someone flagged on of my videos claiming they owned the copyright to
the song i used, which is by tom waits. i disputed the claim and my
video was put back up. now this "third party" has claimed copyright
infingement again and my video has been removed again. only thing is
now theres no more "dispute claim" option and my only options are to
replace the song (the video is useless without the song), muting the
song, or removing the video altogether. this person has flagged other
waits videos as well, including the official video for the song "goin'
out west" (which is the song i used).
i need to find out if the person claiming copyright infringement is
actually the owner of the song or just some prick who likes to flag
videos. if it's the ladder, my video shouldn't be removed and neither
should any of the others that were flagged.
is there anything i can do? this just seems unfair.
YouTube does check on who's actually submitting the copyright notice.
It will be somebody acting on behalf of the artist or the record
label. You disputed the claim, but the third party will have
successfully argued that you did indeed infringe their copyright.
I know this is an older thread and i am just asking this out of
curiosity. I thought after you file a counter notice, the guy who made
the original DMCA complaint had 10 days to tell youtube that they were
seeking legal action and had hired an attorney or the video goes back
up? Or did I misunderstand the "What happens now" section of the page
in youtube's help section on filing a counter complaint?
> YouTube does check on who's actually submitting the copyright notice.
> It will be somebody acting on behalf of the artist or the record
> label. You disputed the claim, but the third party will have
> successfully argued that you did indeed infringe their copyright.
musicalmike235, that normally happens, but it appears that recently at
least some other mechanism has come into play, judging by what some
people have said on these forums.
GibsonAndVega, they do; I've seen enough people attempt to submit
copyright notices only to a receive a notification that they do not
have the authority to submit a claim. How thorough these checks are, I
can't say for certain, and errors may occur (hence the need for a
counter notification procedure), but based on experience, I have to
say that at least some checking does take place.
Stockmusic is willing to confirm my license but i need a contact, an
email.
To give some detail, the copyright owner (Rumblefish) has come
through and disputed my claim in that I have received a "dispute
unsuccessful" notification with no recourse.
I own a license and you should not make me feel like a criminal. I
want an answer and I want someone to contact about this. All I got
was the email saying the video could stay but the copyright owner gets
to put up an ad. That's wrong. And, I did everything right.
> musicalmike235, that normally happens, but it appears that recently at
> least some other mechanism has come into play, judging by what some
> people have said on these forums.
> GibsonAndVega, they do; I've seen enough people attempt to submit
> copyright notices only to a receive a notification that they do not
> have the authority to submit a claim. How thorough these checks are, I
> can't say for certain, and errors may occur (hence the need for a
> counter notification procedure), but based on experience, I have to
> say that at least some checking does take place.
> Stockmusic is willing to confirm my license but i need a contact, an
> email.
> To give some detail, the copyright owner (Rumblefish) has come
> through and disputed my claim in that I have received a "dispute
> unsuccessful" notification with no recourse.
> I own a license and you should not make me feel like a criminal. I
> want an answer and I want someone to contact about this. All I got
> was the email saying the video could stay but the copyright owner gets
> to put up an ad. That's wrong. And, I did everything right.
> On Jan 20, 1:23 pm, rewboss wrote:
> > musicalmike235, that normally happens, but it appears that recently at
> > least some other mechanism has come into play, judging by what some
> > people have said on these forums.
> > GibsonAndVega, they do; I've seen enough people attempt to submit
> > copyright notices only to a receive a notification that they do not
> > have the authority to submit a claim. How thorough these checks are, I
> > can't say for certain, and errors may occur (hence the need for a
> > counter notification procedure), but based on experience, I have to
> > say that at least some checking does take place.
> The next step would be to have your attorney and/or Stockmusic contact
> Rumblefish. This is not an issue with YouTube.
In a case like this, one would hope that the Licensing agency would
attempt to work it out. Their veracity as suppliers of Stock music is
certainly being challenged, if it can't be resolved without attorneys.
First.. This IS a YouTube problem. They are allowing people to come
in and effectively say that I'm stealing.
Next, this should absolutely not involve attorneys. Are you joking? I
guess you have money laying around.
There needs to be a better YouTube dispute process that includes
respecting the video producer's rights.
This makes me seriously consider taking video elsewhere. I'm not a big
fish in the sea in YouTube's world.. but I'm just the kind of video
producer that YouTube should want - creating original content with no
licensing issues.
YouTube you've hung me out to dry.
I'd really like to hear from a YouTube representative on this thread.
> On Jan 29, 4:21 pm, anmoose wrote:> The next step would be to have your attorney and/or Stockmusic contact
> > Rumblefish. This is not an issue with YouTube.
> In a case like this, one would hope that the Licensing agency would
> attempt to work it out. Their veracity as suppliers of Stock music is
> certainly being challenged, if it can't be resolved without attorneys.
No, actually, it's not a YouTube problem. Rumblefish have made a legal
statement to the effect that you used their music without their
permission. From that point on, YouTube cannot take sides (that would
be contempt of court), but acts only as an intermediary.
