|Companies filing claims on the Public Domain (Orchard, AdRev, DashGo/AudioBee, Music Pub Rights Collecting Soc, etc)||CinemaVintage||2/9/12 12:03 PM|
II've had problems with Content ID matches landing on several of the Public Domain videos. I wanted to post info here for others so, if they had similar problems, they could find it. Also, if others could help me with the problems I'm still experiencing that would be great, too. Thank you. - Gen
New York/USA Headquarters
23 E. 4th Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003
ph: 212 201 9280
fax: 212 201 9203
Their blog post "YouTube Copyright Claims"
ugc-a...@theorchard.com (Gabriella Cantwell)
DISPUTE: Orchard popped Content ID matches on The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and Cobra, both movies in the Public Domain. After finally finding the company information and getting a general email for contact that evening, Gabriella wrote back the next morning and lifted both mistaken claims. As if my magic, claims from the following companies disappeared as well: Believe, IODA, Naive and Pirames International Srl. If you contact Orchard, please give them the link to your video, any relevant information and be patient. The response to me was immediate, but they are a small company and it may take a little longer for your query to be resolved.
RATING: Easy but annoying
site contact email in...@dashgo.com
Ben Patterson http://www.dashgo.com/founder.html
DashGo/AudioBee has erroneously put claim to the Public Domain video "Malice in the Palace". After contacting their channel and every email listed above without result, I used the claims dispute form to ask YouTube to please put me in touch with them directly so we could resolve this. I have heard nothing from them. I understand they have a few more days to respond. Anyone looking for more information about this company, see this thread http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=4cf0451100c65659&hl=en&fid=4cf0451100c656590004b87e1b453bb5
RATING: Not Good
|Re: Companies filing claims on the Public Domain (Orchard, AdRev, DashGo/AudioBee, Music Pub Rights Collecting Soc, etc)||CinemaVintage||2/9/12 12:04 PM|
I cannot find any direct contact information for this group.
If you have confirmed company or contact info, please add it to this thread.
DISPUTE: Hemp for Victory: 1942 USDA Film to the American Farmer
Entity: EMI Content Type: Sound Recording
The video is a US government WWII propaganda film aimed at farmers to help the war effort when the military was facing a shortage of hemp. I;ve had to use the dispute process in my attempt to reach them. I chose #5, as the video is Public Domain.
5. This video contains the material at issue, but the material is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.
I researched but could not find a way to contact EMI directly. This video is listed in the Public Domain, and is free and clear of copyright issues. Obviously, there's an error I am willing to speak with the company to correct this, and have the mistaken claim lifted. Thank you for your help. I realize this is probably just the content ID gone a bit wonky and the matter should be cleared up in not time at all! :)
RATING: Poor, for no direct contact information.
13351-D Riverside Dr #219
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
AdRev is actually AudioMicro AdRev
DISPUTE Your video, 1915 Les Vampires 3 The Red Codebook , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities: Entity: AdRev Content Type: Musical Composition
Not only is there no actual artist information given to support this claim, but I found this bit rather disconcerting (and suspicious) for a professional company. When I emailed AdRev directly to resolve this error and have the mistaken claim removed from this Public Domain video, I received the same form email http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=53acd592a170650b&hl=en which I found to be suspect at best, and rather disturbing and suspect.
"You can simply dispute the claim and as a courtesy, if you have properly obtained a license to the music contained in your video, we will release the claim soon thereafter and the ads will stop running soon thereafter. We suggest going with OPTION 1. but if you really don't want the ads to appear and don't want to help out the artist that created the material that you've used in your video, then by all means, go for OPTION 2."
If I don't hear something back form them by Friday (and a work week should have been enough time to respond to my query) I suppose I'll have to use the dispute option to reach them. Stay tuned.
|Re: Companies filing claims on the Public Domain (Orchard, AdRev, DashGo/AudioBee, Music Pub Rights Collecting Soc, etc)||CinemaVintage||2/9/12 12:04 PM|
MUSIC PUBLISHING RIGHTS COLLECTING SOCIETY
I have no verified direct contact information for this "group" and only found a lot of misinformation on the web and in forums when searching for any way to contact them. If yo have direct company or contact information, please include it here.
