8 ms·

Classical pianist here. I've been through youtube's broken copyright enforcement system several times. I'll post a video of myself performing some composition t

Classical pianist here. I've been through youtube's broken copyright enforcement system several times. I'll post a video of myself performing some composition that is in the public domain and it'll get "identified" as a copyrighted recording by someone else. Of course youtube doesn't give you an option for "mistaken claim", you have to choose between "this content is entirely my work" (which isn't quite true in my case, since I didn't write the music) or "this video counts as fair use". I typically select "this video counts as fair use" because it's the least untrue of the available options. Nineteen times out of twenty the claim disappears immediately. (I don't even monetize my videos. I just don't want ads on my videos at all, and I especially don't want ads on my videos if the revenue is going to some completely unrelated party.) There was, however, one time when I had to deal with an escalated claim. The piece in question was the slow movement of Dvorak's "New World" Symphony. The Symphony has long been in the public domain. However, the slow movement was adapted into the song "Goin' Home", which is still under copyright, and there is a long-standing myth that the song was the inspiration for the Symphony rather than the other way around. Thus when I challenged the copyright claim on my New World video, the claimant came back and insisted their claim (on "Goin' Home") was valid. This notice was of course accompanied by the scary warnings about how if I persisted it could count as a strike against my youtube account. I called their bluff. I responded with links to every online source I could find showing that Dvorak's work came first and was in the public domain. I don't know what I would have done had they continued to dig in their heels. Happily, they ended up releasing the claim - days before their claim would have expired anyway - with no elaboration. I'd be curious to hear from anyone else who stuck it through the scary youtube warnings and what the outcome was. [EDIT: thanks for the clarifications on "own content" and "fair use". I never thought of it that way, but now it seems obvious.]

dublinben 7y ago
You may also like to know that the composition of Goin' Home is now in the public domain as well, being published in 1922. https://imslp.org/wiki/Goin%27_Home_(Fisher,_William_Arms) https://imslp.org/wiki/Goin%27_Home_(Fisher,_William_Arms)
true_religion 7y ago
Actually a performance piece of a public domain work counts as its own copyrighted work. So the least true option would be claiming that the song is your work.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  He says he's posting videos of himself playing the piece, which means he owns the copyright of his performance.
  - gwd 7y ago
    Yes, exactly -- so the only copyright to speak of is the performance, which is owned by him.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Yes, so the "work" as far as copyright is concerned is the performance. The "work" is entirely his own.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      And how does that make "this is my work" the least true option?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Supermancho 7y ago
        > Actually a performance piece of a public domain work counts as its own copyrighted work. So the least true option would be claiming that the song is your work. reply Since this was the reply, which explains how "this is my work" is the most true option, I'm not sure why you feel the need to post your question. Both sides have been explained and you can decide on your own.
        7y ago
ikeboy 7y ago
>I don't know what I would have done had they continued to dig in their heels. Either they would sue you or the claim would go away.
- tempestn 7y ago
  No, the video would be taken down and he would have to sue them (and probably Google) to get it reinstated and the strike reversed.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    I assume you're aware that YouTube's policy explicitly says otherwise (if not, I've linked to sources elsewhere in this thread). Do you have any sources for the claim that YouTube is not following their own policy on honoring counternotices?
    - tempestn 7y ago
      My mistake, thank you for the correction.
leviathant 7y ago
>I don't know what I would have done had they continued to dig in their heels. My wife's a choral composer and runs into similar nonsense with almost every video she posts to YouTube. There was one piece she posted that got taken down hard with a claim by Sony Classical within minutes, citing the applause - I think the video might have been part of a submission for a grant application or something to that effect, and if it was offline by the deadline, she was S.O.L. Fortunately, her extended network is such that after some frantic tweeting from her verified account, the claim was reversed in under 48 hours. IIRC, both the Sony Classical twitter account and the composer of the work that the video was mistakenly flagged as tweeted back the equivalent of "We're not sure why this is happening, sorry!" (I may be conflating two stories here, because there are so. many. But it doesn't lessen the absurdity of the situation, particularly for folks in the classical world)
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Imagine that this has become business as usual for people. What is somebody does not have the right friends? It is quite obvious that the current Youtube copyright system is flat out broken.
c3534l 7y ago
You definitely own the copyright of your own recording and playing of a tune in the puplic domain. It's not fair use at all. You own the copyright a recording of a classical composition, even if it contains non-copyrighted elements. Fair use implies you're using a copyrighted work in a manner that is protected by the first amendment.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  The "this is entirely my work" would apply here since nothing else in the video was legally owned by anyone else. If the option meant quite literally everything in the video was entirely created by me then it would apply to nothing since you could use no language or literally anything inspired by anything.
- iomintz 7y ago
  This comment is true up to the part about the first amendment. It's 17 U.S.C. §107 that lays out the exemptions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
  - c3534l 7y ago
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment, or else risk them being struck down.
    - wolfgke 7y ago
      > Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment Copyright and free speech contradict each other - copyright is a form of legalized, privatized censorship. You can argue that copyright is OK - but then better take a look in the mirror and don't argue against the censorship in China etc. . Or you can argue against censorship, but then you must argue against copyright, too.
    - hvdijk 7y ago

