have tripped any other content filters).

MisterTea 9y ago

> In the end I just gave up, and let some French band monetize my video that contained a song written and recorded by my friend's dad. Enjoy the 25 cents you earned! I would have elected to not post the video. NEver let anyone profit from your efforts if they have done nothing to contribute. Don't cave to these bottom feeders.

mcsb1 9y ago
> NEver let anyone profit from your efforts if they have done nothing to contribute. Don't focus on the "bottom feeders". Focus on those to whom you have brought joy. Github would be an empty place otherwise...
- MisterTea 9y ago
  Ah! But in the case of open source, a person willingly releases code, usually with a license, fully knowing someone will profit from it. That is their choice. Git hub is full of open source licensed code at the will of the authors. In the case of the parent post I was addressing earlier; This is akin to a company claiming part ownership of your open source code because you used part of a public domain library your friend's dad wrote which they copied and incorporated into their closed source product.