Nelly Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Got an email just now Dear supernelly, Your video, cp1, may have content that is owned or licensed by WMG. No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information. Sincerely, - The YouTube Team So if I have to take no action WTF is that all about then? I have posted a holiday video and banged 'I Believe In A Thing Called Love' by The Darkness on top of it. its not like I'm useing to make money or advertise anything. Why have they even bothered me about it Heres the video if you care http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xQG6s8awKlc edit they have deleted the sound track the f*ckin kok ends! Well thats getting reposted its shit without the sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I heard they were doing this. It seems silly, defeating the object of YouTube. I often go to YT to hear a song if recommended or remembered; and the fact that anyone can make a video (much better with music) and bung it up there for fun, not profit, is part of the magic of the internet. What this freedom and irreverence gives us is fantastic. Surely, YouTube videos are a form of promotion for these acts and their labels. It seems self-defeating. If they keep it up, another YouTube will emerge and so it will go on... Record companies need to go with the flow and work with YouTubers and potential customers of their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spark Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I tried to put up the BBC coverage of the Beijing Olympic closing ceremony for a non-UK friend to access. As soon as it was uploaded I got the same sort of message as you got saying I was breaching copyrite. I think this is just a standard message and they will allow you 1 or 2 warnings before banning you from Youtube. Nothing to worry about unless you want to do the same thing again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leveller Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well thats getting reposted its shit without the sound Apart from some dodgy dancing, I like it, it's 'real' even if a bit too American. I would hate the vid with the song you mentioned though ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Professor Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom..._take_down.html Previously, when a music label or other rights owner issued a copyright claim to block audio, the video was automatically taken down. Uploaders had two choices: dispute the claim or use our AudioSwap tool to replace the track with one from our library of pre-cleared music. Now we’ve added an additional choice. Instead of automatically removing the video from YouTube, users can choose to leave the video muted and live on the site, and many of them are taking that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Professor Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 its not like I'm useing to make money or advertise anything. You're not, but Youtube is getting money from advertising, and Warner Music Group don't like the fact that they are using videos with their music to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelly Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 You're not, but Youtube is getting money from advertising, and Warner Music Group don't like the fact that they are using videos with their music to do so. Fair enough but considering music is on its ****, youd think it might help And Any song you can think of is on youtube. Stuff thats for sale right now. This video has been on there ages too, and I have other stuff there that hasnt had a mention. weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I have posted a holiday video and banged 'I Believe In A Thing Called Love' by The Darkness on top of it.its not like I'm useing to make money or advertise anything. Copyright law as it affects the reproduction of archival records (printed and audio-visual) is one of two of my principal research areas, so please forgive me if I can't make this as brief as it should be. If you want the full chapter and verse on the facts and the debates, then Pascal Kamina's book Film Copyright in the European Union and Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture - Free Society (you'll unearth both through Amazon without too much trouble)* will, between them, provide it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether your re-use of the recording is for profit or not: unless it qualifies as 'fair dealing, for the purpose of criticism and review' (to quote the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act as amended to incorporate the 2001 EU Copyright Directive), you need the permission of the copyright owner. If YouTube receives an objection from someone claiming to be the copyright owner, their response is normally to just take the disputed video down without further investigation. Basically, they can't be bothered to get involved in disputes between two third parties, and so (from their point of view) they play safe. If I were you, unless you're willing to license the recording from the record company, I'd pull that video down if YT haven't done already. It's very rare for the music or film industry to go the whole hog and sue private individuals, especially if the act restricted by copyright is not for profit (because the damages they'd get would be negligible), but you could well find yourself on the receiving end of nasty solicitors' letters. Corporate rights' owners are getting tough in these troubled