YouTube and "copyright dispute"

I mean... what is this all about?
 
I only have seven videos up on my channel, and the latest one I uploaded, when I wend to view it, had an advert on it, and not a very nice one either (Dope Factory).
 
The video was all my own work, using my video footage and music.
 
Is it an automatic thing? Does anyone know how it works?
 
 
Beats me... I have disputed the claim.

Actually for communication use terms like the claimant "Party X". Also you may want to avoid posting a link to the actual vids as well (which will obviously identify the specific content disputed thus making it obvious what/who you are posting about).
 
If you used the same handle you use here for your YT account or there are other really obvious ways to link this discussion to your handle then that could be an issue as well.
 
Just trying to minimize damage.
 
I am not a lawyer and I am not YOUR lawyer (which is standard disclosure for such discussions... you obviously already know that though... I ain't that SMRT... lulz).
 

Beepster
Also you may want to avoid posting a link to the actual vids as well 

haha! I've just deleted the vid link...
 
thanks again dood... I'm not used to this kind of stuff LOL

Okay... now that the boring paranoia stuff is out of the way.
 
Since you are in the UK your material falls under the fancy automagic copyright laws most western countries have agreed to. Those essentially state as soon as you put something you have created into some form of physical format you automatically own the copyright to it.
 
So if you think of an original poem or melody as soon as you write it down on paper it is automatically copyrighted and you own all rights to it.... technically.
 
In the digital age this translate to digital media as well like hard drives, writeable discs, uploading to a website, etc.
 
While this is the case it is easily manipulated by nefarious neer do wells. Essentially you have to PROVE in court that YOU are the original creator.
 
This is why  people used to say "mail yourself a copy and don't open it". That way there is a postmark. That's old school and isn't the best way to do it but it's still pretty good any judge that isn't totally corrupt will see that as convincing evidence that someone is trying to screw you... unless of course it turns into an "I already wrote that melody BEFORE this guy did" and they can prove it using the same types of methods.
 
This is why people shell out money to actually pay to copyright stuff through their government bureaucracies. This is not very practical though because here in Canada it's $60 freaking dollars to copyright a single work. Even then it can still be disputed but if you get the copyright that ends up looking better in court (and it makes it easier for the lawyers/judges to sort out).
 
What I've been trying to do myself, since I don't want to pay $60 every time I fart into a microphone, is use "burden of proof" type methods. Things like burning files to disc with the original file timestamps (so when you open it you can see the date the file was created). I signed up for SOCAN which is (one of) the royalty collection agency in Canada who don't deal with copyright but you can register your songs with them for royalty collection which of course provides some proof of when the material was created (well when it was registered anyway). Sites like soundcloud or other uploaders will put a time stamp on when the file was first uploaded. Linking to it on a forum like this adds to prove a date of when you produced the material too.
 
So, if it comes down to it, you just bury the court with all this and if the aggressors claim is thin then, again if the judge isn't corrupt, you should be able to shut it down.
 
HOWEVER, if the other party has proof that PRECEDES your proof (which is impossible if the dispute is indeed over something you created) you may be out of luck.
 
Where it gets murky are these intellectual property trolls who patent/copyright things in such vague ways that it covers the scope of all sorts of things people are LIKELY to put out. Then they strike. Usually what happens is they'll issue some kind of letter/warning demanding compensation to avoid a lawsuit.
 
So it's basically a type of extortion. You don't want to have to pay lawyers and go to court to fight something worth far less than the lawyers costs and the "trolls" make sure their monetary demands are less than what it would cost you to go to court as well. If it DOES go to court and you win (which is likely) you are still out time and money.
 
Thing is these people don't care whether they win or lose or if you even pay attention to them. They just put this crap out there and if one out of ten people get freaked out enough to pay out then their bullpizz is worth it. They are scum, it is a racket and most sickening of all it is perfectly legal.
 
Not saying that is what is happening here BUT if that's what's up do some research on this behavior. People have been pushing back against these scummos more and more which is really what is needed to change things.
 
Again... I am not a lawyer and I am not YOUR lawyer. If this turns into a big thing you really should contact an attorney that specializes in copyright law or simply call your local copyright/patent offic over there in the UK. They can tell you everything you need to know.
 
Cheeeeers... and don't let me make you paranoid. Just want you to be armed with knowledge. Most powerful weapon in this age.

Hi,
 
There are some funny things ... for example, I was a part of the Ygdrasil Journal of Poetic Arts, for the what I thought was about 5 to 7 years, that is now on something like its 20th year (can't even count that far!!!), and is listed in the National Library of Canada, and I'm not aware that Klaus is paying anything for it. The notice on the magazine states that the copyright is to revert to the writer, but that it was printed with the writer's permission.
 
They have never, to my knowledge, bothered us about it. And it has been for this whole time, about new poetry and poems and folks, which in my book might just be a great big secret here. In fact, I did a couple of issues with my own dad's poetry, and he is famous and published and all that, and I translated a couple of his own works, and no one has ever said anything about it. Maybe it is that Portuguese Literature is just as important as most folks poop, or whatever, but in the end, there are just as many examples of things working as there are of things not working.
 
I did several issues on my own, usually around a theme in its entirety ... and one of the most intriguing one was about an artist's "deva" paintings and the poems that went with it ... that really threw off some folks, and the pictures were even more out there, and were magnificent doodles. I have to post those for Sharke to see.

synkrotron
...had an advert on it, and not a very nice one either (Dope Factory).

 
Isn't that the name of their law firm? 
 

Beepster
Now that I've made you sufficiently parnoid (sorry... lol) this is probably just some kind of confusion on youtube's part.
 
