Vio
New Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2015
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 25
- Location
- Northwest UK
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Dash Cam
- G1W-H
I like making dash cam compilations, and I like listening to music while driving... you can see the issue which is bound to come about. So far I have 3 compilations on YouTube, all of which got hit by the content ID system because of some background music.
Previously I didn't mind too much - all it meant was that some viewers might see ads, and the video would be blocked in Germany (what is up with the Germans yo?) But eventually I realised that this need not be the case. My videos are for educational, non-commercial and non-profit purposes. Any copyrighted work is purely incidental music which usually appears for no more than thirty seconds, and has practially zero effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted works. That's basically the definition of fair use, is it not?
And with this in mind, I decided to dispute all of the claims. And I did so successfully for two of the three videos, which now play fine and ad-free wherever you are in the world.
Today I visited YouTube and found out that Sony Music Entertainment has made a copyright notification against me in regards to my April compilation, for which I have recieved a copyright strike. The video has been taken off YouTube, because of one short clip's background music.
What annoys me most - apart from being forced to endure some grade-school-quality fair use tutorial by YouTube featuring things I already knew - is this:
"A claimant sent us a legal notice about their copyrighted content in your video."
So this isn't a case of your usual automatic content ID'd some music and thinks you hate copyright laws... this is an actual person - who more than likely knows full well what does and what doesn't qualify for fair use - who nonetheless has gone out of their way to get my video taken down, and for apparently no ulterior motive. Why? Will my viewers decide to boycott The Fray because they don't like my driving...?
Not happy. Am I going to challenge this? You bet I am. I have a counter-notification pending already, and if they are equally stubborn and fancy going to court over it (remember Lenz v. UMC for the same thing?), I think I have pretty solid legal ground to stand on.
That's my rant for today.
Previously I didn't mind too much - all it meant was that some viewers might see ads, and the video would be blocked in Germany (what is up with the Germans yo?) But eventually I realised that this need not be the case. My videos are for educational, non-commercial and non-profit purposes. Any copyrighted work is purely incidental music which usually appears for no more than thirty seconds, and has practially zero effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted works. That's basically the definition of fair use, is it not?
And with this in mind, I decided to dispute all of the claims. And I did so successfully for two of the three videos, which now play fine and ad-free wherever you are in the world.
Today I visited YouTube and found out that Sony Music Entertainment has made a copyright notification against me in regards to my April compilation, for which I have recieved a copyright strike. The video has been taken off YouTube, because of one short clip's background music.
What annoys me most - apart from being forced to endure some grade-school-quality fair use tutorial by YouTube featuring things I already knew - is this:
"A claimant sent us a legal notice about their copyrighted content in your video."
So this isn't a case of your usual automatic content ID'd some music and thinks you hate copyright laws... this is an actual person - who more than likely knows full well what does and what doesn't qualify for fair use - who nonetheless has gone out of their way to get my video taken down, and for apparently no ulterior motive. Why? Will my viewers decide to boycott The Fray because they don't like my driving...?
Not happy. Am I going to challenge this? You bet I am. I have a counter-notification pending already, and if they are equally stubborn and fancy going to court over it (remember Lenz v. UMC for the same thing?), I think I have pretty solid legal ground to stand on.
That's my rant for today.