Consistency is the Root of all Awesomeness

When it comes to little things like the law, and rules created to reflect it, consistency is usually the cornerstone of its integrity. Obviously there will always be exceptions to the rule/law but in general we can all hope that everyone is dealt with fairly and objectively.

Which is why YouTube’s approach to copyright is somewhat less than awesome.

Copyright is actually very simple to understand. 1 What is infringing? 2 Remove infringing content.

On YouTube there are two things to consider, is the video content infringing/is the audio content infringing? As it’s a video site then it makes sense for the whole video to be removed if it’s the video content that’s infringing, but if the audio is the infringing part then that should be muted….. and this is not some far out concept:

A TRIBUTE band to rockers The Eagles have been left dumbfounded after the ’70s legends’ record company ordered their track to be taken off YouTube.

Swansea-based tribute group the Ultimate Eagles have so far received more than 750,000 views on the site for their rendition of The Eagles classic Desperado.

But the footage, made in Llanelli, has now been “muted” after the Eagles’ publishers stepped in with a legal challenge.

[…]

“The video footage was left intact, as that belongs to us, but the sound was muted even though it is us singing and playing, not The Eagles.”

In the meantime I’ve had a reply from those denizens of consistency at YouTube:

Dear David,

Thank you for notification.

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. As such, we will not be able to restore your video.

Please take some time to review our Copyright Tips,
http://youtube.com/t/howto_copyright, as well as the copyright-related
information available in our Help Center.

You may also visit YouTube’s Copyright School, a self-paced guide to copyright terms and tools, found here:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=25903

If we receive a retraction of the claim from the original claimant, we will be able to restore the video immediately.

Otherwise, we unfortunately are unable to assist further in this matter.

Sincerely,

The YouTube Team

Hmm…. I create the gameplay, I edit the gameplay, I put a notice at the beginning of the video identifying it’s legal status but apparently (according to YouTube) that’s not enough. This is not actually the first time that I’ve encountered a complete lack of intelligence regarding the subject of copyright. Many many many moons ago I had a video deleted from my web host for copyright infringement….. even though it was an original track that I wrote and recorded, the video was filmed and edited by me, I was in it, and I had a copyright notice at the end.

The mind boggles.

I’ll take it that “If we receive a retraction of the claim from the original claimant, we will be able to restore the video immediately. Otherwise, we unfortunately are unable to assist further in this matter.” As the polite way of saying “Go jump off a cliff”.

I will reply asking them clarify at what point LoveCatMusic obtained ownership of my video content, but I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

Dear The YouTube Team

Thank you for your reply.

However, I do have the necessary rights to post the VIDEO content on YouTube.

The video content of the alleged infringing video was created, recorded and edited by me. At the beginning of the video there is a very clear copyright notice which states that the VIDEO content is covered by the EUCD and DMCA.

The audio was ‘Bidibodi Bidibu’ by Bubbles which LoveCatMusic are apparently the copyright holders. As such the audio content was allegedly infringing, not the video content (to which I retain copyright as creator). It would make sense that in the event that the audio was deemed to be infringing copyright then it should have been muted as has been the case on numerous other videos.

The situation is further confused by the fact that numerous other videos use the same audio but are not deemed to be infringing copyright, for example:





Or just use the search: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bidibodi+Bidibu&aq=f

To recap – LoveCatMusic do not own the copyright to the VIDEO content and as such it should be reinstated with the audio muted.

If you require that I do this via the legal challenge then I require you to inform me as to which jurisdiction the claim of copyright was made.

Regards

David Nicol

….not holding my breath. But it’s all a bit of fun in the meantime. Dance monkeys! DANCE!!

New channel: http://www.youtube.com/thecheapkills

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cheapkills

Peas and loaves.

Want to know how to comment on or subscribe to this blog? Click here.

Find me on PSN – evaDlivE


David Nicol is Articles Editor for hupitgaming.com, YouTube gaming commentator and blogger based in the UK.

11 thoughts on “Consistency is the Root of all Awesomeness

  1. Well it just smacks you as double stands and one rule ‘don’t fit all.’

    I really hope that you get the result you want on this. OK if you / we (as in all the other youtubers) are wrong then fine but if other people are not penalised, that’s just not right.

    • Even if they did take off the strike (which they won’t) I won’t be going back to the old channel. A channel with no strikes at all has a lot more freedom.

      The worst thing about getting a copyright strike is that they NEVER expire. So if you mess up on one occasion, even if it was an honest mistake, your channel is basically tainted for ever.

      At least in the real world we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act….

  2. can you please remove the record company’s name from your post.

    The artist asked YouTube to remove most of 300+ videos that illegally used their song. That is the right of the creator of the song. Your use and hundreds of other videos like it were negatively impacting the market for this song. Your video is not fair use. Magazines get permission for photographs and other copyrighted materials.

    If we created a video using your creations and posted it on the web, you might feel differently.

    • Thanks for the message Ariel.

      ‘LoveCatMusic’ will NOT be removed from this post, or the preceding one as LOVECATMUSIC was named by YouTube as being the copyright holder and complainant. I understand you work for LoveCatMusic which means that you or one of your colleagues made the claim rather than Bubbles(?) directly. If LoveCatMusic is not the complainant, and LoveCatMusic are not the copyright holder then LoveCatMusic really should contact YouTube directly if the association with LoveCatMusic is incorrect.

      I’m only reporting what I have received and that is why LoveCatMusic have been named. Perhaps the artist – Bubbles? Should have made it clear to YouTube that they are not LoveCatMusic. That way there would not now be posts here mentioning LoveCatMusic since it was LoveCatMusic who was named by YouTube to me as being copyright holder.

      As I’ve already said I’ve never claimed to be the copyright holder of the music and made it very clear that the copyright holder (who YouTube believes is LoveCatMusic) can have the audio pulled at any time on any allegedly infringing video.

      You’ve said that MY video is not fair use. You’re right because my VIDEO is its own copyrighted entity. Unfortunately you’ve failed to make the distinction between my VIDEO content and the AUDIO content. My issue is not that the audio has been deemed to be allegedly infringing, but that YouTube seems to be under the impression that LoveCatMusic owns the rights to my VIDEO content.

      I just want that clarified.

      As for the subject of me thinking differently if someone used my content and put it on the web….. well let’s put it this way: I’m more more than happy for people to use my creations in whatever way they wish, in fact I put plenty of original material on the web under Creative Commons and free use terms. But there we are, some people are sharers and carers and others…… aren’t.

    • so you are saying remove his thoughts, is it??
      also this guy has a lot of subscribers and i as one of those subscribers bought your stupid ass song due to that video promoting it.

      Oh and Dave, fight these S.O.B for their stupid ass actions!

      • Duck – if LoveCat Music and/or Bubble don’t want their track used then that is entirely their prerogative.

        That’s not what I have issue with, my issue is the implication that they have somehow become the copyright holders of my VIDEO content.

        So you bought the track eh?

        “Your use and hundreds of other videos like it were negatively impacting the market for this song.” …… indeed.

  3. David – we never claimed to own your video content. We notified YouTube of videos using our songs without permission. Apparently Youtube’s automatic functions somehow translate that into a claim to own your video. You mainly object to this.

    I assure you that we did not claim to own your video.
    We very clearly stated that our AUDIO song was the only copyright being infringed. Your problem should be with YouTube, not the song’s creators.

    • My problem is with YouTube, not LoveCat Music, or Bubbles, or anyone else. All references to this issue have said the issue is with YouTube and the peculiar way in which they inconsistently deal with copyright issues.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s