times. Getty Images recently sent out invoices for commercial use to various individuals and non-profit organisations who'd copied and pasted photos from Getty's websites to their own without buying licences. This led to a lot of 'we didn't know!' mieowing and hissing, and Getty subsequently backed down in a lot of cases. But if it had gone to court, Getty would almost certainly have got their pound of flesh. * Kamina is in legalese, and badly translated from the French to boot. It gives you the facts, but is very hard going. Lessig is a far better writer, and relates the legal issues to the cultural ones in a lively and engaging way. In short, Kamina is not for the faint-hearted, but Lessig is an interesting and thought-provoking read, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelly Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 thanks for that mate. So my other videos- it just means no one has said anything yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 If your other videos incorporate material, the copyright to which is owned by a third party, then either they haven't found it and complained to YT, or they have found it and don't mind you using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelly Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 If your other videos incorporate material, the copyright to which is owned by a third party, then either they haven't found it and complained to YT, or they have found it and don't mind you using it. I love you Any idea in (your prof opinion) wheather they (music companies) bother in general about my type of video ie just making a holls video a bit funkyer. I can see their point up to a degree, but, as far as I see it I am promoteing them rather than the other way around this one has had 30 000 views as far as Im concerned Im helping them http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=laxpwxGfS9E&...re=channel_page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Any idea in (your prof opinion) wheather they (music companies) bother in general about my type of video ie just making a holls video a bit funkyer. Some do and some don't (Lessig's book contains a detailed debate on the re-use of music recordings). As a general rule, you're only likely to get yourself into serious trouble if they object to the context of the re-use. There was a famous case that dragged on for ages when Édith Piaf's Non, je ne regrette rien was used in a campaign video by Eugene Terreblanche's lot in South Africa the late '90s (the implication being that doing nasty things to the kaffirs was specifically what he didn't regret). Both the songwriter's estate and the record company that owned the rights to the recording of Piaf's performance sued, and the case hinged on whether or not the recording had lapsed into the public domain in South Africa. It's very unusual for private individuals to be sued for damages, though the Getty Images tactic of quite simply issuing a retrospective invoice for commercial licensing is a new one which hasn't been tested in court yet (to my knowledge). You can't be pursued for a debt you didn't knowingly incur, but Getty (or A.N. Other) might argue that by reusing and publishing their IP, you knowingly incurred the liability. I can see their point up to a degree, but, as far as I see it I am promoteing them rather than the other way around this one has had 30 000 views as far as Im concerned Im helping them They might argue that their IP (i.e. the music you used) was the reason you got 30,000 hits rather than 30, and therefore that you helped yourself to their help, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelly Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Some do and some don't (Lessig's book contains a detailed debate on the re-use of music recordings). As a general rule, you're only likely to get yourself into serious trouble if they object to the context of the re-use. There was a famous case that dragged on for ages when Édith Piaf's Non, je ne regrette rien was used in a campaign video by Eugene Terreblanche's lot in South Africa the late '90s (the implication being that doing nasty things to the kaffirs was specifically what he didn't regret). Both the songwriter's estate and the record company that owned the rights to the recording of Piaf's performance sued, and the case hinged on whether or not the recording had lapsed into the public domain in South Africa. It's very unusual for private individuals to be sued for damages, though the Getty Images tactic of quite simply issuing a retrospective invoice for commercial licensing is a new one which hasn't been tested in court yet (to my knowledge). You can't be pursued for a debt you didn't knowingly incur, but Getty (or A.N. Other) might argue that by reusing and publishing their IP, you knowingly incurred the liability.They might argue that their IP (i.e. the music you used) was the reason you got 30,000 hits rather than 30, and therefore that you helped yourself to their help, so to speak. I really didnt expect to get expert advice here, its brilliant thanks. I only expected a few half @rsed opinions really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girish23 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 me too received same notice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If your other videos incorporate material, the copyright to which is owned by a third party, then either they haven't found it and complained to YT, or they have found it and don't mind you using it. Out of interest, how much does an original work need to be modified before it becomes your own? How many additional.. "ohh, ahh, baby"'s do I need to quietly add of my own? I only ask because music companies always used to be perfectly happy to rip off other artists by covering/stealing their songs for an easy buck. It appears when home users do the same the music industry want it both ways.