DISPUTE: They have laid claim to over a dozen Public Domain videos for soundtrack content, even the ones that do not have any soundtrack. (You read that right, some of the videos has no audio content whatsoever.) Having no way to contact them directly,I tried to reach them through YouTube's Dispute Process over their soundtrack claim on the Public Domain comedy It Happened One Night (1934) - their claim, by the way, was immediate upon uploading the video - using the Public Domain option and adding: "I had several people help me but we could not find any contact information for "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society". I am trying to reach them to let them know this video is in the Public Domain, no rights can be claimed on it, and it should be released but I don't know how to contact them directly. Can you please help facilitate communications? It could be an honest mistake or the content ID gone wonky. I'd be happy to work with them directly to release this and any mistaken claims if you would be so kind as to forward this query. Thank you for your help!" I did this right before I started writing this email. I just looked to see how the claim was coming along and the video's been released.
PROBLEM: ELEVEN PLUS MORE TO GO???
RATING: These people make me quite cross.
|Re: Companies filing claims on the Public Domain (Orchard, AdRev, DashGo/AudioBee, Music Pub Rights Collecting Soc, etc)||CinemaVintage||2/9/12 1:15 PM|
Holy smokes, as if all these "Companies" laying false claims on the Public Domain wasn't enough, add another... My Man Godfery's infamously Public Domain, but Cinetel Multimedia lays claim to the audiovisual content upon upload?
Here's their channel http://www.youtube.com/user/CINETELMULTIMEDIA
And the website http://www.cinetelmultimedia.com/
They;re both in Spanish so get you're translator handy if you're not a native speaker.
The contact form is a joke on their site. I'm so disgusted at this point I just filed a claim. See below.
By the way, in case anyone wants a claims count for the week it's THIRTY SEVEN. That's right, I've had to file THIRTY SEVEN COPYRIGHT DISPUTES THIS WEEK OVER FALSE CLAIMS MADE ON PUBLIC DOMAIN VIDEOS. Wanna bet I could tear into a truck about now?
Copyright Info: 1936 My Man Godfrey
You have disputed a copyright claim on your video, 1936 My Man Godfrey .
To see the details of the dispute you filed, click here.
Your dispute is still awaiting a response from these content owners:
Entity: Cinetel Multimedia Content Type: Audiovisual content
|CinemaVintage||2/10/12 1:25 PM|
If you have problems with DashGo/AudioBee you might want to try this as a contactBen Patterson
1620 Broadway Suite C
Santa Monica CA 90404
|CinemaVintage||2/10/12 1:26 PM|
For problems with CINETEL MULTIMEDIA
JOSE MANUEL JARA NAVA <jmj...@cinetelmultimedia.com>
|thelarrytwo||2/11/12 8:29 AM|
Thanks very much for the info. cheers Larry
|CinemaVintage||2/11/12 3:07 PM|
AdRev has not responded to any of my emails, or the dispute I filed through YouTube. It is my understanding that they have one more day to respond. I have heard nothing from their company other than the form letter, manipulative and vague in its wording, that they sent out as an auto response.
Ben Patterson at DashGo insists he's making every effort to remove the claim for the past few days but it's still there. He claims to have contacted YouTube for help, and insists that the false claim was put there due to a client he no longer does business with. However, logic dictates that if he no longer does business with them there would not be a false claim made in his company's name to begin with. After several days of emailing back and forth on the matter, I am still waiting for the false claim to be removed.
Cinetel Multimedia and Jose were an absolute nightmare to deal with. While fast to originally respond, he tried to add me, put comments on my channel that he later removed and sent emails to me that were facetious, unethical and questionable. He kept insisting they were a legitimate company with actual claims the entire time, and he even tried to sell me their services. I never want to have to deal with this "company" - the same "company" that slaps a Spanish dub track to the Public Domain video "My Man Godfrey" and expects payment for it - ever again. I highly recommend disputing any claims this company makes.
|CinemaVintage||2/11/12 3:42 PM|
As I could find no company or contact listings for them on the web, I cannot follow up on the dispute, registered through YouTube, that still sits, waiting for the claim to be released. To my knowledge they have one more day to respond.
