Jump to content

Youtube audio copyright claims too often


Mat Mayer
 Share

Recommended Posts

We use audio for videos bought from Pond5, plus a few from AudioBlocks. Nearly every video we upload gets ads on and a copyright infringment notice. They even did it to one where we recorded the audio the other day and had the cheek to remove the video- 100% our audio and video. Is there anyway anyone has found to stop this tedious tirade of harrasment? We win every single dispute but it is so f-ing annoying having to do it all the time. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I you have bought a license then you should dispute the copyright claim and provide documentation you got from the licensor.  Or alternatively some licensors have setup a mechanism on their website to get remove the claim removed.

Which videos have ads?  I could not find any, do you have an example?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

I you have bought a license then you should dispute the copyright claim and provide documentation you got from the licensor.  Or alternatively some licensors have setup a mechanism on their website to get remove the claim removed.

Which videos have ads?  I could not find any, do you have an example?

 

I couldn't see any ads but I couldn't see any credits to the artists or sites from which the music was purchased, either. Every genuine Royalty Free site that I buy licenses from for YouTube use (monetised videos) insist that the artist, track name and site are linked to in the description or at the end of a video.

Even Kevin MacLeod - who gives his music away for free under CC - insists that he is credited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Davey said:

I couldn't see any ads but I couldn't see any credits to the artists or sites from which the music was purchased, either. Every genuine Royalty Free site that I buy licenses from for YouTube use (monetised videos) insist that the artist, track name and site are linked to in the description or at the end of a video.

Even Kevin MacLeod - who gives his music away for free under CC - insists that he is credited.

Sony Creative Music doesn't, Neumann Films doesn't. Saying "I couldn't see any ads" means you haven't read the OP. They dispute them and get them removed. If you haven't had this problem yourself then maybe you don't post anything on Youtube? The problem certainly dissuaded me from engaging with youtube much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

They dispute them and get them removed.

So then what is the problem? :confused:

Youtube obviously does not know that a certain person has a license. 

Content ID simply protects the rights holder and passes on disputes to the rights holder and then the rights holder decides what they want to do, up to a takedown request. If the channel owner still disputes it they are open to litigation by the rights holder.

YouTube has no blame they are just the middle man.  Content ID is great way to protect the rights of content providers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2016 at 8:10 PM, Davey said:

I couldn't see any ads but I couldn't see any credits to the artists or sites from which the music was purchased, either. Every genuine Royalty Free site that I buy licenses from for YouTube use (monetised videos) insist that the artist, track name and site are linked to in the description or at the end of a video.

Even Kevin MacLeod - who gives his music away for free under CC - insists that he is credited.

 

This might be great advice. I will check with Pond5 and AudioBlocks then start mentioning audio tracks and where we got them in the description. The fact they have never mentioned that to me makes me a little skeptical as AudioBlocks do the dispute for us, but it is certainly worth a try. The claimant is always different to the person and track name on the stock sites. Thank you :glasses:

As for the videos not having ads; Orangenz is right, I dispute them as they come in. There should be one or two at the moment including (edit: name removed for fear of Youtube ban), or maybe they dont always stick ads on straight away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mat Mayer said:

Orangenz is right, I dispute them as they come in.

Then I do not see the problem. 

How is YouTube supposed to know you have a license to use the audio?  The Content ID fingerprints are given to YouTube by the license holder who obviously wants to protect their intellectual property right? 

Does the license holder release the claim without delay?  If so I do not understand what your issue is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I discovered a few months ago that sometimes You Tube don't actually take the videos down if copyright content has been included in the video. What happens is you can't view the video on certain devices such as phones, tablets, set tops, etc...but you can view them on PC, lap top, or similar. I sometimes  use You Tube's music library which has improved a little bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stanley said:

I discovered a few months ago that sometimes You Tube don't actually take the videos down if copyright content has been included in the video. What happens is you can't view the video on certain devices such as phones, tablets, set tops, etc...but you can view them on PC, lap top, or similar. 

Actually most content is now allowed but monetized by the rights holder (except for Germany). 

If you upload a video with copyrighted media, most of the time the rights holders allow (but it is revocable at any time) the content but ads may appear and the channel owner cannot monetize the videos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

Then I do not see the problem. 

How is YouTube supposed to know you have a license to use the audio?  The Content ID fingerprints are given to YouTube by the license holder who obviously wants to protect their intellectual property right? 

Does the license holder release the claim without delay?  If so I do not understand what your issue is.

 

As I said in the first post I find it very tedious and time consuming. I have to go back and find the track(s) on the stock site which can take a while, then compare a few as we use multiple ones for each video, often having to dig out a few tracks. After maybe 50 times I am sick of it and just wish they would whitelist us because we have never lost a dispute.

That one I mentioned above is probably 2 years old, it feels like ambulance chasers are doing it and fair enough to theives, but we have a proven record for being legit. My bro had some ambulance chaser type law firm contact him recently for someone using his company logo. They got £350 and he got £250 compensation (or something similar). I used to work for proper ambulance chasers and people would quite rightly tell me to F off. 

5-10 times fine. 50+ times is taking the piss. If Vimeo did 4k (with proper choice) I would happily pay their fee immediately and switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

Actually most content is now allowed but monetized by the rights holder (except for Germany). 

If you upload a video with copyrighted media, most of the time the rights holders allow (but it is revocable at any time) the content but ads may appear and the channel owner cannot monetize the videos.

 

Spot on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mat Mayer said:

There was a whole thing on here a few months ago about it not being the same as Youtube. Or has that changed now?

They have been supporting this quite awhile now.

I do not believe they support 4k@60 though! 

YouTube does, here is an example of a restored old NTSC source uploaded at 4k@60:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

They have been supporting this quite awhile now.

I do not believe they support 4k@60 though! 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Awesome, thanks for the heads up. Going to switch if the mentioning the audio track thing doesn't work immediately. Going to try uploading a H.265 video now. If that works I will pee in my pants lol. 

edit: BINGO! H.265 uploads allowed. The only issue is viewer numbers. Will have to have a think about that. Might be worth using VP9 and the mentioning the audio track owners instead, because Youtube gets way more viewers. Will give it a try for the VOD.

"YouTube has over a billion users–almost a third of all people on the Internet–and every day, people watch hundreds of millions of hours of YouTube videos"

"Vimeo’s 170 million monthly viewers amount to less than 20 percent of YouTube’s 1 billion-plus monthly viewership"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

Then I do not see the problem. 

How is YouTube supposed to know you have a license to use the audio?  The Content ID fingerprints are given to YouTube by the license holder who obviously wants to protect their intellectual property right? 

Does the license holder release the claim without delay?  If so I do not understand what your issue is.

 

The problem is when 50 out of 50 claims are bogus. It takes time to address them and I found it very annoying. This is when using licensed music. Of course when using non-licensed music their hit rate is also 100% so they do well there. Still love your video btw. Keep them coming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

The problem is when 50 out of 50 claims are bogus.

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...