Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music
New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."
Use birdsong as a soundtrack for a slideshow of self-shots taken by a monkey.
I'm not a lawyer, but....
While that might work, it's best to put a step
3a. Send a cease and desist notice to Rumblefish.
They'll ignore it and the courts will like you for doing it. It's only the cost of a certified letter, and you can add that to your lawsuit.
Also, if you want to be really annoying, claim copyright on the birdsong video and sue them for infringement, but that costs more and is out of the scope of small claims.
Actually, music itself would likely benefit greatly, just not the labels. As piracy has already demonstrated, free access to studio recordings has made the consumer perception of the value of live concerts greater. That is why ticket prices keep outpacing inflation.
Anecdotally, I've personally noted a pretty good number of once free venues switching to cover charges for better known (locally) acts which are remain unsigned by major labels. At least on my personal scale, this demonstrates positive force towards greater valuation of live music.
Lower prices and increased distribution of copyright material increases the overall quality of published works. A great example is the textbook versus subject oriented paperback categories. Textbooks exist in an overpriced, price fixed copyright vacuum. Their quality continues to remain virtually unchanged for 30+ years, making occasional incremental improvements and frequent vast drops in quality. On the other hand, books written for the layman about various sciences and arts continue to improve, drop in inflation adjusted price, and increase in availability. The very pressure of reduced prices and increased availability forces authors to review their peer / competition work and produce something better.
Seems to me that if they're claiming copyright on your video, and claim to have reviewed it, and they're receiving *your* ad revenue, then they're guilty of fraud.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
Best reply so far.
In legal cases, it never hurts having more ammo. If only to threathen them back if they try to play hardball with you.
Also, check in with the EFF and ACLU. They may want to support you and get a precedent set. They love clear cases like this one.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Except in the Wild West, the townsfolk could form up a posse and ride after those highway robbers and lynch them when they caught them.. Can't really do that so much now, unfortunately.
You may have heard of this group, "Anonymous"?
The governments of the world no longer have any claim on the concept of "justice", having ceded their moral authority to the highest bidders (usually corporations, who can outspend all but the wealthiest individuals). As a result, anarchy has become far more fair than the codified pro-corporate bias we can expect from the courts (regardless of country).
Next letter:
Please identify exactly what work I am infringing, as my attorney is having difficulty finding similarity between my soundtrack and any performance by artists represented by your organization.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Mr. Bakke, please explain how submitting the note "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content" is possibly acceptable when no one's reviewed it? This makes your company look awfully bad.
Alternatively, if someone did review it and sign off on that reply, then I hope this will reflect properly on that individual and their career at Rumblefish, as I'm pretty sure that this at least makes your company rather vulnerable from a publicity point of view, if not a legal one. If you're outsourcing this... then really, I hope your company can learn its lesson QUICKLY.
I did some negotiation with Rumblefish and Paul about 5 years ago when I ran a digital music company and I have to say that in the sea of bloodsucking fucktards that exist in music licensing Paul and Rumblefish were a breath of fresh air. They were the only company I dealt with that actually gave a flying fuck about their artists and were always very supportive of up-and-coming bands. Hell, their entire business model is around putting unknown artists on soundtracks, or in commercials, and henceforth are actually supporting the artists in a way that previously only the major labels would do.
All of that being said, it is obvious Rumblefish fucked up this time. Who knows exactly why, but they did. I think it is important that before crucifying them you understand that the service they provide is extremely valuable to artists not on a major label.... so at least give them that.
And before the venomous masses can call me a shill or whatever: we actually never did business together, nor did I remain contact with Paul, and so I have no reason to defend them other than what I stated above. People and companies fuck up some times. I have a feeling Rumblefish will learn from this mistake.
Ack! I wish this hadn't been marked as "Insightful," although I understand why ... there have been a lot of shitty plays in the copyright world, and there are some big organizations that are clearly threatened by the Internet and Internet culture. Righthaven and others have (rightfully) made a lot of people very skeptical.
But ... that's not what we do. :) Rumblefish works specifically for independent artists, not labels or rights organizations. The company has been around for over a decade, helping get independent music placed in films, advertisements, etc. It's still a very small company -- the founder and owner (also a musician) has posted here on the thread, and I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together (IANAL, but I am the Lead Architect -- look me up on the Rumblefish website).
It sucks when things don't go right, especially when it's such a hot button issue, and we're really interested in doing the right thing -- both for independent musicians and video creators. We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video. We're here in the thread to answer questions.
Believe me ... everyone wins when good music is inexpensive and readily available on YouTube.
Well I contacted Rumblefish about this, and this was their reply.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you go about copyrighting sounds from nature?
Do you have to pay royalty's to the original artist (the bird, or a babbling brook for instance)?
If so how do you know you have the right one (in the case of the bird) or molecules (in the case of water)?
If you are not paying the artist aren't you stealing from them?
Hi Richard,
You have a completely legitimate question here. How would we pay this bird...seeds perhaps?
This was an obvious mistake by the YouTube content ID system. When we became aware of the problem, we acted quickly to release the claim. We have contacted the video creator to explain and to apologize for the mistaken attribution made by the YouTube content ID system. The whole situation is a little embarrassing and we certainly did not mean for it to happen. We just want to fix it, so we thank you for helping bring the problem to our attention.
We are serious about paying artists (have been for 15 years), and about letting bird songs remain in the public domain. There are enough people robbing the natural environment; we want the birds to feel free to sing without copyright claims filling up their nests.
Sincerely,
-Ben
ben@rumblefish.com
No. This is NOT a complex issue. You claimed ownership of something that was not yours. Sure, the first time was an automated script. However, the SECOND time was apparently by the "copyright owners" and they verified ownership. This was a lie.
So, it boils down to this. Your company which supposedly represents artists is engaged in piracy. You are stealing IP from others by claiming ownership even when it is obvious to any sane human that it is not yours.
It is not complex. It is very simple. It is pre-school simple. You are thieves hiding behind a corporate mask.
In this case, Rumblefish thinks that it's God, so it claims the bird chirping as their property
I think a more reasonable explanation is that their algorithm mistakenly flagged the audio track as a match, then when the poster challenged this their system automatically sent a "please listen and compare" message to the copyright holder of whichever work it is. The copyright holder has not done their due diligence (at all, it seems) and has simply clicked the "yes it is ours" button.