Can I avoid constant incorrect copyright claims.

[sydh]

Unfortunately, there is no way you can completely block these claimants. They have the right to place copyright claims on your video as long as they're in good faith. Convincing youtube that these claims are made in bad faith would require a lot more evidence than simply proving that you aren't in violation of copyright.

In good faith is a mute point. Running algorithms is fine but when it finds a potential infringement, there should be a human intervention. As I said, guilty until proved innocent. It is in their interest not to investigate properly knowing that they will gain financially if it is not disputed.

 

[sydh]

I use PowerDirector for my editing. It comes with a lot of music and sound effects. Every time I use any of the music I get hit for a copyright. Every time YouTube finds in my favor (more likely the claimant just does not follow up - same thing). I have a saved bit of text, saying I have the right to use the sounds...but I have to provide it every time. Right now the system is very flawed, and not likely to change.

I guess the YT music might be safe? But I have not found any I really like.

I do use music from SoundCloud. It is provided by the author and so far has never been hit. I like the music by Ikson (kind of lo-fi hip hop)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will check them out. The main problem is with classical music. An algorithm can't hear the difference between different performers. Maybe they should exclude classical from their checks but that would not be in their interest would it.

 

[sydh]

A common mistake video creators make is in distinguishing between the different types of copyright involved in music. This includes classical compositions which are obviously in the Public Domain due to age. Any piece of music has at least two, and possibly as many as four copyrights involved.

The first is of course, for the composition itself. The second would come into play if there are lyrics involved in the musical piece. I know of at least two modern recording artists who based songs on Public Domain classical compositions and now have copyrighted recordings based on these pieces with lyrics added. The sound recordings themselves are the third copyright type; and this is most likely the source of @sydh's problem. The fourth copyright would be for the arrangement of the music.

You see, a composer can be dead for a century or more; but the minute a new arrangement of the music is done, that arrangement comes under copyright. Any recorded performance of the music would also be under copyright, unless the recording is also more than 100 years old. 100 years after production is a safe point to consider something to be out of copyright in general; as when the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was written, and countries cloned it for their own use, it was stated in different ways, according to the country applying it.

In the USA, where this law originated, copyright is in effect until 75 years after a recording artist's death, unless it is renewed by the record company which held the recording contract. Same for composers, lyricists and arrangers, unless a legal heir somehow exists and wants to renew the copyright.

I know @sydh will say this doesn't answer his question, so I will give an answer to footnote this explanation.

No; you can't avoid constant copyright claims if you use recorded music which may still be under copyright. As different orchestra recordings of a work may sound similar, Content ID's algorithm finds false positives all the time. The only way to avoid claims entirely, and even this doesn't always work (I am living proof of this), is to compose your own music for use in your videos.

I agree with all you say but it still doesn't detract from the fact that the system is broken. I have had natural recording of waves on a beach recorded through the camera, yet a claim was made. The same happened with the background sound of birds in woodland. These were my recordings, yet I still have to spend time defending myself. I should add, one of those instances, my dispute was rejected and I had to go through the second step with an appeal. Luckily I won the appeal but I wasn't sure what to do after that. How do you prove your own recording?
The problem is that it is too easy for these companies to dish out automatic claims via computer at zero cost to themselves knowing that in thousands of cases they will be rewarded albeit in error. I still believe YouTube could do more to help the creators but it is also not in their interest.

 

[UKHypnotist]

In good faith is a mute point. Running algorithms is fine but when it finds a potential infringement, there should be a human intervention. As I said, guilty until proved innocent. It is in their interest not to investigate properly knowing that they will gain financially if it is not disputed.

The thing is, it's now in the best interest of the channel owner whose video has been hit by a claim to dispute the claim if he in fact owns or licenses the rights to the copyrighted material under claim.

Since late 2016, once a dispute is filed, the claimant no longer continues to earn during the dispute period. Instead, all monies earned by the disputed video are funnelled into an escrow fund by YouTube. When they dispute is won, the money earned during the dispute is put into the winners account.

 

[UKHypnotist]

I agree with all you say but it still doesn't detract from the fact that the system is broken. I have had natural recording of waves on a beach recorded through the camera, yet a claim was made. The same happened with the background sound of birds in woodland. These were my recordings, yet I still have to spend time defending myself. I should add, one of those instances, my dispute was rejected and I had to go through the second step with an appeal. Luckily I won the appeal but I wasn't sure what to do after that. How do you prove your own recording?

That wasn't the "broken system" by the way, unless you think YouTube needs to update the system to automatically exclude ineligible recordings. The types of sounds you were tagged for, are precisely the same type I myself was tagged for; and I also had to go to the level of appeal. Nature sounds are actually ineligible for the CID system as they cannot be exclusively owned; and copyright owners who try to claim them are violating the rules of Content ID.

