Basically - ignore it.

The operative word from Google/YouTube is "may include content". This is their way of covering their collective asses if the real copyright owner complains.

I taped a pianist playing some Bach and Chopin, and she got the same notice when she posted her videos on her YouTube page.

Steve Mann

Those notices are created electronically using fuzzy algorithms, so if Youtube thinks it "sounds like" something in the database, it spits out a notice. Nobody at Youtube actually listens to your content. Then they send a notice to the publisher they "think" might own the music. The publisher can then do nothing, add some advertising, or request that you take it down. There is an appeal process if you think you have the rights to upload the music.

That being said, very few publishers that subscribe to the service would ever ask you to take something down these days, unless they thought you were about to do them some harm. The thinking on this has changed considerably in the past few years and publishers realize that exposure probably trumps enforcement most of the time.

Let's take an example well known on these forums. I used a not-particularly good recording of Bach taken from a bargain-basement CD on my video tutorial. I was mildly surprised that it was ID'd in their database. After a while and many hits, they put up a little link where you could download the song for a buck, or the whole album (for about five times what the original CD cost me). Despite the fact that it wasn't a great performance, if somebody watching the tutorial liked it and purchased this obscure recording, everybody is a few cents ahead on royalties.



The days of being afraid of being spanked by Youtube are pretty much over. The crappy quality of their AAC pretty much makes piracy a non-issue unless the context could negatively impact the music publisher. Since neither of us is doing snuff videos, I wouldn't worry.
;?)

It's also import to realize that all this does is say that someone registered with them owns the copyright, not that you don't have permission to use it. That's between you and the owner. If you have proof they can't keep it down (but they can take it down out of risk of a lawsuit).

Thanks all. Okay, I'll just see what happens.

So, I guess after this discussion, I'll embed the YouTube video here. I felt like I had a peashooter in my hand with my little Panasonic TM700, in the midst of probably 100 still photogs with 300-800mm DSLRs. I didn't see another camcorder - of course some of those Canon 7Ds & 5Ds could have been shooting video, but I doubt it. One of my signals that action was occuring was to listen to all 100 DSLRs click, click, clicking.

I consider the following just mediocre. However, if you search YouTube with "Conowingo Eagles", there are some really crappy videos. Some of the still photogs have posted video slideshows of their stills which were pretty impressive, but I didn't see any actual video that was any better than my mediocre attempt.



btw: Next time I'll purposely underexpose as setting the exposure without an eagle, caused the white feathers to be blown out - and I couldn't fix it in post.

I guess I need some much more expensive equipment if I want to do a good job photographing eagles.

...Jerry

PS: The music ain't much either, but it's Royalty free [chuckle]

"I guess I need some much more expensive equipment if I want to do a good job photographing eagles"

A longer lens with an expensive tripod does help :)
Oh and add in a bucketload of experiece, there's people hwo shoot that kind of stuff for a living and there's the rest of humanity.

Regardless I quite enjoyed it, much eagle love here. I would like to have the experience of one resting on my arm to add to the list of things "done" in my life.


Regarding the exposure thing. In that kind of scenario probably best to do it the old school way, set exposure based on the amount of light. If you don't have a light meter a 50% grey card can be used. Also though keep in mind that the zoom lenses on the cameras that most of us can afford loose light at longer focal lenghts, probably a good idea to test this to know what is happening. Some cameras seem to compensate for this automatically and some don't.

Bob.

That particular PERFORMANCE of that Bach is probably still under copyright.

The alert re your royaly-free music is an error of YT's part - you should contact them re this, with proof. However actually contacting Google/YT and getting a sensible response is pretty tricky....

geoff

One more thing, in the video posted above, if you hadn't noticed, Mercalli V2 was a big help here (I was at 18x zoom, handheld, trying to shoot moving birds about 1/2 mile away). Also, velocity envelopes were generously applied. The third scene in, closeup with the two eagles, had a 10% velocity envelope.

Shooting in 1920x1080 60p helps a lot.

...Jerry

"I taped a pianist playing some Bach and Chopin, and she got the same notice when she posted her videos on her YouTube page."

In this case, the pianist owned the copyright of the video we made of her playing Bach. She got the notice anyway.

This whole issue is much more important if one is a YouTube partner, or hoping at some time to monetize videos on YouTube, as I believe monetization is suspended while there is a dispute, and a music producer can end up getting the ad revenue share instead of you, the video producer.

What I hadn't realised until recently, is that a lot of RF music available online only covers you for the production rights, not the performance rights. This article explains more. So as a YouTube partner I'm going to have to go through the licenses of all the so-called "RF" music I've collected and make completely sure they are 100% RF.

Steve Mann, No, don't ignore it, as the notice means that the ones claiming ownership of the music can now monetize the video by putting their ads on it.

Incompetech's Kevin MacLeod have been struggling with YouTube over this kind of issues, and YouTube seems to now take a dim view on firms who does not react to counter-claims.

@Nick Hope, Interesting article.

As I said in the beginning, I'm just a hobbyist. I'm not trying to monetize my YouTube video, but I would rather not have any ads pop up.

I'm not a lawyer, but here's a summary of what I read in Footage Firm License Agreement.pdf

1) I can use the footage vitually anywhere, in exchange for the fee I paid them for the DVD (I think it was about $8, which they claimed was shipping & handling).
2) The one thing I cannot do is resell the music as a library.
3) Footage Firm retains the copyright.
4) There is no mention of any distinction between performance & composition rights.

So, maybe that YouTube notice is just to notify the world that Footage Firm retains the copyright - and nothing further will come of it.

