6 ms·
Copyright claims on YouTube Bach videos
- 1915cb1f 5y agoWell, if the uploader's using copyrighted recordings rather than a midi or performing the pieces themself or using a more liberally licensed recording, it is understandable. Bach's pieces may be free but musicians' performances of them aren't.
- cunidev 5y agoI am not sure of the example that this video pointed out in particular, but most others seem to have "Public Domain Compositions" of many sorts as the "music in the video" tagged by YouTube. While I agree that it lacks some context, it seems like smaller mislabeled clips were the source of this "violation" rather than the usage of whole copyrighted clips.
- azalemeth 5y agoYoutube is _filled_ with classical musicians getting shafted by this, from amateur ensembles to semi-pros and even some professional groups getting silenced or defunded by these algos. The trouble is that Bach played well sounds like...well, Bach. If you're not "the first owner" of the copyright (and a big music company), you tend to get screwed financially (and the big companies do a LOT of screwing). YT's algorithms are designed to detect "I took this whole TV show up a tone in pitch and put a fake pair of curtains on the front to evade content ID". The Bach will sound "the same" to a copyright algorithm. I only listen to classical music, and I've noticed that where YT used to once be a great source of legally-free brilliant performances (often with scores!) it's been going downhill and I've slowly been redirected to copyrighted Big Media recordings of old classics (which usually I do not prefer).
- someguydave 5y agoYeah I am a classical music listener and I have noticed the same decline in availability in rare and interesting recordings on YT
- klyrs 5y agoMy mom got bitten by this. After my dad died, she uploaded a video of him playing his violin with a baby on his lap. The music is in public domain, and it was demonstrably an original recording of a (sorry, dad) rank amateur. It got blocked so fast that my adult cousin, the baby in the video, couldn't watch it. This isn't understandable, it's ridiculous overreach.
- Minor49er 5y agoWhy didn't your mom just put it on a flash drive or something?
- rrdharan 5y agoYou’re downvoted but I have a similar point / question.. there are many ways to share personal videos privately (text message, cloud photo sharing service etc.); YouTube is a terrible choice for this (despite some forays into that world long ago).
- mbreese 5y agoGiven the ubiquity of YouTube, that may have been the best option for uploading she had. Yes, “we” know there are many options, but when there is a bright, shiny, button that says “upload to YouTube” then why not use that? After all, that should also work for sharing videos with family members.
- Minor49er 5y ago> when there is a bright, shiny, button that says “upload to YouTube” then why not use that? This was already answered by klyrs further up the thread: because the videos are subject to YouTube's policies which commonly involve altering or destroying parts of the media without warning.
- klyrs 5y agoShe used youtube so she could share it with family spread across six states and three countries. How's the flash drive gonna help?
- euske 5y agoI once got a copyright claim for a classic song (copyright expired) that I played with Timidity++ (both software and voice is free). YouTube is somehow good at detecting a similar-sounding tune that isn't the exact copy of the original. It's such a discouraging experience.
- ekianjo 5y ago> musicians' performances It's kind of nonsensical that performances based on a public domain piece of art can be copyrighted. That would be the similar to making the Linux kernel proprietary again just because you change the way the code is formatted. Also, let's not even pretend it's impossible to imitate someone's way of playing while still doing your own interpretation. How would algos know?!?
- LocalH 5y agoAgree. Recordings of compositions in the public domain should never be eligible for copyright protection at all.
- rsuelzer 5y agoDoesn't youtube have an option to allow the copyright holders to monetize the videos in these cases? i.e. Get a cut of the AdSense revenue that would otherwise go to the uploader? Did this user choose not to split that revenue and instead opt to take down the videos, or did the record label force the takedown? It seems to me that it would be interest of the record label to take a cut of the profits off of recordings that would otherwise not make them a dime.
- gliese1337 5y agoThat doesn't fix the issue of the copyright holder being incorrectly identified. A musician uploading their own music should not have to give up their revenue to a company that holds a copyright on a different recording of the same public domain score.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoIt does, but things like that are legally opt in
- barelysapient 5y agoSeems like a great class action lawsuit waiting to happen.
- danielheath 5y agoExcept you have no legal right to be served by YouTube under current law.
- baash05 5y agoIf they're a public space, then you should have that right. If they're a publisher then yeah agree. I think a case could be made that they have to pick a lane.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoNot against YouTube. Against people making false copyright claims, for treble damages and systemic fees
- danielheath 5y agoNope, because they aren’t making a legal claim, just a commercial one (a route YouTube setup specifically because the dcma misuse provisions are harsher than they’d like).
- diego 5y agoNothing to see here. These performances are from 1984, which means that the recording companies that own their copyright have the right to block them in the US and other countries.
- gus_massa 5y agoHow do you know that they are performances from 1984? Where did you get that? I just found something before clicking submit. From another video: > Confutatis K.626 - Scrolling Score > Performer & Album Info - 7:35 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMwaiA581AQ&t=455s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMwaiA581AQ&t=455s
- diego 5y agoThis is the one I'm referring to. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fugue-Bach/dp/B00000E2U0 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fugue-Bach/dp/B00000E2U0
- prvc 5y agoFalse claims are endemic for classical youtube uploads. AI systems and human agents alike conflate different recordings of the same work more as a rule than as an exception. Both ability and incentives create a massive bias in favor of this state of affairs.
- zinekeller 5y agoI thought this was a reference to 1984, but nope. I checked the other videos on the channel, and it was indeed (professional) performances in recent decades, which has a separate copyright. In this case, as law stands now, UMG (Universal Music Group), with the agreement of the performer*, owns the rights of the performances. * Whether the performer have regrets (seems unlikely though in this case) is for outside discussion.
- mickhead23 5y agoGet permission to play clips from a generalist record label like Naxos. Typically they're more than happy to oblige, for obvious reasons. People do this...
- H8crilA 5y agoWhy would they happily oblige? Or is it sarcasm that I fail to detect?
- mickhead23 5y agoNo sarcasm. Many classical music fans shop based on recommendations. A solid recommendation along with hearing a clip increases sales, so it's in labels' best interest to give popular reviewers permission. David Hurwitz on YT is a good example.
- new_guy 5y agoYet another reason to either create your own video site or move to one of the hundreds of alternatives available.
- theknocker 5y ago>the dumb thing idiots always say
- frays 5y agoWho are UMG?
- ksherlock 5y agoUniversal Music Group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Music_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Music_Group