“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”
https://twitter.com/ThatMumboJumbo/status/1130009515766755328
304 comments
False claim of copyright is a criminal offense in the US. While prosecutions are extremely rare, they have happened. It is worth getting a lawyer to help you file a formal complaint with the US Department of Justice. While the odds of criminal prosecution are low, there's a good chance paperwork from a US Attorney's office asking some questions will be sent to the offender. That will reach their legal people, and something useful will probably happen.
See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
See Lentz vs. Universal Music.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy.
I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.
I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.
I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system. If I was Google I'd have my lawyers aggressively pursue the legal feasibility of banning companies from submitting complaints if they abuse the complaint system (if not then ban the channels of companies who have their lawyers abuse the system) and I'd have my developers build fair-use detection into content-id -- if the clip is less than 30 seconds or 10% of the work (or whatever threshold makes sense legally), then it's fair use, period, can't submit a claim on that.
It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.
It's really about time these companies felt some chilling effects.
He's had a response from Head of gaming at YT: https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1130128085347516417
The only way to fix this is to let you sue for damages + lawyer fees.
As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).
As it is right now, you can earn lots of money by DMCA:ing popular creators, monetize on their content for a while (or a long time if they don't have a friend at Google who can escalate the issue).
Is there any context on this? I've never heard of this guy so I have no idea if his complaint is relevant or not. The fact that he tweeted this out on Sunday and then just a few hours later tweeted "Find it a little bit strange that @TeamYouTube have totally ignored this tweet" makes me suspicious.
I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this.
Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153
I've heard of people getting claims from random companies like a South American tv network but these look like they are coming from Warner Chappel. I know youtube's content id system is broken but there isn't enough detail here to tell if this is a good example of this.
Edited to add: He did a video on it. It looks like he is using a song with permission but the publishing company filed a claim anyway: https://youtu.be/LZplh8rd-I4?t=153
This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k
FYI - this looks like it may be a valid claim before you all go grab your pitchforks and torches.
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Hollywood started on the west coast because it was reasonably out of reach from the copyright and patent claims of the east coast. That's what allowed to a creative industry to start and strive.
Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches.
The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)"
Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.
Don't be surprised if the next cultural hub happens somewhere far from US IP's clutches.
The guy from this tweet concludes "Not only should you ensure you have complete rights to the music you are using for your videos, but also ensure that you ask about any samples that have been used. Otherwise you could end up in this situation (And you wouldn't want that)"
Creators simply do not have time for this shit. Hell, it requires a specialized lawyer team. Either have a simple process for them to handle that or you will see them fleeing from US-hosted servers.
How is it just as spam / disruptive behavior type protection do they not have a catch for if 1800+ claims ... maybe have a human with a brain take a look at what is up?
Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.
Granted it is YouTube ... so probabbly not.
How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!
Why not just have a captcha for copyright claims:
"Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming"
If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.
"Click the videos that also infringe on the copyright you are claiming"
If they choose the wrong ones then they don't get through.
Very sad that "please retweet" is their best recourse.
It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these monetization attacks and maximize compensation.
Nothing can possibly go wrong with Article 17.
Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way.
Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.
Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.
When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.
How is this still possible in 2019? These are well-known tactics and yet Youtube still allows this?
I only use YouTube occasionally but if I do, it's mostly for geek stuff by exactly these kinds of individuals. Are there any signs that another platform will take YouTube's place in that regard during the next couple years? I mean sites like Vimeo and daily motion have been around since forever but never managed to weaken the critical mass that YouTube had due to it's head start. Then there's the occasional startup that promises to fill exactly that gap, announced with fanfares and everything, but nobody came up with a killer feature yet. But that's just the gist of how I feel about that situation from when topics like that pop up every now and then.
Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?
Basically, my tldr question would be: How much worse do things have to get on YouTube for individual creators to leave, and are there any hints yet on what the winning replacement platform will be?
And what if this happened to someone who is not famous with a large following?
You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of fairness will never hurt it in any way.
Seems like nothing that 1800 small claims suits wont fix ... start with one to make sure it will go through, then file the rest
Why not have a separate company you own that copyright claims your own videos first?
In fairness, the franchise or manager (not McDonalds) was at fault there.
They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation.
The burn led to hospitalization.
They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonalds temperature, and had they been repeatedly cited by inspectors because it was a safety violation.
The burn led to hospitalization.
Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?
I know this is a negative comment, but this whole thing smacks of a weird form of entitlement. Here's this dude making money by putting videos on the internet, and when his videos go away, he's outraged. But if you look at it another way, his living is based on a platform which provides him no guarantee of service, no support, and is also free of charge. His whole job is to generate attention for a platform that mines that attention for ad dollars, of which he gets a few pennies for his trouble. Even if this is his dream job, the risk he's taking is high.
Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.
Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.
If the problem is that there are “too many” things for companies to review manually, too bad! If a company is perfectly fine raking in money from massive sales at a global scale, they should be willing to spend a proportional amount of money to do business at that scale. Let them hire their own people to review content in depth. Let them hire their own goons to send legal notices. (We certainly need more jobs for people.)