YouTube Is Making It Much Easier For Creators To Deal With Copyright Claims (theverge.com) 89
YouTube is updating the way it handles manual copyright claims with changes that should make them much less of a headache for video creators. The Verge reports: Owners of copyrighted content -- like a record label or a movie studio -- will now have to say exactly where in a video their copyrighted material appears, which they didn't have to do in the past when manually reporting infringement. That'll allow creators to easily verify whether or not a claim is legitimate and to then edit out the content if they don't want to deal with the repercussions, like losing revenue or having the video taken down. With this change, the whole system will be a lot clearer and should operate much smoother. Video creators will be able to see the chunk that's been claimed, and YouTube will allow them to mute the audio during that portion, replace the audio with a free-to-use song from YouTube's library, or cut out that chunk of the video. If they choose any of those options, the copyright claim will automatically be released. (All of those options were previously available, but creators had to figure out on their own what they needed to cut out.)
but not for auto Claims! (Score:3)
but not for auto Claims!
Re: (Score:2)
but not for auto Claims!
Is that where instead of demonetizing your video, they just redirect the proceeds to the claimant with you having no recourse at all other than removing the video to stop the fraudsters from getting the money you deserved?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is that where instead of demonetizing your video, they just redirect the proceeds to the claimant
No, it's where they demonitize you and Google keeps the money.
That's why they demonitize videos instead of taking them down.
Demonitize = More Shekels for Google.
Re: (Score:1)
Antifa don't exist. With a grand total of 3 injuries (none with long term damage) and zero kills over their entire history, they are literally less of a political/social entity than McDonald's low level employees. Only in the eyes of idiots do these guys actually exist, because between Antifa, BLM, all muslim terrorism, all socialist/communist organizations... they still have less injuries, murders, and property damage caused than the literal KKK on its own (and this is not only historically true, but true
Re:but not for auto Claims! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's where they demonitize you and Google keeps the money.
From How I Deal With Fake YouTube Copyright Claims by Believe Music [medium.com] in June of last year:
Every now and again, I get an email from YouTube that some random company has claimed that they own the copyright to the music used in my cooking videos.
Now, I have over 350 videos on my YouTube channel. Every piece of music I use to accompany these videos is legally obtained — they’re either copyright-free with source and credit given, or they’re music for which a licence has been paid by the numerous video editors I’ve used over the years.
In said email, YouTube is gracious enough to tell me that I’m “not in trouble”, just that any ad revenue from my video will be diverted to this company from now on. Lovely.
Are we to believe this shit has stopped?
Re: (Score:1)
Simple way to stop it - add 1 private video stating what demonetization does.
When 1 video is demonetized, take down every video except that one and make it public.
If every channel did this, YouTube would see its available content vanish when the creators don't get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple way to stop it - add 1 private video stating what demonetization does. When 1 video is demonetized, take down every video except that one and make it public. If every channel did this, YouTube would see its available content vanish when the creators don't get paid.
Losing that money sucks but there are YouTubers who value their videos more than the money. Especially in the political arena. People who would rather their videos be seen even if they are getting "robbed" by YouTube for doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that where instead of demonetizing your video, they just redirect the proceeds to the claimant
No, it's where they demonitize you and Google keeps the money.
That's why they demonitize videos instead of taking them down.
Demonitize = More Shekels for Google.
Nope. When videos are demonetized (as opposed to redirected to a claimant), Google stops showing ads on them at all, meaning no money for anyone (though Google still bears the cost of delivering the videos to watchers, of course). I don't believe there is any case where Google shows ads on the content but does not share the revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but not for auto Claims! (Score:5, Informative)
but not for auto Claims!
Well...
The more egregious copyright violations on YouTube often come through automatic copyright detection. That feature already provided specific timestamps so that creators know what portion of a video is being claimed.
Re: (Score:3)
Its crap. Ive been hit by this bullshit more than once. The last time I created a channel for my daughters archery team. It was for their end of the year banquet. All the parents submitted their pictures to me. I was about to put together a slide show using Hitfilm when I realized windows Photos app could do it. Not only could it do it, but it had an option to sync to some preselected music. It timed the slides to the beat, automated panning and zooming, as well as motion tracking. I uploaded it and a day l
The whole thing (Score:1)
Is claiming the entire video as copyrighted property allowed?
Because I can see them doing that every time...
