Slashdot Mirror
YouTuber Says He Was Accused of Infringing His Own Song (cnet.com)
CNET reported this week that a musician, who plays guitar and has lots of viewers on YouTube, received an unusual email from the company alleging that he had copied a tune he wrote himself two years ago. From the report: But last month, Paul Davids says he got a rather unusual email from YouTube. The Content ID system had flagged a tune he wrote himself, two years ago, for infringing on someone's else's newer video. Someone who, it seems, stole his backing track to create a new track of his own. [...] "Someone took my track, made their own track, uploaded it to Spotify, YouTube, whatever, and I get a copyright infringement notice? Wait, what?" said Davids. The story has a happy ending -- Davids used YouTube's appeals system to quickly work things out, and let the other artist keep on using his tune. (Davids tracked him down on Facebook Messenger, and the guy apparently admitted he'd downloaded 'a couple of guitar licks' on YouTube.) But it's weird to think YouTube would flag an old video for infringing on a new one, no?
ex lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival. Was sued in the '80s by his own former record company for releasing a single, "The Old Man Down the Road", that allegedly sounded too much like "Run Through the Jungle", a CCR song to which CCR's record label held the rights. Ultimately the label's claim of infringement was rejected, but not without substantial sums spent on litigation. (The subsequent litigation over attorney's fees went all the way to SCOTUS.)
So yeah, being accused of plagiarizing yourself is nothing new.
So stop using their site.
It is their site you know. Not yours.
All this righteous indignation over someone not letting you use their site the way you want.
If you don't like the way they use your content, stop giving it to them.
This happens more frequently than you think.
I write and make music with a modest following, and have had youtube take down several of my songs due to the auto-trawling bots that run around claiming everything is theirs and auto-issuing DMCA takedowns via youtube.
This problem happens to my band on the regular. While promoting our new record, we were hit with multiple copyright infringements across multiple platforms. Interestingly, the party claiming the infringement violations had no agreement with us and was merely associated with a physical record distributor that had no real claim to the copyright of the music. It has become a complete handicap for our promotion efforts and stymied metrics that are used promoters at music festivals who determine our potential draw and therefore billing. Overall, in 12+ years of making music with this group, the digital landscape has become increasingly hostile and one sided to independent content creators, which is antithesis to the initial promise of liberation online.
I have a couple of videos that use classical music that falls under Creative Common licenses. Every week I get a warning from Youtube saying that some company is claiming that I infringe on their copyright. I contest and always win... Then repeat again the following week, sometime from the same 'company' for the same song! I've so far had about 40 different companies claim copyright on songs that are not theirs. It's beyond frustrating. Youtube's process is clearly broken.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
NASA's live stream of the landing of the Curiosity rover in 2012 was interrupted as well. A news station integrated parts of the stream into a report. Since the station was a media partner of YouTube, the service assumed that the news report was the original and automatically interrupted NASAs live stream during the landing.
...that Google has proven its AI/algorithms just don't work.
Not really. It did it's job, it matched the song. The algo has no way to know, and it's not designed to know, which version came first (music, after all, does predate Youtube by a little bit so video A is older than Video B doesn't really work). You could say it's an overall problem with the whole system, but nothing is going to be perfect. How many correct actions are taken for every one of these incorrect ones? I'd bet it's a pretty large ratio.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
I had my account terminated a couple of weeks ago. I had the 48 hours to appeal, however I didn't have any idea what I was appealing. Because whatever I did (or did not do) was considered 'grievous' no warning, just termination. They don't have to tell you what terns of service violations you may or may not have committed. Just a link to a page with all of the possible things you may or may not have done wrong. My account was pretty small, some songs I've written over the years, some videos of 'how-to' for protools and a few vids that I did voiceovers for. I wrote an 'appeal' that was pretty generic, that basically said, "hey, could you tell me what I did wrong. I'll fix it and promise to not do it again." Their reply, 48 hours later, "your terminated." I didn't really care about the content, the worst part is that I no longer have a youtube account and lost my history and all the stuff I used to like to watch. Now if I go to youtube, it's all cat videos, makeup tips and the top viral crap I don't care about. Yea, youtube needs to get their act together on this stuff, at least tell you what you did so you can appeal it properly. sucks.
Strange, I beat a dozen or so claims accusing me of using copyrighted material in my videos when the pieces were actually in the public domain. But I was careful to make sure that the specific performances I used were also in the public domain.
Specifically, I used several pieces of classical music to accentuate some Let's Play game videos (William Tell Overture, Flight of the Bumble Bee, etc.), but I made sure to use performances by the US Marine Corps Band, the US Army Band, etc. When my videos got flagged by "AdShare MG for a Third Party" and "rumblefish", for example, I simply disputed their claim, selected "The content is in the public domain" from the list of options, and provided the following explanation:
The William Tell Overture was composed by Gioachino Rossini and premiered in 1829. Rossini died November 13, 1868. Therefore, this work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less. Additionally, this particular recording was performed by "The President's Own" United States Marine Band. According to 17 U.S.C. 105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government, which is defined in 17 U.S.C. 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." Therefore, this particular recording is also in the public domain. Therefore, rumblefish and AdShare MG for a Third Party have NO copyright claim to any music contained in this video.
I never lost a claim.
By that logic, there are no public fora anywhere on the internet
Largely correct.
Your constitution applies only to the actions of the government, not private individuals.
situations where private property is also a publicly accessible areas for the public to get together doesn't get treated the same way that a private office building would where there's only specifically authorized people allowed to come and go.
You are incorrect.
Please provide citations to support your position. Google has any number of links to articles, summaries and commentary that all say the same thing - the constitutional protection for speech applies to the government, not private individuals.
Here's one.
You may also want to take a look at the Wiki article on forums.
You may be confusing a state granting additional rights or protection of free speech with those protected by the constitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins. I would strongly recommend reading the summary at the bottom of the article which includes reactions by other states, test cases and judicial commentary.
I'm just curious, was the money from Ajit Pai worth losing what little self-respect you might have had?
You may have a touch of the Dunning-Kruger going on. Might want to reign in the insults while you get that sorted.