A notorious multiple offender, IODA is like EMI that there is no way to contact them for follow up; however, they have responded to my disputes by releasing them, usually within a few days of submission. I still have several disputes with them in queue as they seem to lay claim to many PF videos.
Pirames International Srl
Just like the IODA and EMI, no way to contact them other than the official dispute process, and no way to follow up with them when they let it sit and hang. However, they have so far released every video they have laid claim to on my channel.
Like IODA and EMI, there is no way t contact them directly and no information on the web that I can find about them. They are the most notorious offenders for laying false claims to my Public Domain videos. If I had to guess I'd say they are responsible for half the false claims on my channel. However, using the YouTube dispute process is effective and they have almost immediately released every false claim without problem. Still, they should have never laid claim to them in the first place and this is definitely a real problem.
GoDigital MG For a Third Party
Another multiple offender and usually partnered with The Orchard Music or Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society for laying claim to Public Domain videos, I have no way to contact them or follow up on the dispute process. They have released all but one of my videos, which they laid claim to with Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society. The Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society released theirs but GoDigital has yet to respond.
If I upload ten public domain videos to my channel, at least half of them are laid claim to, requiring me to either contact the "company", use the official YouTube Dispute Process, or both. As of this moment, I have fought and won almost SIXTY disputes this week.
Of the companies I've spoken with, none of them can actually justify why their claims were ever laid in the first place. Many of the companies blame the YouTube Content ID System. Some of the companies insist the false claims were made because clients they no longer represent make them; however, this is illogical as 1) it's their company laying the claims therefore they have the control and make the money 2) these are Public Domain videos, and most of them have been so since long before I was born so it's public knowledge 3) if the entity they represent is no longer a client, their data would have been removed from the Content ID system.
It seems to me that most of these "entities" are just trying to make money on off the Public Domain by laying (often multiple) false claims to them, and I have yet to speak with one company who answered 1) If they would return all the money they made off the false claims 2) Who they would return it to as these videos are Public Domain and 3) what solid measures they would take to change their company's criteria so the false claims would stop. And, believe me, I asked.
I also politely requested for the companies who were multiple offenders to please white list my channel as constantly filing these copyright disputes for their false claims is a pain in my backside as their claims should never happen in the first place. Every single company declined. I doubt any of this will change and I only expect it worsen because these companies make money off every video they claim, false or not; and because most people never file a dispute, these entities and YouTube are making money hand over fist.
|CinemaVintage||2/11/12 5:31 PM|
Problems with this "company" on Public Domain full length features again. I've suggested multiple times that they white list my channel since they claim they can't fix their criteria in the Content ID system and they blame it for the false claims that upset so many people. They have refused to white list me. They also refuse to answer any questions. They were so horrific to deal with the first time (see above) I dread this upcoming exchange. If anyone needs more information on my experiences with this "company" please drop me a line. I have no problems with transparency and have screen shots, video and emails.
Great Guy 1936
Added: February 11, 2012 02:35 PM
This is the second dispute I've had with Cinetel Multimedia over Public Domain videos. Release the your false claim and, as I suggested, white list my channel
Notice submitted to their site http://www.cinetelmultimedia.com/Contacto.html
Yet another problem. Release this Public Domain video. I have filed another YouTube Copyright Dispute Notice. I am displeased to have to continue to deal with this. White list my channel.
