YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music

[sankt]

"I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/...yrighted-music

[Sabine Klare]

That's incredible!!!...
Birds are animals, not humans. Birds are not musicians or members of the GEMA, EMG, BMG, UMG or whatever...
Since when a birdsong, recorded in the nature, is a copyrighted music???...
Which idea will YouTube have as next?...
Some weeks ago YouTube had made problems, when I had uploaded a video with my husband's music, but I had claimed, that I am his wife, and everything was good again...
Since 8 hours MyVideo makes problems, the new video is not yet available, because it is currently veryfied, although the music is from our music-project. There is no third-party-content in this video, only our music!!!...
I upload only videos with our own music or music from our music-projects or our musical cooperations, I don't upload videos from other artists than only us. The pictures and video-scenes are also from me or my husband, I don't use pictures or video-scenes from websites. And for Milkdrop 2 of Winamp the YouTube-user have the permission to use it for YouTube...
I am very angry with the video-platforms now...
Greetings from Sabine Klare Aka Sternenmaschinebine

[rockouthippie]

Youtube can do whatever it wants. It's a private company, not the government. They can and do pay some companies that are set up, if not exclusively, almost exclusively, to make false copyright claims.

The only thing you can do is get your own hosting. Then someone actually has to file a DMCA notice and swear to it. Then you have recourse.

Overall, I'll bet their system catches a lot more infringement than false positives. This is just the cost of free video hosting.

Expect that you will have to contest any video you upload to Youtube and you're on the right page.

Usually contesting a phony claim does work. I think a couple of these companies just take advantage of the fact people don't protest.

You might look up the recent case about Betty Boop. Some of this noise is about rights holders trying to reclaim public domain materials with trademarks or personality rights. The law says you can't do that. The courts now said it with authority.

Legal.. Smeagle ... doesn't really matter with Youtube. They can do whatever they want.

[Warrior of the Light]

yup. Pay those birds. They're the original artists after all

Lesson learned: if you care about rights, don't put your stuff online. There are no rights on the internet.

the actual video:

[sankt]

Rumblefish CEO: Claiming Copyright On Your Incidental Recordings Of Birds Was Merely A Series Of Unfortunate Errors

Following Rumblefish claiming copyright via YouTube's ContentID system (and putting ads on the video to monetize it) of a guy's nature video because the birds singing in the background sounded too much like a Rumblefish-licensed track, Rumblefish's CEO has gone into PR crisis mode, setting up an AMA (ask me anything) on Reddit to address the story.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...e-errors.shtml

[rockouthippie]

It isn't just Rumblefish. And I think 99/100 times people who had their content falsely identified by Rumblefish would just eat it.

it also can (and often is) abused to either take down content or to monetize someone else's content.

That about says it. I don't know whether Rumblefish actually owns the rights to any content at all, but I do know there are ones that are complete bullshit artists.

If Youtube is going to make us prove we own it, they ought to make these vendors prove (or at least swear) they own it.

[mike-db]

Originally Posted by rockouthippie

It isn't just Rumblefish. And I think 99/100 times people who had their content falsely identified by Rumblefish would just eat it.



That about says it. I don't know whether Rumblefish actually owns the rights to any content at all, but I do know there are ones that are complete bullshit artists.

If Youtube is going to make us prove we own it, they ought to make these vendors prove (or at least swear) they own it.

He really could have addressed this issue a lot better than. "Duuh I duno wut hapend! Life so hard. We make gud muzak fo u?"

[rockouthippie]

No. I don't think he could. If he explained himself, it would have been worse. His explanation was actually perfect. Primarily, there is no admission that this situation is not unique.

Probably the last thing Rumblefish would want to do is get in a detailed discussion about their activities.

[swingdjted]

I left YouTube just prior to the beginning of this month for privacy policy reasons. This just reinforces to me that YouTube is no longer something I like or want.

[Sabine Klare]

I'm forced to pick up this thread again...
I've read the Facebook Status of another YouTube Electronic Music Composer and friend. There are currently 47 replys to her status. I've bookmarked some links in Firefox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rbSCtJyfw
http://productforums.google.com/foru...en/1zyCT1edeKY
http://www.dance-all-day.com/
I recommend to read all comments to the YouTube-Video in the first link and I also recommend to use the Google Translator for the second link. If I've understood it right, then "Dance All Day" is not better than Rumblefish...
They have no rights to take us away the joy to show our own works!...

[rockouthippie]

Unfortunately in the United States making a bogus copyright claim is less than the penalty for parking 13" from the curb. You might want to consider contacting EFF. They might help you with a lawsuit if you're wronged.

It is illegal to make a false copyright claim. Just not very illegal. Youtube can do whatever it wants. It is the way they keep from getting sued into infinity.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...utube-appeals/

[Sabine Klare]

I've replied in Facebook with a link to this thread today, then another friend has also replied...
He has made a very good suggestion: If You compose new tracks (I recommend to create them as WAV files), then at first burn them with an extra software on CD-R, then send the CD-R to enroll in a sealed envelope with a letter to yourself, but please don't open this letter, please let it closed. this helps you as evidence in litigation before a court...
This man is awesome!!!...

[White Raven]

That's really, really gross. No asshole owns nature. I mean what, did they give the blackbirds a record deal? Come on.

[Widdykats]

^Nice to see you, White Raven and yes I agree. This is stupid and awful.

[swingdjted]

WR is back?

Hi!

[caitcid]

A little bird must have told someone that their songs were being recorded without their permission.

Just kidding I think that's ridiculous.

[Psythik]

WR pokes her beak in here every once and awhile & check up on us.

I do the same, but nobody seems to notice.

[swingdjted]

*ignores Psythik*

[webthing]

[webthing]

It's past my bed time. So I'll go into music for your youtube videos later. But I just came across this. Wow that's nice! thanks moby

http://www.mobygratis.com/