Youtube audio copyright claims too often

[Orangenz]

12 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

Are they?  Are you sure they are not legitimate Content IDs? 

Just because someone can have a private license that obviously does not mean a rights holder should no longer protect their property because it bothers a person who obtained a license right?

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean.

Say you write a piece of music and want to make sure it is not used or monetized by others. Then you have the music fingerprinted and every time a file is uploaded to YouTube there is a check.  Now suppose you grand me a license for using it.  Well then when my upload is Contend ID-ed I obviously have to demonstrate with documentation I have a license.  So then what is bogus or do I misunderstand your point?

 

Yes I am sure. How much publication on youtube have you been involved with? I get the feeling you're arguing for something you haven't experienced? If you had tried this you would find, as mentioned many times above, that the group pinging content *does not own the content*. Please try to understand. This is not about the content creators. 

[Cary Knoop]

1 minute ago, Orangenz said:

Yes I am sure. How much publication on youtube have you been involved with? I get the feeling you're arguing for something you haven't experienced? If you had tried this you would find, as mentioned many times above, that the group pinging content *does not own the content*. Please try to understand. This is not about the content creators. 

I see, so my arguments are not valid because you question if I have experience. 

So are you claiming that 50 out of 50 of those claims were in fact not from the rights holder but from someone else? 

Let's ask the poster, was the rights holder identified correctly?

It is one thing to be annoyed by having to respond to a content ID claim if you have obtained a license but another thing to claim those Content IDs are bogus and claimed by someone else. I am sure it can happen sometimes but it does not seem to be what the opening poster of this topic is talking about.

But since you seem to draw from your vast experience with 50 out of 50 being bogus could you list a couple?

 

[Mat Mayer]

On 05/12/2016 at 10:05 PM, Cary Knoop said:

I see, so my arguments are not valid because you question if I have experience. 

So are you claiming that 50 out of 50 of those claims were in fact not from the rights holder but from someone else? 

Let's ask the poster, was the rights holder identified correctly?

 

Not once has the rights holder been the claimant. It is unscrupulous companies reselling stock audio who do it. They mass claim and get a few fish in their net. Youtube should recognize this and penalize them and whitelist us. 

A good example is CD Baby. Google "cd baby copyright claim" for masses of complaints like mine from years ago.

[Mat Mayer]

On 12/5/2016 at 10:05 PM, Cary Knoop said:

 

16 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

So I checked the (name removed fro fear of Youtube ban) video.

The audio is claimed to be: (removed)

The Content ID-ed sound is claimed by (removed)

None of that is correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is 100% incorrect like it is every single time.

edit: I will find the real track for you. It will be easy as that video was before we started doing 5.1 surround sound.

edit 2: here you go: (track removed for my protection from Youtube)

The Claimant file name above is German which translates to (removed). The one we licensed is called (removed). Here is the file name:  (removed) and there is no artist so the owner is AudioBlocks.

Now anyone who has used Videoblocks and AudioBlocks knows what they are like. But they have a valid license and the process now is to message them with the link above and Youtube page and they will fix it, except for some resellers who are difficult.

edit 3: Cary please remove the name of the video and everything else with names in from your quotes. I believe it puts our whole account at risk. I have filed the dispute with AudioBlocks.

They have removed our 1 video disputed which had sound we recorded. Our best selling video at this time of the year (i.e. a good one for Xmas). The dispute was the first that failed despite me saying I can provide the master file with the recording on and despite the claimant's details being utter nonsense in Google- just deleted videos and nothing else. Wasn't even a similar video- it was a song: (name removed for my protection from youtube), visual content administered by: UMG. We have never used music in these videos. Youtube have us by the balls and make it very clear they will ban our account if they feel like it.  Turns out she is a big deal and so is the company, so I have messaged every way I could.

 

[Cary Knoop]

5 hours ago, Mat Mayer said:

< removed by request >

Obviously if you want the name removed from my posting I have no objection, I am just trying to help not to give you any headaches.  However after some time the owner/administrator of this form no longer allows any updates.  I would contact the administrator and ask him to update my posting, I certainly have no objection to that.

< removed by request >  Unless the artist actually sells the rights < removed by request > merely licenses to sub license the content.  That means the original owner is still the rights holder.

< removed by request > explains here the process and the preferred way of handling it.  Instead of disputing the claim they prefer you take an alternate road:

< removed by request >

That is not unusual, for instance AdRev has a similar mechanism.

