drathbun Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 As a side-related note, how do I post a link to a Vimeo video that appears as the YouTube videos do in posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted May 1, 2019 Author Share Posted May 1, 2019 I'm still trying to get my head around this. I just received another notification from YouTube that says this: Dear Douglas Rathbun, Your video "Key To Highway", may have content that is owned or licensed by LatinAutor, UMPG Publishing, UBEM, and LatinAutor - UMPG, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it. If this is your performance of a 3rd party song then you can still make money from this video. Click here to change your monetization settings. This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video. - The YouTube Team Now AFAIKT "Key to the Highway" has no confirmed author. The first recording has the song attributed to blue pianist Charles Segar. It was then recorded by Big Bill Broonzy in the early '40's and then covered by Eric Clapton on the "Layla" album and again on "One More Car, One More Rider". How does UMPG come off claiming copyright for this song? Do they have copyright on "The Star Spangled Banner" too? Also, this notice just looks like an attempt to steal future ad revenue for the group that just claims the copyright. My channel isn't monetized but they want any revenue that might come IF it becomes monetized. I really expected other of my covers to get hit before something as old and unattributed as "Key to the Highway". I guess I'll have to shelve that idea about covering "Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 How does UMPG come off claiming copyright for this song? Do they have copyright on "The Star Spangled Banner" too? Also, this notice just looks like an attempt to steal future ad revenue for the group that just claims the copyright. My channel isn't monetized but they want any revenue that might come IF it becomes monetized. They own the rights to the use of the song. Yes they are taking a future position on the possibility that you could monetize your channel. Here's what's important: YOUTUBE AND ALL OF THE REST OF THEM REFUSE TO CREATE A SATISFACTORY RECOMPENSE SCHEME. Period. If bars and theaters and arenas took this stance there would be absolutely no place to play at all, anywhere. rct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 I think this is the root of the problem. In a reaction to the EU legislation, YouTube created a system that rewards accusers and punishes content creators. In this video, a YouTube content creator recounts how his OWN VOICE was hit with a copyright claim. He was testing his microphone and his new compressor in a PRIVATE stream and YouTube's "Content ID Tool" (bot), hit 30 seconds of him saying "test... test" into his mic as a copyright claim by "CD Baby". He appealed the decision but because YouTube's system has your appeal sent for a decision by the very group that made the claim, they denied his claim. If he appealed further, YouTube warns his streaming and channel might be taken down. Since this is his living, he backed off and gave it to them. Hopefully, YouTube will review its flawed practices and create a fairer system that will punish false claimers like it punishes true copyright violators. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4WC9CbFEy8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 Here is "TheFatRat" who had his original copyrighted and UPC coded song stolen by some anonymous group with no online presence called "RamJets". His journey through the stupidity of YouTube is astonishing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Here is "TheFatRat" who had his original copyrighted and UPC coded song stolen by some anonymous group with no online presence called "RamJets". His journey through the stupidity of YouTube is astonishing. Thing 1: ISWC is NOT a copyright. It is used in conjunction with a copyright that is recognized by the country of the host, in this case, Youtube. Thing 2: UPC is NOT a copyright and is not recognized in litigation as a copyright. Thing 3: There is NO COPYRIGHT NOTICE in his correspondence with Youtube. Thing 4: A guy booted his song. That song appeared without copyright notice of any kind because neither the writer or the copier has a copyright notice. Thing 5: The internet is only full of your friends for about 5 minutes, then it is everyone trying to make money off everyone. Thing 6: A legitimate copyright dispute would go to the courts, brought by copyright lawyers, which he says he has. Based on everything he showed in the video, he doesn't stand a chance. Based on everything he SAYS later, he's fine, his lawyers will fix this. That's how it is supposed to work, the lawyers do it, not Youtube. Thing Last: If he had copyright notice, ISWC, and UPC he probably would have been able to rebuff the claim initially with no trouble, Youtube would have left it to the claimant to further their claim in court. "The Ram Jets" went for his song precisely because he doesn't have what he needs. rct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted May 8, 2019 Author Share Posted May 8, 2019 Thing 1: ISWC is NOT a copyright. It is used in conjunction with a copyright that is recognized by the country of the host, in this case, Youtube. Thing 2: UPC is NOT a copyright and is not recognized in litigation as a copyright. Thing 3: There is NO COPYRIGHT NOTICE in his correspondence with Youtube. Thing 4: A guy booted his song. That song appeared without copyright notice of any kind because neither the writer or the copier has a copyright notice. Thing 5: The internet is only full of your friends for about 5 minutes, then it is everyone trying to make money off everyone. Thing 6: A legitimate copyright dispute would go to the courts, brought by copyright lawyers, which he says he has. Based on everything he showed in the video, he doesn't stand a chance. Based on everything he SAYS later, he's fine, his lawyers will fix this. That's how it is supposed to work, the lawyers do it, not Youtube. Thing Last: If he had copyright notice, ISWC, and UPC he probably would have been able to rebuff the claim initially with no trouble, Youtube would have left it to the claimant to further their claim in court. "The Ram Jets" went for his song precisely because he doesn't have what he needs. rct "Thing 5: The internet is only full of your friends for about 5 minutes, then it is everyone trying to make money off everyone." Correction... that is THING 1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 "Thing 5: The internet is only full of your friends for about 5 minutes, then it is everyone trying to make money off everyone." Correction... that is THING 1! Yeah, unfortunately it seems to be. I rarely post pictures, never post videos, and my bands ask before they put something up with me in it and if I say no they don't. I'm old like that. You can't sell the cow if you give away the milk. I'm still hip deep in selling this cow, maybe someday I'll give the milk away on the internet. rct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.