3 ms·

> I recently got an email "an email". You're lucky. I got a couple of videos with Creative Commons music. I also contacted the original author and copyright h

> I recently got an email "an email". You're lucky. I got a couple of videos with Creative Commons music. I also contacted the original author and copyright holder about this. Apparently CDBaby just took his songs and files copyright claims on all YouTube videos with his music. He's a poor guy from Australia and has no resources to go against them. So, now, every time I get a copyright claim, I have to challenge it. After giving the evidence, they just let me have it, wait a couple of weeks and submit the same claim again. What's funny is that if you go to that album's page on CD Baby, you can see that the Creative Commons license and original author's name and copyright are right there next to the option to listen to the songs. After numerous claims, I finally gave up and just removed the audio track on all the videos myself. If you read the thing carefully, YouTube doesn't even review the case. Whatever you write there goes directly to people claiming to be the "copyright holder". YouTube should really have an option "The claimant doesn't have copyright on this material". If you give enough evidence, and if they release the claim on video after that was checked, the claimant should lose the right to claim copyright on that audio match for all videos.

fencepost 8y ago
Were those Content ID or manual claims? If manual and you cared about the fight it seems like there might be avenues....
- babuskov 8y ago
  > Were those Content ID or manual claims? ContentID. But I feel like that's good. It means that the audio is already in YouTube database, so YouTube could simply remove that audio from that claimant's "library" of protected works.
paulie_a 8y ago
Or just ignore the claim via YouTube and reupload the video. Then send a letter to CDbaby literally telling them you will continue to reupload it and to fuck off.
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  You'll just get a copyright strike and be banned from YouTube itself. Any accounts made after that is just breaking YouTube TOS
  - heyjudy 8y ago
    Yup. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, autonomous evil. Scammers get away with bloody murder and hurt actual tiny content creators. YT is more and more turning into a platform for megacorps, not individuals to build from viewer one.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    So what? You make a new account and who gives a crap about the tos? It's a bunch of words no one reads and can be outright ignored. Tos is meaningless. You can break it. There is pretty much never going to be any real consequence for doing so.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Totally agree, but that is almost certainly going to require humans to review the complaint. I think that is ultimately why these systems are awful — way too much dependence on laughably immature automation. Google seems incapable of admitting that humans are still a necessary component in these sorts of things. You see the same thing play out in many other Google services.
- babuskov 8y ago
  > that is almost certainly going to require humans to review the complaint The solution that I'm proposing does not. At least, not YouTube employees. It would work like this: 1. Offer "the claimant doesn't have copyright for that audio" as one of the options. 2. You supply the proof of this (as it already works) 3. The claimant reviews this proof (as it already works) In my case, it's going to their own website and seeing that they are claiming rights on a public domain music. 4. The claimant releases the claim 5. YouTube marks that the claimant has no rights over that audio and they cannot pester anyone else with that. This would only work if I select that they don't own the copyright in the first step, and they acknowledge it themselves in step 4. Basically, all it changes is adding one more checkbox when fighting a claim and aftermath that the claimant has confirmed themselves that they don't actually own copyright to that work.
DanBC 8y ago
What Youtube really needs is a method of telling them that you're using the content with a valid licence. See this guy for an example of someone who did the right thing and paid for a licence and who got caught in the nightmare of getting YT to recognise that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYwgqlDolA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYwgqlDolA
- rasz 8y ago
  That one is even "better" How my video with 47 million views was stolen on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw

fencepost 8y ago

Were those Content ID or manual claims? If manual and you cared about the fight it seems like there might be avenues....

babuskov 8y ago
> Were those Content ID or manual claims? ContentID. But I feel like that's good. It means that the audio is already in YouTube database, so YouTube could simply remove that audio from that claimant's "library" of protected works.

paulie_a 8y ago

Or just ignore the claim via YouTube and reupload the video. Then send a letter to CDbaby literally telling them you will continue to reupload it and to fuck off.

sieabahlpark 8y ago
You'll just get a copyright strike and be banned from YouTube itself. Any accounts made after that is just breaking YouTube TOS
- heyjudy 8y ago
  Yup. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, autonomous evil. Scammers get away with bloody murder and hurt actual tiny content creators. YT is more and more turning into a platform for megacorps, not individuals to build from viewer one.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  So what? You make a new account and who gives a crap about the tos? It's a bunch of words no one reads and can be outright ignored. Tos is meaningless. You can break it. There is pretty much never going to be any real consequence for doing so.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

Totally agree, but that is almost certainly going to require humans to review the complaint. I think that is ultimately why these systems are awful — way too much dependence on laughably immature automation. Google seems incapable of admitting that humans are still a necessary component in these sorts of things. You see the same thing play out in many other Google services.

babuskov 8y ago
> that is almost certainly going to require humans to review the complaint The solution that I'm proposing does not. At least, not YouTube employees. It would work like this: 1. Offer "the claimant doesn't have copyright for that audio" as one of the options. 2. You supply the proof of this (as it already works) 3. The claimant reviews this proof (as it already works) In my case, it's going to their own website and seeing that they are claiming rights on a public domain music. 4. The claimant releases the claim 5. YouTube marks that the claimant has no rights over that audio and they cannot pester anyone else with that. This would only work if I select that they don't own the copyright in the first step, and they acknowledge it themselves in step 4. Basically, all it changes is adding one more checkbox when fighting a claim and aftermath that the claimant has confirmed themselves that they don't actually own copyright to that work.

DanBC 8y ago

What Youtube really needs is a method of telling them that you're using the content with a valid licence. See this guy for an example of someone who did the right thing and paid for a licence and who got caught in the nightmare of getting YT to recognise that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYwgqlDolA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYwgqlDolA

rasz 8y ago
That one is even "better" How my video with 47 million views was stolen on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw