Alternative to Youtube ContentID trouble?

[arogge]

I am looking for advice about hosting streaming video. I started using Youtube, but I've run into a serious problem with something called ContentID. Almost everything that I upload is flagged with bogus claims of copyright ownership by names such as "GoDigital MG For a Third Party", "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society", and most recently "EMI". I don't know what any of these companies are, but they don't own the content of my videos.

I've appealed each bogus claim, but that takes time, and now I've run into one that refuses to back off. "EMI" had my video's audio deleted within an hour of uploading it, and despite filing an appeal, the audio continues to be muted with no further notification about why there is no audio in the stream. It's been two days, and the appeal is being ignored.

Unfortunately, to stream video costs money. I looked at Vimeo, but it's going to cost me $199 per year, plus storage costs. Places like SmugMug and ZenFolio also cost $100 to $200 per year, and they put limits on video sizes and lengths. Hosting it myself also has a price, so I won't be able to share videos for free anymore. Why did Google allow this to happen to Youtube, letting bogus companies run rampant across the network, claiming ownership on everything and everyone they please? I noticed that Google's Image Finder allows my copyrighted photos to be freely redistributed, but I can't freely distribute my videos on Youtube. What a hypocrisy!

I want to be able to start the video stream on-demand at any point in the video. I'd also like to have mobile device support for the video player, and universal operating system and browser support. I can justify some annual cost, but not hundreds of dollars at the moment. What are my alternatives?

 

[simsaladimbamba]

Did you use your own music or music no other company has rights on?
EMI is a big music corporation, the other two you mentioned also hold various rights for various artists and audio.

 

[arogge]

Did you use your own music or music no other company has rights on?
EMI is a big music corporation, the other two you mentioned also hold various rights for various artists and audio.

The claims are bogus, not only because of fair-use rights, but because permission has been granted to stream the recording of it. I somehow doubt that EMI, whatever it is, has any involvement in compositions that have been internally arranged, and especially not when the composer is sitting right there in the room. Judging by the number of complaints about ContentID, with some people claiming that even humming a piece by Bach has been flagged with multiple ContentID lockouts, there's obviously something wrong on Google's end.

 

[arogge]

They still haven't budged.

"Your video may include the following copyrighted content: Disputed claims Musical Composition administered by: EMI"

EMI is the third-party, and they deleted my audio track! Why can't I delete them in return? They don't even mention what "composition" they're talking about. Google ContentID an is automated system with no oversight to protect the individual, and it needs to be eliminated.

 

[arogge]

EMI still won't release my video from hostage, while the duplicate claim from GoDigital MG For a Third Party was released. I just uploaded another video and it was immediately claimed by ContentID as belonging to APM Music. Guess which musical track I embedded... one of Apple's own iLife tracks! How can APM Music own music owned and distributed by Apple?

 

[Quotenfrau]

I hate this content mafia.

 

[arogge]

I still can't get through to address this Content ID nonsense. I've tried sending e-mails as directed, but they bounce as spam. I'm directed to use a contact form, through a link that dumps me onto an FAQ page that doesn't address the issue. There's a user-help forum, but that won't fix the problem because users aren't running Content ID, and there's lots of complaints about it. At the bottom of that page, it says:

"Currently, we accept email reports for the issues below. In most cases, you won't receive a personal response, but we do carefully review each report we receive. For all other issues, please refer back to the Help Center."

Oh, sure. Guess which issues they want to hear about. None. That's right... none, as the "below" area is blank, and you won't receive a response anyway. So, I guess the answer is that Content ID will continue being allowed to claim anything by anyone, damage whatever it wants, and they don't want to hear about it. I'm getting that impression!

 

[infowarfare]

I'm sorry but, you are sounding a bit naive here. First, if you do not know who EMI are, then you must be really out of touch with the music industry (or really young.)

Second, you can't just use someone else's song in a video. People worked hard on writing, recording and publishing that music. I would hate to have someone rip-off my song for some stupid video that has content that I may not agree with.

But most importantly, even if you happen to be friends with the writer of the music, if they do not hold the publishing rights, you can't get permission from them, you have to get permission from the publisher; in this case, EMI. Here is their line up of artists in case you've never heard of them - http://www.emimusic.com/artists/

My advice, if you have want music in your video, write your own or hire a composer to make an original track.

