7 ms·

There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on YouTube b

by kjakm 7y ago

There needs to be repercussions for these types of incorrect claims. I think it's important that copyright owners have a way to protect their works on YouTube but these larger publishers in particular are so aggressive because there is no reason for them not to be. They face no consequences for getting it wrong. I think YouTube has a '3 strikes' rule for creators who infringe - maybe they need something similar for false claims. If you are found to have made 3 false claims within a 12 month period you are not allowed to manually claim for the next 12 months. Alternatively a rule similar to the 'challenge' rule in the NFL - you get three claim ' credits'. If you use a credit correctly you get it back. Use it incorrectly and you lose it for the next 12 months.

tssva 7y ago
What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kjakm 7y ago
  > What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.
- skunkworker 7y ago
  That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most lawyers.
c2h5oh 7y ago
All DMCA requires is a 'good faith belief' your takedown claim is valid to avoid any consequences of it not being valid.. Deals copyright holders have with YouTube took it as a not good enough starting point and made it worse.
fortran77 7y ago
Nearly every time I sit at my own piano and record a classical piece I'm playing myself (Chopin, Schumann, Mozart, etc.) I get a copyright claim against me within hours of it going up to YouTube.
ikeboy 7y ago
>YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community. >YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed. >Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_topic=2778544 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_...
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  Note that this issue was not flagged by content ID, but manually.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    There's only two kinds of claims, content ID (both automatic and manual) and DMCA.
- Vysero 7y ago
  "Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated." I wouldn't mind seeing a list of "Content owners" who have lost their Content ID access due to "erroneous claims", but I get the feeling that this list simple does not exist. Hell, I would be surprised if the "guidelines" for Content ID use even exist. "Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated." Of course the users are to take all this on good faith.. you know because YouTube is such a reputably moral and ethical company.
  - thomasfortes 7y ago
    I would bet that this list would have only small content creators that flagged videos. There's no way that the big media companies would be in it, and they are probably the biggest offenders.
jimbob45 7y ago
The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Of course, the MPAA/RIAA owns our government and has for a while. Not to mention the trade deals the US brokered in the last year made sure to taint the copyright duration of every other country too so this will probably never get fixed until we all decide to practice some Civil Disobedience.
- kjakm 7y ago
  >> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income. Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.
  - larrik 7y ago
    On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.
    - kjakm 7y ago
      I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.
      - jimbob45 7y ago
        The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.
sli 7y ago
Years and years ago before YouTube let everyone upload videos above ten minutes, I uploaded an episode of a cartoon and it was put on hold for being too long. I didn't do anything after that, though. I just left it alone and it stayed in that state on my account ever since. Until last month, anyway. I decided to click the "reprocess" button just to see what would happen. To my surprise, it did it, and then my account was immediately hit with a copyright strike. It really seems weird to me that it didn't "count" until it was successfully processed. Surely YouTube could have detected it at pretty much any other time, but they didn't. Just a weird YouTube copyright anecdote I wanted to share.

by kjakm 7y ago

tssva 7y ago

What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.

rahuldottech 7y ago
Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.
jimhefferon 7y ago
But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kjakm 7y ago
> What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.
skunkworker 7y ago
That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.
- jandrese 7y ago
  On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most lawyers.

c2h5oh 7y ago

All DMCA requires is a 'good faith belief' your takedown claim is valid to avoid any consequences of it not being valid.. Deals copyright holders have with YouTube took it as a not good enough starting point and made it worse.

fortran77 7y ago

Nearly every time I sit at my own piano and record a classical piece I'm playing myself (Chopin, Schumann, Mozart, etc.) I get a copyright claim against me within hours of it going up to YouTube.

ikeboy 7y ago

>YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community. >YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed. >Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_topic=2778544 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en&ref_...

Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Note that this issue was not flagged by content ID, but manually.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  There's only two kinds of claims, content ID (both automatic and manual) and DMCA.
Vysero 7y ago
"Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated." I wouldn't mind seeing a list of "Content owners" who have lost their Content ID access due to "erroneous claims", but I get the feeling that this list simple does not exist. Hell, I would be surprised if the "guidelines" for Content ID use even exist. "Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated." Of course the users are to take all this on good faith.. you know because YouTube is such a reputably moral and ethical company.
- thomasfortes 7y ago
  I would bet that this list would have only small content creators that flagged videos. There's no way that the big media companies would be in it, and they are probably the biggest offenders.

jimbob45 7y ago

The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Of course, the MPAA/RIAA owns our government and has for a while. Not to mention the trade deals the US brokered in the last year made sure to taint the copyright duration of every other country too so this will probably never get fixed until we all decide to practice some Civil Disobedience.

kjakm 7y ago
>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income. Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.
- larrik 7y ago
  On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.
  - kjakm 7y ago
    I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.
    - jimbob45 7y ago
      The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.

sli 7y ago

Years and years ago before YouTube let everyone upload videos above ten minutes, I uploaded an episode of a cartoon and it was put on hold for being too long. I didn't do anything after that, though. I just left it alone and it stayed in that state on my account ever since. Until last month, anyway. I decided to click the "reprocess" button just to see what would happen. To my surprise, it did it, and then my account was immediately hit with a copyright strike. It really seems weird to me that it didn't "count" until it was successfully processed. Surely YouTube could have detected it at pretty much any other time, but they didn't. Just a weird YouTube copyright anecdote I wanted to share.