My son's 5th grade class just graduated. I shot a crap vid on my crackberry. The wonderfully "detuned" kids played Pomp and Circumstance. Now I can't put the vid on Youtube. Gave me the ol' copyright owners 'challenge'

For crying out loud I'm not trying to rip anyone off, I just want to share some grad vids with loved ones.

FML Now what?


MadManDan

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

Who challenged? Incidental and in context use is covered. they were WRONG to enforce a take down. Another example of the low grade employees in sme of the doo dahs.....

besides, Elgar died in 1934.

Quote narcoman:

---

Who challenged? Incidental and in context use is covered. they were WRONG to enforce a take down. Another example of the low grade employees in sme of the doo dahs.....

besides, Elgar died in 1934.

---

You Tube:Your video may include the following copyrighted content:
Acknowledged claims

"5 Military Marches Op. 39 Pomp and Circumstance 5 Military Marches Op. 39 Pomp and Circumstance: No. 1 in D major", musical composition administered by:
rumblefish
One or more music publishing rights collecting societies

What does this mean?


Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video. Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. Learn more about copyright on YouTube.

This claim does not affect your account status.

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

"Protest " page they provide says:


grad 1 procession
I believe this copyright claim is not valid because:
I own the CD / DVD or bought the song online.

I'm not selling the video or making any money from it.

I gave credit in the video.

The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.

I have a license or written permission from the proper rights holder to use this material.

My use of the content meets the legal requirements for fair use or fair dealing under applicable copyright laws.

The content is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.

OR I am not a YouTube d##bag nerd!!!! OK I added that

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

Edited by MadManDan (22/06/12 02:27 AM)

Sounds like a lot of bollocks to me!

My daughter was a member of the under 13s UK National Children's Orchestra a few years back and they have loads of vids on YouTube, this being just one of them (when they toured China) - Holst, died same year as Elgar. They have vids of them playing more recent stuff - Shostakovich, John Williams, etc..

Some petty over-zealousness going on here in your case, I think. Unless the NCO is able to show they have permission to play/show their concerts or something.

YouTube's a bit odd - some people seem to be able to upload recent feature films in their entirety (not in sections) but you can't put up vids of your kid's school orchestra. Ermmmm?

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Should I try some of the protests? Seems pointless. I already clicked on the "but I'm not selling it" one, and surprise surprise they imm responded "Bull$**t. The answers still no"

Grrrrr.

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

Oh, and that bit about "it will still be available worldwide" is a loada crap too 'cuz the link does not work. Maybe I should put music credits in, and click on that "protest"

--------------------
Gear list: If you can't find it, grind it

Tell them it's public domain, cus it is.

also, it's in context; in other words you were videoing a march that happened to be playing a tune. Little bit like taking a video of someone crossing the road and a car has a hifi playing.

I can drop Rumblefish a line directly if you like; if they're claiming publishing on this public domain work then they need admonishing. I imagine they'll argue some military band arrangement but I don't see how they could tell that from a video as it could easily have been arranged by someone else.

Yup. A real pain

Quote MadManDan:

---

FML Now what?

---

Put it on Vimeo.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote narcoman:

---

I can drop Rumblefish a line directly if you like; if they're claiming publishing on this public domain work then they need admonishing.

---

Presumably this'll be some automated bot, whereby youtube run uploaded audio thru some shazam-like fingerprinting process, to see if there's a match. Is it possible it just happened to come up with Rumblefish, but could equally likely have been some other similar-sounding recording of P+C ?

Just curious how the process works (tho' of course there's probably more than one process).

It is quite amusing that this thread is running at the same time as one where the participants are trying to protect their material from being shared online.

Either copyright exists or it doesn't. You can't have a situation where your music gets to be protected, but playing someone else's is fair game. Internet distribution may make policing copyright almost impossible, but it doesn't make sharing someone else's music OK.

We as musicians can't have our cake and eat it.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Quote MadManDan:

---

" The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.

---

On a dispute the other week, I clicked the above option,
and they just came back with "yeah well we checked and you don't. Now f*ck off! lulz"

Considering that I DO own it, I was quite cross.
But their Kafkaesque ballyho allowed no rite of appeal.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

It is quite amusing that this thread is running at the same time as one where the participants are trying to protect their material from being shared online.

Either copyright exists or it doesn't. You can't have a situation where your music gets to be protected, but playing someone else's is fair game. Internet distribution may make policing copyright almost impossible, but it doesn't make sharing someone else's music OK.

We as musicians can't have our cake and eat it.

---

I don't know how simply i can put this : Its public domain!!! There is no infringement. Elgar died in 1934.

On a technical level there are the rights to each performer on the vid - but I doubt Rumblefish are chasing that since they only control publishing admin.