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Out of interest, how much does an original work need to be modified before it becomes your own? I believe it's a matter of judgment. Samplers get into all sorts of trouble. The Rolling Stones receive all revenues from Bittersweet Symphony because it ripped off one of their string sections. Here's the source of one of the great missed lawsuits (I've only given a simple link, so they can't sue me!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sJA_VF5c7U ps. One other thing - the law doesn't concern itself with trifles, so I wouldn't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Out of interest, how much does an original work need to be modified before it becomes your own? How many additional.. "ohh, ahh, baby"'s do I need to quietly add of my own? I only ask because music companies always used to be perfectly happy to rip off other artists by covering/stealing their songs for an easy buck. It appears when home users do the same the music industry want it both ways.... If it contains someone else's copyright material then they have a right to royalties. The fair use exception applies if you're writing about their work, rather than if you're incorporating it in yours. Whether they exercise that right or not is another matter, but it's not something I'd want to leave to chance. On the other hand, you can do some wonderful things that look a lot like someone else's work. The clip (if it appears correctly) is very much a case of don't do this at home unless you have a £1000/hour lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If it contains someone else's copyright material then they have a right to royalties. Great clip.. if what you say above is true though (and I don't doubt it), then how can song writers copy lyrics almost verbatim with only odd word changes without falling foul of copyright claims? And also, if you take a sample and change the pitch by a fraction, is that then still someone else's copyright material or have I created an original work? It seems to boil down to who can afford the best lawyer (as you sort of imply). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 There was a big copyright case a little while back in which the authorship of Procul Harem's A Whiter Shade of Pale was in dispute. One member of the group claimed that he never got the credit - or royalties - that he should have done. An added complication (to put it mildly) was that the original tune from which that piece was adapted was written by one J.S. Bach (1685-1750), and not even the authors of the EU Copyright Directive are trying to assert that his stuff is still in copyright! To be honest I can't remember what the eventual outcome was, but recall that it was ambiguous - no useful precedent to define the extent to which an adaptation constitutes new intellectual property emerged. Sooner or later this is going to come up in respect of the restoration of films, video and audio recordings too. To what extent (if at all) does remedial clean-up work embody the creation of a new work of IP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Copyright law as it affects the reproduction of archival records (printed and audio-visual) is one of two of my principal research areas, so please forgive me if I can't make this as brief as it should be. If you want the full chapter and verse on the facts and the debates, then Pascal Kamina's book Film Copyright in the European Union and Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture - Free Society (you'll unearth both through Amazon without too much trouble)* will, between them, provide it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether your re-use of the recording is for profit or not: unless it qualifies as 'fair dealing, for the purpose of criticism and review' (to quote the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act as amended to incorporate the 2001 EU Copyright Directive), you need the permission of the copyright owner. If YouTube receives an objection from someone claiming to be the copyright owner, their response is normally to just take the disputed video down without further investigation. Basically, they can't be bothered to get involved in disputes between two third parties, and so (from their point of view) they play safe. If I were you, unless you're willing to license the recording from the record company, I'd pull that video down if YT haven't done already. It's very rare for the music or film industry to go the whole hog and sue private individuals, especially if the act restricted by copyright is not for profit (because the damages they'd get would be negligible), but you could well find yourself on the receiving end of nasty solicitors' letters. Corporate rights' owners are getting tough in these troubled times. Getty Images recently sent out invoices for commercial use to various individuals and non-profit organisations who'd copied and pasted photos from Getty's websites to their own without buying licences. This led to a lot of 'we didn't know!' mieowing and hissing, and Getty subsequently backed down in a lot of cases. But if it