Emailed to Cinetel Multimedia
Yet another problem. Release this Public Domain video. Again. I suggest you white list my channel
|CinemaVintage||2/12/12 2:17 AM|
233 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 100,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
GoDigital Media Group
446 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, California 90402
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: GODIGITALMG.COM
Created on: 30-Nov-07
Expires on: 30-Nov-09
Last Updated on: 05-Apr-09
Control, Domain domain-...@godigitalmedia.net
GoDigital Media Group
446 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, California 90402
3108991076 Fax --
Control, Domain domain-...@godigitalmedia.net
GoDigital Media Group
446 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, California 90402
3108991076 Fax --
LOS ANGELES CA 90029
4114 SANTA MONICA BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90029
|PeggyK||2/12/12 3:19 AM|
|CinemaVintage||2/12/12 3:50 AM|
There are so many musical EMI's listed that I honestly don't know which one leveled the false claim against the Public Domain video listed above on my channel, PeggyK; however, EMI has yet to release the claim through the dispute process. I did find "YouTube Copyfraud & Abuse of the Content ID System" http://fairusetube.org/youtube-copyfraud which I found extremely educational. At this point, I'm exhausted and my posts here seem more about leaving a record behind for others. While others have been more numerous in their claims so far, Cinetel Multimedia has been the biggest nightmare to deal with. When it comes to Copyright Fraud, I don't think YouTube cares this is happening. In fact, I think Google turns a blind eye in the name of money. Disheartening. PS: Why am I looking at (See the "Notice for California Residents")?
|PeggyK||2/12/12 3:43 PM|
>> Why am I looking at (See the "Notice for California Residents")?
Because that section of the terms I linked to has the telephone number for EMI's legal department in New York.
|CinemaVintage||2/13/12 3:06 AM|
(thanks to noteworthystudio = this is a re-post so we have all the info in one thread)
Here's how to contact Godigital MG (Media Group).
Their channel on youtube is Godigital, but they don't respond to emails to their channel. I suggest we should leave comments on their channel.
On their channel they provide a website: godigitalmg.com
On their website they give a phone number 310-394-9610
There you will get an operator who will give you an email address to contact with these complaints:
The person is: Kevin Scott
His email is: Kevin...@godigitalmg.com
|(unknown)||2/13/12 7:00 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|(unknown)||2/13/12 7:01 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|CinemaVintage||2/13/12 9:18 PM|
WMG'S CLAIM PUT A WORLDWIDE BLOCK ON THIS PD VIDEO AND MY ACCOUNT AND NOW I CANNOT UPLOAD ANY VIDEOS LONGER THAN 15 MINUTES BECAUSE OF THIS
Copyright Info: 1950 The Heart
You have disputed a copyright claim on your video, 1950 The Heart .
Video ID: sef655ZfuXA Username: CinemaVintage
This movie is Public Domain, part of the collection: Prelinger Archives
Entity: WMG Content Type: Visual content
As a result, your video is blocked worldwide.
|CinemaVintage||2/16/12 2:25 PM|
Won dispute with WMG
They released the claim and the limit has been lifted
WMG Contact INfo
|CinemaVintage||2/19/12 2:33 AM|
Entity: shemarooent Content Type: Audiovisual content
1936 The Amazing Adventure
Video ID: C-ahWUZEO6YDSIPUTED
Ironically enough, this is their very strongly worded anti-piracy statement on their website.
Shemaroo House, Plot No 18,
Marol Co-op. Industrial Estate,
Saug Baug, Marol Naka,
Off. Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (E),
Mumbai 400 059.
|CinemaVintage||2/24/12 10:09 PM|
DIVA and MERLIN CONTACT INFO
This is all the publicly listed information I could find on the web, folks.
This is a PUBLIC DOMAIN movie. Please release ASAP. Thank you!
Entity: [Merlin] Phonofile Content Type: Sound Recording
Entity: Diva Video Access AG Content Type: Audiovisual content
Video ID: jP6VnvNIRdI
Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6VnvNIRdI
"This video is public domain, see catalog and content information in the video description for verification. Please remove your false claim. Thanks."
cc'd: robert...@diva.pro, nelly. kauf...@diva.pro, in...@diva.pro
cc'd: in...@merlinnetwork.org, po...@phonofile.com, swe...@phonofile.com, den...@phonofile.com, er...@phonofile.com, tr...@phonofile.com
|CinemaVintage||2/24/12 10:38 PM|
|This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.|
|CinemaVintage||2/27/12 12:29 AM|
ALERT This has NO soundtrack but got claimed anyway! READ BELOW
Copyright Info: 1940 Pictoreel: Chinook's Children
Your video, 1940 Pictoreel: Chinook's Children , may include content that is owned or administered by this entity:
Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society
Content Type: Musical Composition
Video ID: pDmwM7MdFyk
Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDmwM7MdFyk
"This movie has NO soundtrack to claim. Congratulations, you've just proven your full of it and habitually commit copyfraud. We have notified YouTube, Google, watch dog organizations and forums accordingly. We reserve the right to participate in all law suits, including class action, against your company or companies."