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

It is quite amusing that this thread is running at the same time as one where the participants are trying to protect their material from being shared online.

---

There's a big difference between having your own compositions/recordings (that you might be trying to sell to make a living) torrented, put on YouTube, file sharing networks, etc., whatever, and a little vid of your kids playing a piece of music that's in the public domain in some school orchestra at some little school concert of a Wednesday evening that will have 12 viewings by family members.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

March number 1. Published in 1901. LONG out of copyright.

Have you got a solution for this yet? If you want I've sorted it out for you.

Do we know if it was some "listen-bot" ... or was it the tags that tipped off Y/T's uncharacteristic new approach to copyright?

R.

--------------------
Ruaridh (Pronounced "Rory").
Cubase 5 AMD Athlon X2 64 5200+. 2 Gig RAM. 2x7,200 IDE drives. Windows XP home sp2. Terratec EWS 88 MT. Guitars, Marshall Amps, Beer.

title searches and then a tick box from a worker bee.

I'm getting a lot of auto reads - and similar copyright notices all of a sudden ..

Its work that's published - (so that's correct) - I have not titled the specific tracks / vids in the way they are published and there are no tagz .. clearly audio pattern recognition ..

and yes the result is ad's by the vids .. which I'm fine with .. as apart from anything else - it's (sort of generally round a bout) royalties for me ..

- not the same as OP of course .. just a point on their heightened tracking system ..
in general this is good news .. but there will be hicups ..

Quote blue manga:

---

.. clearly audio pattern recognition ..

---

I feel a scientific bot testing experiment coming on ...

Quote blue manga:

---

and yes the result is ad's by the vids ..

---

So users can still take liberties with copyright ... but it's OK because YT have found a way to make money out of it??

[edit] That's a dig at "them" rather than any SOS poster.[/edit]

--------------------
Ruaridh (Pronounced "Rory").
Cubase 5 AMD Athlon X2 64 5200+. 2 Gig RAM. 2x7,200 IDE drives. Windows XP home sp2. Terratec EWS 88 MT. Guitars, Marshall Amps, Beer.

Edited by Ruaridh (24/06/12 09:10 AM)

Quote Ruaridh:

---

So users can still take liberties with copyright ... but it's OK because YT have found a way to make money out of it??

[edit] That's a dig at "them" rather than any SOS poster.[/edit]

---

Correct. Youtube do not care about copyright.

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote Ruaridh:

---

So users can still take liberties with copyright ... but it's OK because YT have found a way to make money out of it??

[edit] That's a dig at "them" rather than any SOS poster.[/edit]

---

Correct. Youtube do not care about copyright.

---

In this case, that's not really how I see it ..

All it is, if a track is recognized the rights owners get a royalty (supported via advertising)
This is a good thing.

I don't upload other people's music, only my own .. as I prefer it to soundcloud .. - actually I don't techinically have the right to do that .. as the rights in the music are owned by the publisher .. but whatever ..

Anyway .. Boobtube have or have access to a database of rights owned material - when the pattern is recognized - bam - an ad goes up - and u get a royalty.

It's a good solution.. although the royalty will of course, be very low ..
Having said that a very small amount of publishers and playaz are increasing their youtube revenues significantly over the last year or two ..

I can see that a complication will come in though with Public Domain compositions..

So it seems in this case a company (was it Jingle Punks ?) have registered a *recording of a Public Domain track - which may look similar to another recording of the same public domain track ..

This will cause problems .. I can't see a way around it for the moment ..

Quote Ruaridh:

---

So users can still take liberties with copyright ... but it's OK because YT have found a way to make money out of it??

[edit] That's a dig at "them" rather than any SOS poster.[/edit]

---

- and also again - no,

because a publisher will have an agreement which will either be -

If u find our material - introduce the ad' supported royalty on the video
OR
Takedown / track replacement program

It's down to the rights owner, and in many cases the rights owners are electing to allow the material to remain up but introduce an ad' to support royalties.

I think that's all good.

Edited by blue manga (24/06/12 12:29 PM)

Quote blue manga:

---

- and also again - no,

because a publisher will have an agreement which will either be -

If u find our material - introduce the ad' supported royalty on the video
OR
Takedown / track replacement program

It's down to the rights owner, and in many cases the rights owners are electing to allow the material to remain up but introduce an ad' to support royalties.

I think that's all good.

---

Well, in my case, YouTube have made the deal with my aggregator (IODA), who seem to have gone for the first option (i.e. if you find our stuff, monetize it with ads).....
*I'm* the rights holder, but YouTube couldn't care less about that. They just think I'm a criminal peon.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

The original orchestra version may well be out of copyright but the arrangement for brass or community bad probably isn't. I have not been able to find any biographical info on the arranger and the front page of the brass band arrangement does not show a copyright date.