Since Stockmusic.net guarantees to protect you against this sort of
claim, their legal team needs to get in touch with YouTube and
Rumblefish's legal teams, probably in writing. Contact details for
YouTube are here:
At least, those are the business contact details, so I can only assume
this is the right way to go about it. If Rumblefish have filed a
malicious complaint, they could be guilty of perjury; if
Stockmusic.net have been careless with their licencing, you should
probably think about suing them -- their music isn't exactly cheap.
rewboss wrote:
> If Rumblefish have filed a
> malicious complaint, they could be guilty of perjury; if
> Stockmusic.net have been careless with their licencing, you should
> probably think about suing them -- their music isn't exactly cheap.
I hope that eastvillagepodcasts will keep us informed as to how his
situation is worked out. Those of us who use royalty free music need
to know if there are organizations selling licenses that they do not
own.
I sent an email to the copyright owner, in this case Rumblefish. At
first they said that this was part of their new deal with YouTube and
that my video had been ID'd by YouTube's fingerprinting technology.
I said tha this makes me look like I'm a criminal and I'm not. Also, I
informed them that I bought a license from StockMusic.net (a reseller
of Rumblefish music) and nowhere does it say that they can make
additional money off of my video through advertising.
Rumblefish apparently agreed and took off the designation - and they
and YouTube sent me separate confirmation emails about the dispute
removal. Rumblefish said they're still grappling with the process - I
totally understand. But, I still think YouTube needs to figure out a
better way and partner with copyright owners so people like me aren't
erroneously ID'd and forced to go through a series of hoops.
As it stands, Rumblefish and Stockmusic.net were responsive to my
needs and it's appreciated. No lawyers were needed or wanted.
> First.. This IS a YouTube problem. They are allowing people to come
> in and effectively say that I'm stealing.
> Next, this should absolutely not involve attorneys. Are you joking? I
> guess you have money laying around.
> There needs to be a better YouTubedisputeprocess that includes
> respecting the video producer's rights.
> This makes me seriously consider taking video elsewhere. I'm not a big
> fish in the sea in YouTube's world.. but I'm just the kind of video
> producer that YouTube should want - creating original content with no
> licensing issues.
> YouTube you've hung me out to dry.
> I'd really like to hear from a YouTube representative on this thread.
> On Jan 29, 4:42 pm, VideoDave2 wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 4:21 pm, anmoose wrote:> The next step would be to have your attorney and/or Stockmusic contact
> > > Rumblefish. This is not an issue with YouTube.
> > In a case like this, one would hope that the Licensing agency would
> > attempt to work it out. Their veracity as suppliers of Stock music is
> > certainly being challenged, if it can't be resolved without attorneys.
It would be lovely -- in fact, wonderful -- if somebody could design a
totally foolproof system. Unfortunately, designing foolproof systems
is harder than you think. There is actually no way for an automatic ID
system to detect whether or not the uploader has legally bought the
music. How could it?
Really, the automatic ID system is great for copyright owners who know
they are never going to authorize their music on YouTube ever... not
so great if they occasionally do give permission, and totally useless
for copyright owners who regularly give permission, as it catches out
people like you.
I think the worst case we had was an official contest to make a
trailer for the movie "W". There was a video with Oliver Stone in it,
asking for submissions -- difficult to imagine anything more official.
They even made some video clips available for people to mash up their
entries using real footage from the movie. Cool stuff, right?
Unfortunately, apparently unknown to the organisers of the contest,
that footage had been registered with the automatic content ID system,
and chaos ensued. How was the ID system to know?
The other problem is that the way the law actually works, it does sort
of treat people as guilty until proven innocent. If YouTube receives a
complaint from the copyright owner, YouTube must, by law, take the
video down... and then it's up to the defendent to prove his
innocence. That is what the Digital Millennium Copyright Act says.
To be honest, if Rumblefish are selling their music to agencies like
Stockmusic.com, they really shouldn't be registering it with the
content ID system. That's just a bit dumb.
I've wondered this same thing. I suppose it might get even stickier if
someone purchases the rights to some royalty free music to sync to
their video or royalty free video or images, then they register their
content with the content ID system... will that trigger a match with
other people legitimately using the same music/video? Who knows...So
it's probably not a perfect system by any means...
> It would be lovely -- in fact, wonderful -- if somebody could design a
> totally foolproof system. Unfortunately, designing foolproof systems
> is harder than you think. There is actually no way for an automatic ID
> system to detect whether or not the uploader has legally bought the
> music. How could it?
> Really, the automatic ID system is great for copyright owners who know
> they are never going to authorize their music on YouTube ever... not
> so great if they occasionally do give permission, and totally useless
> for copyright owners who regularly give permission, as it catches out
> people like you.
> I think the worst case we had was an official contest to make a
> trailer for the movie "W". There was a video with Oliver Stone in it,
> asking for submissions -- difficult to imagine anything more official.
> They even made some video clips available for people to mash up their
> entries using real footage from the movie. Cool stuff, right?
> Unfortunately, apparently unknown to the organisers of the contest,
> that footage had been registered with the automatic content ID system,
> and chaos ensued. How was the ID system to know?
> The other problem is that the way the law actually works, it does sort
> of treat people as guilty until proven innocent. If YouTube receives a
> complaint from the copyright owner, YouTube must, by law, take the
> video down... and then it's up to the defendent to prove his
> innocence. That is what the Digital Millennium Copyright Act says.
> To be honest, if Rumblefish are selling their music to agencies like
> Stockmusic.com, they really shouldn't be registering it with the
> content ID system. That's just a bit dumb.