What YouTube has in place is a "repeat abusers of the system will be punished" rule; but I have no idea how often it's applied or enforced.

How do you prove your own recording? You offer to provide a copy of the original, with documentation proving the recording date. If it had gone to the level of the appeal being rejected and a strike being applied to your account, you would have filed a DMCA Counter-Notice. After that, the claimant would have to file a lawsuit to keep your video off YouTube.

If they didn't file, YouTube would be required by law to restore your video. This is why documenting your video production process is extremely important.

 

[sydh]

If nature sounds are ineligible, why do I get so many. That's what's broken. To keep it cheap, they minimise human intervention but at our cost. Claims are one thing but rejecting a claim before a human has checked it is wrong.
Today I have yet another claim on a video I posted years ago, a video that has claims on it before. Maybe if a claim has been withdrawn on a video, that video should be marked "legal" to avoid continuous future claims.
Don't forget, I make no money due to the 1000 subscriber rule despite hits being in 6 figures. Maybe if I had some reward it would seem worth all the hassle.

 

[UKHypnotist]

If nature sounds are ineligible, why do I get so many. That's what's broken. To keep it cheap, they minimise human intervention but at our cost. Claims are one thing but rejecting a claim before a human has checked it is wrong.

Because YouTube hasn't re-coded the software to disallow such sounds being placed in the CID database as samples in the first place, is why. Programmers are actually some of the most expensive people to employ in the world; hourly wages can run from hundreds per hour for an independent hiree on a short term job; and if they are permanent in-house salaried instead, you can be talking 6-7 figures per year, depending on the software sector they code for.

Claims are not rejected before a human has checked it. Disputed claims must be checked by a human. The problem here, is that the human, is the claimant company itself; and who knows what any of them are thinking? In the case of Rights Management companies such as The Orchard, one can usually write to them, and use strong but polite language to let them know they are out of bounds, and you are not standing for it.

Today I have yet another claim on a video I posted years ago, a video that has claims on it before. Maybe if a claim has been withdrawn on a video, that video should be marked "legal" to avoid continuous future claims.

Unfortunately though you can wish for the section in bold to be implemented, that is simply not going to happen; as a single work can have multiple copyrights involved (as I've stated before). If multiple copyrights and therefore multiple possible claimants are involved with a work, there is no legal way to make it immune to future claims.

Don't forget, I make no money due to the 1000 subscriber rule despite hits being in 6 figures. Maybe if I had some reward it would seem worth all the hassle.

I will now try to make it "worth all the hassle" in spite of you not currently having some reward. Channels with multiple copyright claims existing against their videos at the time of application to the YouTube Partner Program will be rejected for membership and monetization. It's therefore in your best interest to dispute claims as they arise; otherwise you will simply give away money you shouldn't, and will need to do a mass dispute just before applying for monetization.

Also, failure to dispute a claim will give YouTube the idea that the claim is in fact, valid. As using unlicensed copyright material in your videos is a Terms of Service violation, a Community Guidelines violation, and an AdSense Content Policy violation; you can't afford to give YouTube the wrong impression here. Doing so could cause the termination of your channel.

 

[sydh]

1. I can't believe the cost of another human is a good reason. Just checked and Alphabet made 29 billion dollar profit this year so far. No excuse.
2. I still don't believe human checks are done until after appeal. What human would reject my dispute of the sound of waves on a beach.
3. Totally agree with you regarding continuance of disputes. However to be honest, the main reason I continue the disputes is because it is morally wrong for these companies to earn money from content that is not theirs, especially when I get nothing. At least Google can say they have the costs of running YouTube to pay for.

Thanks for your discussion. It's good to talk as they say. It still won't stop me from spitting and cursing every time another dispute comes in.

 

[UKHypnotist]

1. I can't believe the cost of another human is a good reason. Just checked and Alphabet made 29 billion dollar profit this year so far. No excuse.

Alphabet may have made a profit; but YouTube is still bleeding money. It hasn't made a profit since Google bought it in late 2006; that's 13 years. This is one of the reasons it relies so much on automation; it doesn't want to add more human salaries to its fiscal loss sheet unless it absolutely has to.

2. I still don't believe human checks are done until after appeal. What human would reject my dispute of the sound of waves on a beach.

A greedy human that thinks you will run scared; cave, and not go to the level of appeal. It's happened to me for bird song, and I was prepared to fight it up to court and beyond.

Thanks for your discussion. It's good to talk as they say. It still won't stop me from spitting and cursing every time another dispute comes in.

If we all spit and curse enough, maybe one of these days, YouTube will actually get a clue! Have a good one.