YouTube does not remove footage by themselves, they are instructed by the rights holder if they issue a take down request.  However you have the right to dispute it but at that point it becomes a serious matter.  If you are sure you are correct and the claimant is wrong you should dispute the take down and YouTube must reinstate the video unless the owner sues you within a given time frame.  If they do not your video will be back and your strike will be removed. 

I have disputed claims before on historical recordings where Content ID was misidentified but it never came to a point of suing.  The rights holder is required before they issue a take down to have a real person listen and verify if the claim is valid and always the issue was resolved.

 

[Mat Mayer]

I have contacted Universal Music Group about 30 different ways. If they don't reply fast I will be setting our solicitor on them.

@Andrew Reid please remove the name of the video from the 3rd post above. Much appreciated.

51 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

Obviously if you want the name removed from my posting I have no objection, I am just trying to help not to give you any headaches.  However after some time the owner/administrator of this form no longer allows any updates.  I would contact the administrator and ask him to update my posting, I certainly have no objection to that.

Audioblocks is a site with content "by artists for artists".  Unless the artist actually sells the rights audioblocks merely licenses to sub license the content.  That means the original owner is still the rights holder.

Audioblocks explains here the process and the preferred way of handling it.  Instead of disputing the claim they prefer you take an alternate road:

http://blog.audioblocks.com/how-to/youtube-content-id-claims-stock-music-happens/

That is not unusual, for instance AdRev has a similar mechanism.

YouTube does not remove footage by themselves, they are instructed by the rights holder if they issue a take down request.  However you have the right to dispute it but at that point it becomes a serious matter.  If you are sure you are correct and the claimant is wrong you should dispute the take down and YouTube must reinstate the video unless the owner sues you within a given time frame.  If they do not your video will be back and your strike will be removed. 

I have disputed claims before on historical recordings where Content ID was misidentified but it never came to a point of suing.  The rights holder is required before they issue a take down to have a real person listen and verify if the claim is valid and always the issue was resolved.

 

 

 

 

@Cary Knoop Thanks for removing the information.

[Cary Knoop]

5 minutes ago, Mat Mayer said:

I have contacted Universal Music Group about 30 different ways. If they don't reply fast I will be setting our solicitor on them.
 

 

I think there is no need, they have to sue you if they want the video removed not the other way around. 

Here is the process for a Content Id claim and a DMCA notice:

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

 

[Mat Mayer]

4 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

I think there is no need, they have to sue you if they want the video removed not the other way around. 

Here is the process for a Content Id claim and a DMCA notice:

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

 

 

 

Thank you, that's a great link. Will give it our solicitor. Please edit your posts above- just remove everything by me please to me sure.

[Mat Mayer]

Shit just got very real. UMG rejected the claim. Lawyer time.

@Admin- please just remove the country name above.

[Cary Knoop]

16 minutes ago, Mat Mayer said:

Shit just got very real. UMG rejected the claim. Lawyer time.

@Admin- please just remove the country name above.

You stated that you did not use any songs but the copyright claim by UMG is not about sound but about visual content.  I would tipple check the visual content before you go ahead and dispute the take down. Some locations/buildings/iconic sites may have a copyright as well.

 

[Mat Mayer]

UMG is pretty big, how much should we sue for? It is basically fraud.

[Cary Knoop]

2 hours ago, Mat Mayer said:

UMG is pretty big, how much should we sue for? It is basically fraud.

These are big accusations! 

It is not fraud if they have a genuine claim to the visual content or if it was a mistake.

What is the visual content that is claimed?

 

[Davey]

5 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

These are big accusations! 

It is not fraud if they have a genuine claim to the visual content or if it was a mistake.

What is the visual content that is claimed?

 

I think it is the sound effect that you have used in your last effort, which technically is not music. Having seen the video I don't think that it is likely that a music company have laid claim to visuals unless they own the rights to any of the images on display. Going on to sell ANYTHING that contains content belonging to somebody else would require a commercial license and not just a bog standard royalty free license. I can put stuff from Premiumbeat on monetised YouTube videos but would need to buy an additional license if I was selling that same video on any other platform or in any other form (DVDs etc). I have noticed that every one of your descriptions links to a site that goes on to commercially license the video.

I would cut your losses and record your own sound effects.

PS: Massive companies like UMG would not hesitate to request (demand) what has since been removed in any lawsuit and lay a counter claim of deformation. You could end up bankrupt.

[Mat Mayer]

8 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

 

Don't know why this forum won't let you delete posts that you don't want to make? i.e. the above quote.

The issue is out of my hands now. It has gone to the solicitor. 

 

ps. thanks to the admin who removed the text