had gone to court, Getty would almost certainly have got their pound of flesh. * Kamina is in legalese, and badly translated from the French to boot. It gives you the facts, but is very hard going. Lessig is a far better writer, and relates the legal issues to the cultural ones in a lively and engaging way. In short, Kamina is not for the faint-hearted, but Lessig is an interesting and thought-provoking read, IMHO. This is very interesting. Thank you. I have been watching a lot of old British films from the 30s/40s/50s on Youtube and it struck me that surely a lot of these must still be in copyright, yet they don't seem to get taken down. Yet there are relatively few American films of the same era on there, and quite a lot say 'removed for copyright reasons'. I'm guessing this is because the big American studios can afford people to check youtube and object, but long defunct studios in the UK like 'Gainsborough Pictures' just don't have anyone to object for them. I do feel a bit bad about depriving people of their royalties but a lot of the films don't even seem to be available on DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I've occasionally bought stuff that I've seen / heard on YouTube. That copyright infringement got you a sale that you never would've had otherwise guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappycocco Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Ahhh nice holiday. I just watched it, the soundtrack is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I do feel a bit bad about depriving people of their royalties but a lot of the films don't even seem to be available on DVD. In cases like that, you're not depriving anyone of royalties as such if no one is trying to actually make money out of a property. I recently watched all of the classic 1975 BBC TV series The Changes on YouTube. It's never been released commercially in any format, yet I would like to see it again before I die (which I probably won't if I wait for the BBC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pl1 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I wonder what software they use to do this? I notice their beta on-the-fly CC is now live and is the way forward for this type of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 This is very interesting. Thank you. I have been watching a lot of old British films from the 30s/40s/50s on Youtube and it struck me that surely a lot of these must still be in copyright, yet they don't seem to get taken down. Yet there are relatively few American films of the same era on there, and quite a lot say 'removed for copyright reasons'. I'm guessing this is because the big American studios can afford people to check youtube and object, but long defunct studios in the UK like 'Gainsborough Pictures' just don't have anyone to object for them. I do feel a bit bad about depriving people of their royalties but a lot of the films don't even seem to be available on DVD. Gainsborough was subsumed by the Rank Organisation in 1947, most of whose back catalogue passed through several sets of hands in the intervening decades and is now owned by the Canal Plus group. Copyright in films lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which it was first shown publicly, or the last of these four people kicks the bucket: director, scriptwriter, cinematographer or composer of music specially written for the film. This does mean that it can last for a ridiculously long time. If you'd like a Gainsborough example, let's take this one: one of the four scriptwriters who worked on it was at the very start of his career, and did not keel over until 1986. This means that the film will remain in copyright until 11.59pm on 31 December 2056, and Canal Plus (or whoever the sell or sub-license the rights to between now and then) has the exclusive right to exploit it commercially until then. I wouldn't lose any sleep over depriving anyone of the royalties - every last individual whose money and/or labour contributed to the making of that film is now dead. What makes the situation even more sick is that the vast majority of British feature films from the period you're interested in only survive because the British Film Institute has preserved (and in some cases and at massive expense, restored) them. That's right - the taxpayer is shelling out to look after this stuff, much of which they cannot legally view without the permission of an organisation or individual that nothing to do with its initial production or survival. Lawrence Lessig has argued in multiple books and articles that the ever extending copyright terms (most infamously the so-called 'Mickey Mouse Act' in the US, as it extended the trademark on Mickey's image shortly before it would have lapsed into the public domain) is a significant threat to civil liberties. Personally I think he goes too far in places, but he certainly has a point. Edit: the one significant exception to the above is Crown copyright, which is 50 years from creation of the IP, unless the first owner of copyright was not the Crown; i.e. it was someone else who then passed the ownership of that work to the Crown, in which case the normal 70-year rule applies. But the crucial point for film buffs is that the WWII stiff-upper-lip documentaries of Humphrey Jennings and those shorts about how to make a compost heap and/or spot German invaders in disguise that our grandparents were frogmarched into the church hall and forced to watch are now in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.