The claims are bogus, not only because of fair-use rights, but because permission has been granted to stream the recording of it. I somehow doubt that EMI, whatever it is, has any involvement in compositions that have been internally arranged, and especially not when the composer is sitting right there in the room.

See, this is where you are wrong. [your video] is probably not "fair-use rights", but since you haven't given us any context of what the video is, it's hard to tell... but if it's some skateboarding video and you are using copyright music, sorry, not fair-use. And again, doesn't matter if the composer is sitting right there, if it's a song that he has signed the publishing rights away (to EMI) then he can't give permission. Period.

 

[Quotenfrau]

My advice, if you have want music in your video, write your own or hire a composer to make an original track.

We need to get rid of this copyright *****. Vote for pirate party in your local country

You can search (with Google) for Creative Commons music and embed this audio in your clip.

 

[arogge]

Second, you can't just use someone else's song in a video. People worked hard on writing, recording and publishing that music.

Gee, I didn't know that. I was just making stupid videos of me and my buddies, and taking pop music from CDs that I got in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart was so easy!!!

But most importantly, even if you happen to be friends with the writer of the music, if they do not hold the publishing rights, you can't get permission from them, you have to get permission from the publisher; in this case, EMI.

I will take two examples of why this can't be true. Apple's own iLife sound tracks have been misidentified as belonging to third-parties by Content ID, bogus claims that were withdrawn by the third-parties.

Also, when a piece written by J.S. Bach, arranged internally by a band that was then recorded, is misidentified as belonging to EMI or anybody else, there's something really fishy going on. In some certain cases, the music isn't signed over to anybody else or even resold. It goes directly from Finale to the printer and onto the music stands. Are you telling me that I have to worry about music from my own instrument being detected by Content ID as belonging to a third-party? Are you going to tell me that Jazz improvization is not allowed because melodic quotes and chord changes from other artists may appear in the phrases?

If any of these claims were legitimate, why hasn't a single one of these third-parties sent me a legal notification instead of withdrawing the bogus claims by Content ID? That's right, because Content ID is off its rocker, and they know it.

 

[infowarfare]

Gee, I didn't know that. I was just making stupid videos of me and my buddies, and taking pop music from CDs that I got in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart was so easy!!!



I will take two examples of why this can't be true. Apple's own iLife sound tracks have been misidentified as belonging to third-parties by Content ID, bogus claims that were withdrawn by the third-parties.

Also, when a piece written by J.S. Bach, arranged internally by a band that was then recorded, is misidentified as belonging to EMI or anybody else, there's something really fishy going on. In some certain cases, the music isn't signed over to anybody else or even resold. It goes directly from Finale to the printer and onto the music stands. Are you telling me that I have to worry about music from my own instrument being detected by Content ID as belonging to a third-party? Are you going to tell me that Jazz improvization is not allowed because melodic quotes and chord changes from other artists may appear in the phrases?

If any of these claims were legitimate, why hasn't a single one of these third-parties sent me a legal notification instead of withdrawing the bogus claims by Content ID? That's right, because Content ID is off its rocker, and they know it.

You didn't explain all of that before. Maybe if you were more clear from the beginning we wouldn't make assumptions, but you made it sound like you were just using someone else's song in your video, a song which was licensed by EMI and since you didn't know who the hell EMI was, well, it just made you sound pretty naive...

... but if Content ID is mis-identifing things, that's a whole other issue. So you are saying you and your friends did your own arrangement and recording of a J.S. Bach piece and it got flagged? If that's the case, then it must have sounded very similar to another version that has been recorded; Bach is public domain, but what ever artist/publisher records their version of that piece owns the copywrite to that particular sound recording and thus you would have to get permission to use that. Sounds like Content ID is thinking you are using someone elses recording of that piece? And yes, that would suck if that's the case [them mis-identifying it]. Sorry.

In support of your situation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/youtubes-content-id-c-ensorship-problem

But to make life easier, if you have access to a composer/band, why not just have them write a completely original song for your needs as I mentioned previously. That's what I do, never had an issue with my music getting blocked by Content ID.