Re:The whole thing (Score:5, Insightful)
What about situations where your video legitimately falls under fair use? My experience so far has been that Google doesn't give two shits about fair use. If someone makes a bogus copyright claim you are automatically guilty with no recourse.
Re:The whole thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Say your video is an independent news video. In it, your video footage gets background audio that contains copyrighted music.
That background capture is legitimate fair use, even if the video is monetized. This is due to the "Scope" requirement for fair use; The montetization is for the costs associated with bringing the news, not for redistributing copyrighted material. Likewise, the capture is not a complete song, and cannot be claimed to be for the purposes of distributing that song.
It would, however, still get flagged by the various audio fingerprinting algorithms out there, because robots know nothing about fair use.
The parent was asking about these kinds of edge cases, since they clearly do fall under fair use. Way to dodge the legitimacy of the question though AC. Congrats.
Realpolitik "rights" (Score:5, Interesting)
Say your video is an independent news video. In it, your video footage gets background audio that contains copyrighted music.That background capture is legitimate fair use, even if the video is monetized.
While that is basically correct you always have to remember one thing. Your "rights" under the law are in reality only as strong as your ability to defend them. If you want to claim fair use then you need to have the resources to defend that claim in the event of a dispute. Legally speaking you might be 100% correct but that doesn't matter AT ALL if you cannot defend your claim. Companies that depend on copyright for their income streams (think Disney, etc) understand this fact and are more than willing to abuse it to their benefit even if technically they might be on the wrong side of the law in a given case. Google/YouTube is perfectly well aware of which parties are well equipped to fight them on this matter and they behave accordingly. If this surprises anyone they aren't paying attention.
George Carlin said it best "...rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The whole thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I want musicians and other artists to be paid for their work. That doesn't include more than 85% of revenue going to a bunch of suits sitting behind desks at the music publisher. Sure that system worked in 1950 through maybe 2000 but you can record and produce studio quality music in your garage or a spare room in your house. Back then you needed those publishers and record labels to pay for studio time and front the money for a tour. Now we have this little thing called the internet and all of that PR is not needed anymore.
All these copywrite claims come from publishers and record labels. Musicians do not make money off of sales anymore because hardly anyone buys music. Musicians do not make money from streaming anymore because out of every dollar paid out from streaming nearly 90 cents goes to the publishers and record labels. Big time musicians make millions from touring and smaller acts make money from touring and from things like patreon and selling their merch online.
We don't need a middle man for content like music any longer. They are doing nothing but stealing money from the actual artists who made the music in the first place. The songwriters and band members get a pittance from sales/streaming while a bunch of greedy fucks sitting in offices snorting cocaine off a hookers tits get paid millions. This is what copywrite strikes on youtube are all about. There aren't many artists who care when someone uses a 15 second clip of one of their songs in a youtube video that falls under fair use as outlined under copywrite law. But the youtuber will get a strike and get their revenue stolen and diverted to the music publisher anyway and the artist who wrote and recorded the song in question gets nearly nothing from it.
We have things like the DMCA because of those greedy suits sitting in offices making money hand over fist while the artist gets nearly nothing unless they go out and tour all over the country/world for most of the year. So let's just stop acting like these copywrite laws are there to protect artists and admit they are there to fuck artists and make millions for music executives and shareholders.
I had a claim a couple of years ago for using less than 10 seconds of Toto's Africa. It was literally just the beginning of the chorus "I blessed the rains down in Africa." It was a nearly 12 minute video and it was yoinked because of about 7 seconds of audio that fell 100% within "fair use" under US copywrite law. I fought the claim and was told it would stand in an automated reply, it was never investigated by anyone and the company making the claim was given free reign to claim whatever videos they wanted as "infringing on their copywrite." I pulled the video down, uploaded a new version with zero music in it, a different title, and the same company flagged it again within 48 hours. I once again appealed and it was denied, I appealed the denial and got another nice automated email telling me that my appeal was denied and if I got another strike my account would be shut permanently. So I just deleted all my videos on youtube and quit making them. I hardly ever used any copywrite material and if I did I was absolutely sure that it was used under fair use. My videos weren't even monetized so I was making no money and just doing it for fun.