dublinben 7y ago

You may also like to know that the composition of Goin' Home is now in the public domain as well, being published in 1922. https://imslp.org/wiki/Goin%27_Home_(Fisher,_William_Arms) https://imslp.org/wiki/Goin%27_Home_(Fisher,_William_Arms)

true_religion 7y ago

Actually a performance piece of a public domain work counts as its own copyrighted work. So the least true option would be claiming that the song is your work.

jcranmer 7y ago
He says he's posting videos of himself playing the piece, which means he owns the copyright of his performance.
- gwd 7y ago
  Yes, exactly -- so the only copyright to speak of is the performance, which is owned by him.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Yes, so the "work" as far as copyright is concerned is the performance. The "work" is entirely his own.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    And how does that make "this is my work" the least true option?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      > Actually a performance piece of a public domain work counts as its own copyrighted work. So the least true option would be claiming that the song is your work. reply Since this was the reply, which explains how "this is my work" is the most true option, I'm not sure why you feel the need to post your question. Both sides have been explained and you can decide on your own.
      - 7y ago

ikeboy 7y ago

>I don't know what I would have done had they continued to dig in their heels. Either they would sue you or the claim would go away.

tempestn 7y ago
No, the video would be taken down and he would have to sue them (and probably Google) to get it reinstated and the strike reversed.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  I assume you're aware that YouTube's policy explicitly says otherwise (if not, I've linked to sources elsewhere in this thread). Do you have any sources for the claim that YouTube is not following their own policy on honoring counternotices?
  - tempestn 7y ago
    My mistake, thank you for the correction.

leviathant 7y ago

>I don't know what I would have done had they continued to dig in their heels. My wife's a choral composer and runs into similar nonsense with almost every video she posts to YouTube. There was one piece she posted that got taken down hard with a claim by Sony Classical within minutes, citing the applause - I think the video might have been part of a submission for a grant application or something to that effect, and if it was offline by the deadline, she was S.O.L. Fortunately, her extended network is such that after some frantic tweeting from her verified account, the claim was reversed in under 48 hours. IIRC, both the Sony Classical twitter account and the composer of the work that the video was mistakenly flagged as tweeted back the equivalent of "We're not sure why this is happening, sorry!" (I may be conflating two stories here, because there are so. many. But it doesn't lessen the absurdity of the situation, particularly for folks in the classical world)

StreamBright 7y ago
Imagine that this has become business as usual for people. What is somebody does not have the right friends? It is quite obvious that the current Youtube copyright system is flat out broken.

c3534l 7y ago

You definitely own the copyright of your own recording and playing of a tune in the puplic domain. It's not fair use at all. You own the copyright a recording of a classical composition, even if it contains non-copyrighted elements. Fair use implies you're using a copyrighted work in a manner that is protected by the first amendment.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
The "this is entirely my work" would apply here since nothing else in the video was legally owned by anyone else. If the option meant quite literally everything in the video was entirely created by me then it would apply to nothing since you could use no language or literally anything inspired by anything.
iomintz 7y ago
This comment is true up to the part about the first amendment. It's 17 U.S.C. §107 that lays out the exemptions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
- c3534l 7y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment, or else risk them being struck down.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment Copyright and free speech contradict each other - copyright is a form of legalized, privatized censorship. You can argue that copyright is OK - but then better take a look in the mirror and don't argue against the censorship in China etc. . Or you can argue against censorship, but then you must argue against copyright, too.
  - hvdijk 7y ago