 

[arogge]

... but if Content ID is mis-identifing things, that's a whole other issue.

Another notorious example is the numerous times Apple's own tracks are misidentified as belonging to third parties. There are other reports that EMI and others won't back off on Youtube, insisting that public domain and otherwise authorized music belongs to these corporate interests. I'd understand if the real composers, performers, or publishers were correctly identifying their own music, but that's not what's happening. Third parties that don't seem to have anything to do with the music are claiming stuff. It's even better now because Youtube identifies the title of the music in question, and it's obvious when something is misidentified.

The videos I have recorded aren't for my needs. They're excerpts of concerts by academic and professional organizations.

 

[arogge]

Here we go again. An Apple iLife track has now been claimed by something YouTube identifies as "rumblefish", which is accusing me of using "Rick Founds-Club Ararat" in my video without permission and was collecting advertising revenue without my permission.

 

[KeithPratt]

Perhaps Rick Founds' Club Ararat uses the same loop as you have in your video. Actually, that's a brilliant way of making money from YouTube.

 

[arogge]

Perhaps Rick Founds' Club Ararat uses the same loop as you have in your video. Actually, that's a brilliant way of making money from YouTube.

It looks like "rumblefish" denied my CopyWrong appeal and is once again displaying ads in my video. I've appealed again, and this time worded my comments more forcefully. Time to contact Apple Legal?


Update: "rumblefish" released its CopyWrong claim against Apple. They should be sued for time wasted!

 

[arogge]

Here we go again! I just happened across my Youtube Copyright Notices page, and found yet another copyright claim against a licensed iLife music track. This one says:

"深見東州-イシス", sound recording administered by: BounDee"

No, I don't think so! So, I've had APM Music, "One or more music publishing rights collecting societies," and now this BounDee all claiming copyright through ContentID against the same 2-minute audio track from Apple. This is ridiculous!

 

[SrWebDeveloper]

YouTube's contentID is an automated service that scans video uploads looking for known copyright infringements. Many complaints have been filed as to the accuracy of this software which scans up to 60 hrs of uploaded videos per minute. There are two issues here. First, the technology is new and with the massive data being collected and examined, flaws come in large numbers. Secondly, claimants in these false copyright claims have learned to game the system making claims against user’s videos so that they can monetize them.

In other words - even if you did everything right, you can still get in trouble with contentID and the resolution path is part of the problem as well due to a subpar reporting system and poor vetting of claimants.

Maybe it's time for a huge class action lawsuit.

 

[arogge]

Here we go again. I uploaded an instrumental rendition of Amazing Grace from a live performance, and it was immediately claimed by:

• AdShare MG for a Third Party
• The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA)
• Music Services, Inc.

The last time I disputed something with The Harry Fox Agency through Youtube, they let it go 30 days until it expired and the dispute was denied. I hope they don't come to my next concert and tell me that I can't perform the music in my folder. I did an arrangement of Shenandoah yesterday, which they also probably try to claim ownership of. Ridiculous!

 

[Consultant]

Here we go again. I uploaded an instrumental rendition of Amazing Grace from a live performance, and it was immediately claimed by:

• AdShare MG for a Third Party
• The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA)
• Music Services, Inc.

The last time I disputed something with The Harry Fox Agency through Youtube, they let it go 30 days until it expired and the dispute was denied. I hope they don't come to my next concert and tell me that I can't perform the music in my folder. I did an arrangement of Shenandoah yesterday, which they also probably try to claim ownership of. Ridiculous!

Yes you have to pay to perform a cover song for profit:
"A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law

As others said, you have to create your own music if you want to be cleared of music licensing industry.

 

[arogge]

As others said, you have to create your own music if you want to be cleared of music licensing industry.

The words and melody for Amazing Grace aren't bound by an original copyright, and neither the arranger nor publisher are Harry Fox. If this were the arranger or publisher trying to raise more money with his own advertising, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's also usually a performance license to perform the sheet music, and there was broadcast permission as well. The video that I have is editorial, and does not "use" the music other than to provide some brief coverage of the band.