The system these companies use to find and flag videos is automated and will flag anything with any copywritten material. They can't do it with humans because it would take tens of thousands of people a month to watch what is uploaded to youtube in a single day. The same goes on the youtube side, they have an automated system and for manual reports they treat them as gospel and take action immediately. They don't have people watching videos. The only time someone at youtube will manually watch your video to verify the claim is legitimate is if you are a hugely popular youtuber and you make a big deal out of it. Now they have gone so far as to put in their terms of service that you aren't supposed to address your strikes online and cause people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google has no obligation to publish submitted videos, so they err of the side that gives them no liability.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct, Google does not care because legally it can't. The dispute is a legal one between you and the copyright holder, and YouTube is obliged by law to take the copyright holder's word for it until you sue them and win.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that's not what always happens. Google may often leave the video up but switch the ad revenue to the party making the copyright claim. Now they're profiting off your work (basically engaging in copyright infringement themselves), but the video is still under your profile so you can't submit a claim against them. You're just stuck with the greedy assholes getting paid for your work. You can't file a counter claim because this is being done under YouTube's ToS and not through the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The whole thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, there is another side to this. I've been involved with creating original video content, and I've seen the situation where someone sets up a YT channel that is entirely based on ripping whole videos from us (and others in the same field) and monetizing them. From our side, every time this happened, we had to go through a tedious manual process to file a DMCA takedown. And then hours later, the same guy would be back with the exact same video ripped again and getting ad revenue on his channel. YT has obligations under the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere to take action against repeat offenders, but as far as we can tell, it did nothing extra in this sort of situation at all. And I'm sure it was taking much more time for us, the people doing the actual creative work and legitimate rightsholders, to deal with each case than it was for the other guy to re-upload the same rip he'd already taken.
So yes, claiming the entire video as copyright infringement should definitely be allowed, because sometimes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
YT has legal obligations under the DMCA and its analogous laws in various other places both to takedown content when notified and to take action against repeat offenders. It kinda did the first one, though it's not entirely clear whether YT itself forced the content down or it just notified the uploader of a complaint. It never did the second.
And no, the origin of the content was not in any doubt. We and several of the others who were being repeatedly ripped by the same kinds of channel all have quite disti
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is another side to this. I've been involved with creating original video content, and I've seen the situation where someone sets up a YT channel that is entirely based on ripping whole videos from us (and others in the same field) and monetizing them. From our side, every time this happened, we had to go through a tedious manual process to file a DMCA takedown.
One of the strangest things here is that while people ripping off your original content, which is a valid use of takedowns, that the folks who demand that say, their music never ever be heard by anyone who is not listening to an official channel.
Which means they are not taking advantage of free outlets. People who put out videos containing short clips of a song often spur others to say "Hey, I love that song, so they then go to Vevo or the like to listen to it. Money.
It's a little like how in the earl
Re: (Score:2)
This is the pyramid scheme argument for copyright infringement: the uploader or the people watching their channel might not pay you for your work, but don't worry, they'll get you lots of attention from other people!
Well, in a surprise to no-one in my industry, it turns out that the other people attracted by infringing channels are generally also willing to rip you off themselves, so unfortunately the whole argument about generating extra revenue through wider exposure falls flat.
Its OK, AI Will create (Score:2)
Defamation of title (Score:5, Informative)
Claiming authorship of a work that you did not create, such as all of a work when you created only a small fraction, is defamation of title [wikipedia.org]. This would give the uploader grounds to sue the claimant for defamation.
Re: Defamation of title (Score:2, Informative)
Counter suing, in small claims court, is trivial. And the judge there occasionally listens and even if not, the claimant will lose a defacto judgement unless they pay a human to actually show up.
It raises the cost of false copyright claims, which is a good thing.
Good luck suing a foreign claimant (Score:2)
YT tells you at least the name of who made the claim that your video was infringing.
I've seen claims from a claimant whose name is not only not in the English language but also not even in the Latin script. And even when you do copy and paste the kanji or whatever into a web search, good luck suing a claimant in another country.
Re: (Score:2)
Defamation in general [wikipedia.org] is a tort, and there exists case law about improper copyright claims [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Claimed violated timestamps will be from beginning to end.
Perhaps. But if they do that, it will be easy to prove malicious or incompetent action, especially if they claim an entire video which contains *other* people's copyrighted material. Including the video maker's own original material. It would open them up for suits from other content owners whose content the first morons claimed by specifying the entire video.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, so it will make it easier for them to have somebody's 1 hr video pulled because 10 seconds of RIAA 'la-de-dahs' happens to be playing in the background.