Really you disputed it. They'll probably get a real human involved to check it out and all will be well. Do NOT contact "Party X" though just in case they are skeevy fudgemonkeys out to screw you. As soon as you make direct contact it kind of opens the floodgates to more harassment and litigeous bullpuckey.
 
All will be well I'm sure.

 
The cost of getting a real human involved is probably prohibitive for all concerned. If you read everything here, you will see that Google is phrasing their appeal process in such a way that it will frighten (warn?) most readers into simply accepting the ad or removing the video. Your appeal will give Party X all they need to have a robot generate a cease and desist letter complete with realistic machine signature and the name of a real lawyer. But even without such a costly mailing, the reputed copyright owner can wait thirty days then just tell Google they still think you are a pirate at near zero cost. Google is not involved at all here and pays no cost, it is you vs the complainant. The complainant does not have to offer any evidence whatsoever to either you or Google that their position is correct, a simple statement (again machine generated) that a given work has been infringed is all they will ever have to provide. You can then appeal the rejection, and after another 30 days the claimant must either release their claim, or they must issue a takedown notice. A takedown notice can be machine initiated with the information they have from the appeal process and there is no filing fee or other apparent significant disincentive. If they do issue a takedown notice, again without any proof or evidence or evaluation of the merits by Google, you account will receive a "copyright strike." Google helpfully "warns" you that:
"Because an appeal may initiate the takedown notification and counter notification process, the contact information you provide in the appeal form will be shared with the copyright owner, who may eventually choose to take legal action against you."
 
If the takedown notice is issued you are in copyright law territory, and you have a statutory appeal. Google takes that takedown appeal as your only defense against the "copyright strike" it has issued without any hearing of the facts itself. It is not clear if the strike is suspended during the appeal process, but it appears that the post will be taken down pending appeal. The complainant may issue a retraction at their discretion, which will apparently wipe the strike and reinstate the posting, but there is no reason for them to do so. If the complainant simply lets things slide without further affirmative action on their part, the strike apparently remains.  And again a warning:
"Please note that when we forward the counter notice, it will include the full text of the counter notice, including any personal information you provide. The claimant may use this information to file a lawsuit against you in order to keep the content from being restored to YouTube." In fact the same information can be obtained by subpoena regardless of your filing an appeal.
 
The statute says that anyone who files a takedown notice must include "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." A good faith belief is a very elastic concept, and proof of actual infringement typically requires a trip to court, so unless the claim is clearly fraudulently made, or absurd on the face of it, the complainant has little to fear about doing so. If you file a formal statutory Counter Notification Letter, the law requires YouTube to restore your posting unless the complainant actually files suit for copyright infringement within 14 days. That step is very likely to be more costly than it is worth to the complainant. If he does not file suit, you should be able to get your posting put back up, but it is not clear that YouTube will retract the "copyright strike" unless they get a formal retraction from the complainant. If he does file suit, the cost of simply answering the suit will almost certainly be more than you could hope to gain by the posting, and if you lose a suit, with statutory damages it could cost you several orders of magnitude more than the benefit of the posting. 
 

So essentially Google's Youtube has made itself a breeding ground for profit driven copyright troll extortion artists.
 
Nice.
 
I change my advice to... call a lawyer and crush the trolls. There are probably pro bono lawyers and class action suits geared toward shutting this kind of crap down.
 
What a fooking pathetic way to make a living. Pricks.
 
Also I have noticed that every single youtube vid now forces an ad. Due to my script/adblockers I don't see them but it makes the vid choke for the duration of whatever ad is supposedly playing. Now I'm wondering if it's because scumbags like this hopped on these YT policies (am I understand this correctly? If they claim they own it they can force an ad on it and get the ad revenues?) and made bot style infringement claims on EVERYTHING just to get their ad revenues.
 
...
 
No, that would just be too twisted. I don't even want to think that could possibly be true.

ampfixer
Patents and copyrights are only as good as your ability to defend them. Whomever has the deepest pockets usually wins in the end because they can drive the other party into the poor house. Right or wrong, money wins.

Actually a bit different, and it was the cartoon book that showed it and amplified and explained a lot of music history in America. The movie studios owned almost ALL the music that was copyrighted in America through the 1940's and into the 50's, which allowed them to use it in their works (and pay themselves on it!!!) and the like and later helped bring their "stars" to sing!
 
This started breaking out in the late 50's!

Yeah... I'd really pay attention to what slartabartfast posted. He's a smart dude and seems to have figured out WTF YT is up to.
 
I gotta study up on this because it could potentially screw up some plans I have. Very disappointing. I may have to pay for some video server space because of this. I jsut don't want to deal with these kinds of greifer clowns.
 
Cheers.

Maybe you should go back to recording odd guitar leads? 
 

synkrotron

craigb
Maybe you should go back to recording odd guitar leads?

fingers are bleeding... need to rest them...
 
now my keyboard is covered in blood

You're probably not using that keyboard correctly...
(Just sayin'...)

synkrotron

craigb
Maybe you should go back to recording odd guitar leads?

fingers are bleeding... need to rest them...
 
now my keyboard is covered in blood

Sound like like lyrics to a song I heard once.
You sure you're not plagiarising comments😗

Karyn
I thought this was about a copyright claim... 

Yes, it is about someone claiming that I have breached copyright, when plainly I haven't. It's my music and my video footage.
 

mudgel
You sure you're not plagiarising comments

?

FWIW, I did some research on the people claiming copyright breach and there was an e-mail address for "licensing." So I penned a polite letter, explaining the full facts of the situation, and I have just received a positive answer back, which includes an apology.
 
The reply explained that YouTube do indeed have an automated melody matching system, although how my electronic track even comes close to a proper song, with lyrics and all, beats me...
 
I also received a notification from YouTube confirming that the copyright claim has been "released."
 
 
Thanks for all the helpful messages of help and support above.
 
cheers
 
andy