3 ms·
His video isn't identical to another video. Rather, something within the video (it might have been a five second sample) triggered a false positive match agains
by biot 15y ago
His video isn't identical to another video. Rather, something within the video (it might have been a five second sample) triggered a false positive match against something else that someone thinks they own the rights to.
- alan_cx 15y agoI understand that. But then surely that match works both ways. Something in the other video must also match with his, right? So, why is it this guys getting accused and not the other video? If his video came out first, then the newer video can be said to be copying his video. See what I'm getting at?
- jellicle 15y agoThe samples provided by companies who have a deal with Google - the recording industry - are the only "master" samples, not your uploaded stuff.
- ImprovedSilence 15y agoIf I had to hazard a guess, I would think that maybe the title of his video "talking head to camera" triggered the match, as there is a band called "the talking heads" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Heads] Now this raises the whole question of, is using a title that overlaps a band name a copyright infringement, a trademark infringement, or none of the above. While we all may agree the latter is the correct answer, YouTubes infringement algorithm probably says otherwise. And while we're on the subject, how interesting is it that you tube filters content based on title, and most likely not based on actual content.
- jerf 15y agoI do not think he was saying his video was entitled "Talking Head To Video". He was saying that that's what his video was, a description of its content, and that there wasn't anything else in the video other than that to be matched on.