This is the internet, so I can't be sure, but I believe that you comprehend TFS exactly and precisely backwards.
Bad guys are learning this 1 weird new trick (Score:1)
So now police can have RIAA music blasting in the background while beating up their detainees, and crooked politicians can do the same while discussing their activities incase they are being secretly recorded. The RIAA will do the dirty work for them ensuring these videos get pulled so the public dosen't see what's going on.
We will be hearing a lot more RIAA music being blasted continuously in places where they don't want bad and crooked activities to be filmed.
System heavily biased, and enables bogus claims (Score:1)
This change would appear to do exactly nothing for bogus claims against fair use of copyrighted material. Even if a creator is in the right, they risk losing their channel to even fight the claims. Unfortunately, youtube stands squarely on the side of copyright holders, and for their convenience, treats creators as guilty until proven innocent, with no effective deterrent for bogus claims. By default, videos are taken down, and the channel may remain in limbo indefinitely, with no recourse for the creator.
while progress , It still fails with D- (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a good start but I think liability for lost revenue should be in there as well.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing TFA seems to have missed is that there will be repercussions for mistakes, at least with the manual claims. In a tweet YouTube said that if manual claimants failed to accurately detail the infringing material (i.e. timestamps) they would eventually be banned from submitting further claims.
It's a step in the right direction, but as you say they need to go much further.
The main problem is the DMCA. They are obliged to act, and can't be the arbiter of copyright disputes. If the claimant rejects and a
Re: (Score:3)
Google does not have to bias things so heavily in favor of the claimant though. The 3-strikes policy, for example, is entirely their own doing. It makes people afraid to dispute illegitimate claims. Leaving it up to the claimant whether to issue a strike is also grossly misguided. They could also hold revenue for a disputed video in escrow while the dispute is settled instead of letting it all flow to the claimant, or just refuse to serve ads on it entirely so that a disputed video generates no revenue
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. It should be 10 strikes from 10 different claimants at least, because one claimant can easily hit you with three strikes to threaten your channel.
WatchMojo was supposed to be doing something about this because their videos kept getting bogus hits, and they have the money to pursue it. They even said that it was their competitor channels making the false claims. Not sure what happened, if anything yet.
About time, but nowhere near enough. (Score:2, Interesting)
I had a video with a soundtrack which was "claimed" by a copyright holder. The soundtrack came from https://musopen.org/ which only has unencumbered music, so the claim was almost certainly bogus.
When I found this out, the only way to contest the claim involved risking my entire account being shut down with no redress. I changed the sound track instead.
The really nasty bit was youtube didn't bother notifying me of the claim and the alleged copyright holder started earning funds from my video playing.
Re:About time, but nowhere near enough. (Score:4, Informative)
I had a video with a soundtrack which was "claimed" by a copyright holder. The soundtrack came from https://musopen.org/ [musopen.org] which only has unencumbered music, so the claim was almost certainly bogus.
Copyright holders frequently use public domain or freely licensed content in their oh-so-precious proprietary content and then don't bother to properly mark the free/libre parts which automatic upload filters must ignore. Rightholders should get banned from using upload filters for claiming content they don't own, even if it's just a 5-second public domain clip in a feature-length movie. Alas, EU law does not allow that anymore...
Re: (Score:2)
Rightholders should get banned from using upload filters for claiming content they don't own, even if it's just a 5-second public domain clip in a feature-length movie.
YouTube requires a copyright owner in the Content ID program to blank out parts of the reference material to which it does not own exclusive rights. A user of Content ID that gets caught defaming title in the manner that you describe could lose Content ID access.
Re: (Score:3)
Could, but never will in practice if you are big enough. Can you imagine YouTube pulling BMG, Columbia or Sony out of Content ID because they didn't blank out public domain samples from their reference material?
MAFIAA won't be happy (Score:2)
The problem with Youtube copyright claims (Score:2)
The problem with Youtube copyright claims is not the ones that are valid, where say you tape a segment of an interview in a mall and in the background a song can be heard. Then you get those valid options: mute the audio, cut it out, replace by something else. Great.
The problems are really that sometimes the labels claim that the ORIGINAL of work they bought belongs to them. Remember that time when someone sampled a song and used a portion of the other song? The remix got a label contract and the original