In other words, Harry Fox needs to butt out, unless they would like to explain why Harry Fox should be paid for sheet music and a performance that Harry Fox didn't have anything to do with. The other two claimants released their claims, so it's looking like this Harry Fox once again trying to claim the notes to a popular melody arranged for a band.

There seems to be an ongoing misconception that ContentID is doing the right thing, by identifying the use of pop tunes from commercial CDs being used for unrelated commercial purposes. That's not what's going on here. These are public performances, and there are usually licenses from the publisher to perform and broadcast the music even so. What this system is allowing some corporations to do is claim anything that sounds like something they input as their own, and most people just ignore it, after which their videos are hit with advertising for Hollywood movies or Big Pharma drugs or whatever else Google is pushing.

From the Bach arrangement that was written by the band performing it, to variants of Shenandoah and Amazing Grace, they make off with money as a result. Although all claims against my videos, except for those from Harry Fox, have been withdrawn, it's still annoying to have to waste time with these automatic accusations that presume guilt, including when the complaint is ignored for more than a month. Clearly, when ContentID is also allowing multiple corporations to claim ownership of Apple's own electronic music in iLife, there's something wrong with the method of copyright identification, and money raised from legitimate copyright claims should be going directly to the copyright owners instead of the likes of Harry Fox and Music Services.

 

[SrWebDeveloper]

HFA and other such companies are proxies, or brokers if you will, between artists with legitimate copyrights and their music and/or lyrics. These companies do not have to be artist or publishing related. Maybe think of them more as a collection agency considering their goal is to extort money via YouTube's ContentID service as I explained in an earlier topic. They found a sadly legal money making scheme exploiting the technology.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[arogge]

HFA and other such companies are proxies, or brokers if you will, between artists with legitimate copyrights and their music and/or lyrics.

I know that can't be right because the small artists who write music and perform it have no means of collecting through any of these third-party "collectors" extorting money through Youtube. So, if I arrange a piece by Bach, these third-parties should pay me, but instead they're paying themselves and whichever big company that is able to claim ownership of anything that sounds like Bach, from an orchestral theme to the chords in the background of a rap track.

 

[SrWebDeveloper]

Sorry in advance for a long response, but this is worth clarifying:

Companies like HFA work with affilitated publishing companies to collect/distribute and examine licenses which end up as royalties from the publishing company which is how artists get paid. So in a sense they are a broker. HFA gets paid through fixed contracts with the publishing company, percentages of court settlements or awards, fees and membership dues. YouTube's CONTENTID service is a windfall marketing channel for such companies, i.e. HFA will represent a major publishing company which does not have the resources nor desire to track licensing infringements. As noted earlier in the conversation, CONTENTID is an imperfect means of collecting licensing data and companies like HFA exploit the loopholes. As you noted, a small time artist gets caught up in a corporate mechanical axe which sees you, through CONTENTID, as no different than Bruce Springsteen. Matter of fact, HFA hopes you'll cave and settle to avoid the red tape and BS legal scare tactics. But, also, they can sue and will for more visible licensing issues, and in turn will seek to collect license fees to pay the publishing company which in turn has a legal obligation by contract to reimburse their artists by means of a royalty.

Or if you are not represented by the publisher and the music is not original, HFA or similar have the full legal authority as a stakeholder and partner with YouTube to ask them to pull or tag your content because they represent the PUBLISHER's best interest and are their partner, in fact. It's up to you for recourse by either contacting YouTube or HFA, etc.

If your content gets pulled or tagged due to copyright issues but it's original music, you can be sued by HFA who represents the publisher to seek damages and licensing fees, but it's the burden of the artist to prove otherwise. And that usually means court as your means of recourse.

Note: Some artists have their own publishing companies to confuse matters a bit, but on paper they're still an affiliate to companies like HFA, or a publishing group which umbrella's smaller publishing companies.

http://www.harryfox.com/public/

 

[arogge]

Something unbelievable happened today. Harry Fox dropped the ownership claim against my Youtube video! That was unexpected.

 

[SrWebDeveloper]

They counted on you to be a lamb and not react against it in any way, most likely. They lay out flypaper and see what sticks for most of their so called claims. To them its a numbers game, I think. Congrats.