The idea that the bot can identify what piece of music a school marchig band is playing is kind of startling, so presumably it casts a broad net. That is, it could not tell if they were playing that arrangement or one you made yourself. Therefore if you do take care of all the copyright issues, it is still probably going to grumble. That is not good.

Quote damoore:

---

The original orchestra version may well be out of copyright but the arrangement for brass or community bad probably isn't. I have not been able to find any biographical info on the arranger and the front page of the brass band arrangement does not show a copyright date.

The idea that the bot can identify what piece of music a school marchig band is playing is kind of startling, so presumably it casts a broad net. That is, it could not tell if they were playing that arrangement or one you made yourself. Therefore if you do take care of all the copyright issues, it is still probably going to grumble. That is not good.

---

The arrangement would not be discernible easily - the only thing that is collectable from a performance is that which is registered. I've already contacted Rumblefish and they've agreed to remove the barring and recognise that they do not own the publishing rights. You can only collect the single performance fee for publishes paper works for an arrangement and not a broadcast fee via the PRS.

Weird.... rumblefish is a production music library here in the U.S. If Content ID is happening it's probably something mistaken, where their waveform is similar to yours... although I can't imagine a live kids band playing this piece would be anything at all like a production music library version of it.

Kerry

exactly.

So it sounds like you are saying they flagged it because it sounded like something they manage the rights to, such as, perhaps, a given recording of the piece. That seems to support what I was saying - that the software casts a broad net. In general in matching software you have a choice between broad (few false negatives) and accurate (few false positives) and you cannot do both at once.

So if I were to write and record "Pomp and Star Wars March" (the star wars motif over the Pomp and Circumstance chords) I wonder whether the software would flag it as one or the other, or both? What about some other slow processional brass band piece that was entirely original?

This could impact a composers ability to sell their original work - nobody is going to want to license music that keeps attracting false take down notices; and if used to generate royalty revenue, how do we know the right person is getting paid?

Note that I write software for my living so, by training, I am concerned about societal impacts of software. Ethical standards require you to think about these things. So it may be that my worries are overblown.

And a word of thanks to Narcoman too.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Quote damoore:

---

In general in matching software you have a choice between broad (few false negatives) and accurate (few false positives) and you cannot do both at once.

---

Interesting. Of course there's a trade off. But maybe you can make it good enough.

FWIW I'm not sure I recall Shazam ever making a wrong match. And it seems to match pretty much everything.

Are they concentrating on music copyright, or targeting people for image/film infringement too? you see all sorts of copyright stuff apparently freely used on Youtube, without permission, then randomly some people seem to be pulled up about it. Bizarre. Seems to bare no relation to how many hits the thing has had either.

--------------------

Remember it's not really Youtube who wants to target people at all .. it's all the rights holders ..

The music rights industry is pushing youtube to target unlicensed copy's ..

Because of the way music rights and royalties etc works .. - not sure how it works with image rights and video rights .. and the relevent income / lost income with movies etc ..

But if Youtube arn't hounding unlicensed video inclusion in the way that they are targeting unlicesned music copies - it's almost certainly because that particular industry is not chasing so much ..

What tends to happen with video - if a rights owner doesnt like it - they issue a take down (this happened in the end with all them Hitler vidz - like this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGS8re8cIVI )

Quote GlynB:

---

Are they concentrating on music copyright, or targeting people for image/film infringement too? you see all sorts of copyright stuff apparently freely used on Youtube, without permission, then randomly some people seem to be pulled up about it. Bizarre. Seems to bare no relation to how many hits the thing has had either.

---

Which sort of infringement?

A LOT of usage is covered by incidental or in context use...

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote GlynB:

---

Are they concentrating on music copyright, or targeting people for image/film infringement too? you see all sorts of copyright stuff apparently freely used on Youtube, without permission, then randomly some people seem to be pulled up about it. Bizarre. Seems to bare no relation to how many hits the thing has had either.

---

Which sort of infringement?

A LOT of usage is covered by incidental or in context use...

---

For example photo-montages used to illustrate music where each photo is a copyright image. I'm sure the uploaders haven't requested permission for each image (as they SHOULD do).

Hmmm...If you take a copyrighted photo, manipulate it sufficiently and use it in another 'artwork' to the extent that it changes very significantly, does the owner still have a claim? For example, did Andy Warhol pay royalties to the Campbell's soup label people, or the photographer who took the Marilyn pic, etc?

There's also the issue that identifying images might need someone to actually sit and watch the video, whereas a piece of software could pick up on a music clip without human intervention maybe?

--------------------