On the other hand, if I get a notice indicating that Footage Firm or "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" (whovever they might be) wishes to start displaying ads on my video, I must ask the questions, "Why should I even bother with Royalty Free music? Why not use commercial music?" (the reference article linked by Nick Hope seems to indicate that if I use commerical music for my YouTube video, they might ask me to take it down, but mostly they just want to attach ads.) If I'm going to get ads anyway, why not use "good" music? I understand this could be a problem for the "YouTube partner", but I'm not planning to get ad revenue anyway.

...Jerry (who really wants to play by the rules, but is having trouble understanding them)

Or it could just be a scam! Today's wired.com has the following timely article: Rogues Falsely Claim Copyright on YouTube Videos to Hijack Ad Dollars

I think the article is primarily focused upon video content, but it seems the scam would also work with audio.

...Jerry

My guess is that the video was flagged because the YouTube DRM system recognized the music as copyright by xyz artist. And they are right, it is copyright by xyz artist. And as you stated, you have licensed the music, but YouTube has no way of knowing that unless you tell them (and probably provide some sort of "proof").

I would guess this is going to happen more often for everyone.

Jim

"If I'm going to get ads anyway, why not use "good" music? I understand this could be a problem for the "YouTube partner", but I'm not planning to get ad revenue anyway."

First off it's important to always remember YT is a money making venture, Advertising funds the service. You can end up with ads over your video regardless of the music you use.

Secondly there is no reason to not use "good" music. Many copyright owners have agreed to let YT use their music as a way to promote the sale of their music. As a result you get the right to use the music in the videos you upload to YT. This is much the same as how it used to work decades ago in radio. Radio stations play the music at no cost to themselves, people hear it, like it and buy the record, an all around win.

I never use "good" music by design however as I shoot a lot of events I don't have a choice much of the time. The way YT have arranged things it works pretty well for me, sanity prevails. When I do choose music it is pretty well always content that I have paid for the rights to use. One reason I do not use "good" music when I have the choice is because I then need to know if YT have a deal to cover it or not.

Bob.

"This is much the same as how it used to work decades ago in radio. Radio stations play the music at no cost to themselves, people hear it, like it and buy the record, an all around win."Now, that makes sense.

...Jerry

"This is much the same as how it used to work decades ago in radio. Radio stations play the music at no cost to themselves, people hear it, like it and buy the record, an all around win."''

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. As far as I know, Radio and TV stations have always had to pay ASCAP/BMI fees. At least as long as ASCAP/BMI have been around (since 1914) so that pretty much covers the entire history of radio and TV.

In fact, even public venues like Convention Centers, Bars and Restaurants have to pay these fees to cover band performances, jukebox plays and such.

Jim

"I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. As far as I know, Radio and TV stations have always had to pay ASCAP/BMI fees. At least as long as ASCAP/BMI have been around (since 1914) so that pretty much covers the entire history of radio and TV.

Certainly the Australian Performing Rights Association (APRA) made any public place pay fees. They got to the point of demanding fees from pub and clubs simply for having a dusty, out of tune piano in the corner because someone might belt out a song on it. Sure you can imagine how that ended. Kind of the start of the end of live music in pubs and clubs. They were also chasing every business that had a PABX that might have had music on hold,

Same thing happened with the fitness industry. APRA wrangled something like a 500% fee increase so the clubs went to royalty free music and APRA and local musos get zip.

As for commercial radio I'm not 100% certain of the exact details, maybe they were paying a set fee and then APRA wanted a bigger slice. Certainly something happened and a lot of the smaller Australian performers were not at all happy. Whatever it was the less well known performers were right, the number of AM and FM stations playing music and in particular local music went into decline. Most of our radio is just shock jocks and endless chatter. At least on FM it's in good quality stereo and now we've got digital, sigh.

Bob.

ASCAP and BMI members pay for blanket live performance rights in most situations.
There was a move in the broadcast segment in that direction, but AFAIK it is still piece rate based on some kind of formula.

I worked in broadcast TV for 12 years (starting in 1977), and we had to pay a yearly ASCAP/BMI "fee" based on our yearly revenue and market size. It was to cover "broadcast" and "re-broadcast" of copyright material. So any programming content that was transmitted or re-transmitted by us (we were an NBC affiliate) was covered by this so called "blanket" license.

So, let's say the station ran a commercial produced by Joeblow Production that contained a piece of music that Joeblow had paid "synchronization" rights to, our "blanket" broadcast license gave us the right to broadcast it.

a. The production company paid for the right to sync it, but not the right to broadcast it.
b. The television station had paid for right to broadcast it, but not the right to sync it.

Our sister radio stations had the same ASCAP / BMI license to cover everything they broadcast. But, they had a tendency to play a little loose with the rules, in that they had a habit of using the music for their clients commercials -- which is a big no-no.

ASCAP / BMI doesn't even offer sync licenses. I called them and talked to one of their lawyers. And he spent 20 minutes explaining to me the details of what we could and couldn't do with our ASCAP / BMI license as well as how "vigorously" they protect their artists rights.

ASCAP Radio Rights FAQ

ASCAP Television Rights FAQ

Jim

PS: I did read on the ASCAP FAQ that at some point there was an additional license type offered: Per Program. But, this sounds a little clunky in that the station has to file monthly reports that details use of ASCAP managed content (sounds like needle drop).

Anyone have any experience disputing a copyright notice with a YouTube video? We received one for one of our videos, and I'm disputing it.... but that was 3 weeks ago and still no word from YouTube. I'd like to monetize this video!

Beware of this litigious fraud going on -- it is probably as easily perpetrated (maybe moreso) through Youtube as through your trusted ISP. The fact that it is going on at all speaks rather poorly of your "assumed" rights as a content prover:

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/bhuffman/latest-nationwide-internet-user-identification-part-1-ancient-state-law-pure-bill-disc