Champion sled dogs raised and trained in New Hampshire.
This movie is part of the collection: Prelinger Archives
Keywords: Animals: Dogs
Creative Commons license: Public Domain
|browningbbw||2/27/12 1:15 AM|
These companies are all crooks and thieves.
16 claims on my channel in the past week alone says it all!!
When are YouTube going to act instead of penalising the users that made it what it is?
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:19 AM|
DIVA VIEWSTER MERLIN
http://www.youtube.com/user/ViewsterTV and http://www.viewster.com/ amd http://viewstertv.blogspot.com/
Contacted everyone associated with what is now Viewster (Diva) - including partners, business and product associates, press contacts, addresses under multiple company names, employees listed on their sites, and directly contacting them from their site's contact form
addresses used so far: in...@boxee.tv in...@viewster.com joerg.bo...@diva.pro me...@toshiba.eu; mailr...@zdnet.com in...@merlinnetwork.org, po...@phonofile.com, swe...@phonofile.com, den...@phonofile.com, er...@phonofile.com, tr...@phonofile.com volker...@philips.com; k...@hennegis.com; serkan...@mycomp.ch; nkau...@viewster.com; kai.he...@diva.ag; te...@101domain.com; lborg...@calysto.com
Anyone got anything else?
|rozeboosje||3/1/12 12:23 AM|
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:26 AM|
They're at it again. They did not white list our channels as they promised they had on multiple occasions. Each time they makea bogus claim, we file a dispute through YouTube, contact them directly through their website and then email Jose at jmj...@cinetelmultimedia.com - the same guy who threatened us if we didn't sanitize our channel and these forums of every mention of his company - Not only did they swear they had white listed us, they also swear they're fixing the content ID criteria. For two months now. After speaking with several other channels, it seems Joe's been swearing this for a few YEARS now. How convenient. If they were losing money it would have been fixed the first time it happened. - Kip
Your video, 1946 The Stranger , may include content that is owned or administered by this entity:
Entity: Cinetel Multimedia Content Type: Audiovisual content
Video ID: ztIQ7EiFz9w
Remove it, Now.
Max for Gen
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:33 AM|
@ rozeboosje Can't say I've had the pleasure of dealing with them. Looking at this very long list of MULTIPLE offenders I think we've dealt with enough of them to know they're all scam artists trying to profit illegally off the public domain. Did ya see where MUSIC PUBLISHING RIGHTS COLLECTING SOCIETY laid claim to the soundtrack of another completely silent video we uploaded? Yes, that makes three - count 'em THREE - videos with NO SOUNDTRACK that they've laid claim to. We post the info directly on our uploaded videos now so everyone can see it. If you actually have anything useful on MPRCS I'll take it. Feel free to add information especially contact information for known offenders so we have it all in one handy place for people. Excess unchecked greed is ever so charming, isn't it? (You have no idea how many cuss words just came out my mouth, and in several languages). - Lovely for CV
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:34 AM|
@ rozeboosje You oughtta see the list of links on our channel home page. They rock, they are helpful.
Kip for CV
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:40 AM|
ABOUT EMI - An Update
Did ya know that the US Govt sponsored film "Hemp for Victory" is now owned by EMI even though they have no registered claim information it?
They still claim they own that public domain video, although they can provide no registration verification to ownership (because it's bloody public domain maybe?) We had to contact every EMI email we could find, all of their business associates and partners. We were passed around for weeks until we were finally told they'd lift their claim so we could borrow their video.
Contact Albert...@emimusic.com to see if you, too, can borrow something that no one owns.
Max at CinemaVintage
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:53 AM|
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 12:59 AM|
They emailed our channel to say they lifted the claim but when we tried to even say thanks they had us blocked and our reply would not go through. As they do not answer any of their regular emails or the queries made through their own site (which boasts a hearty law-enforcing anti-piracy rant ironically enough) we did not bother to reply and hope to have nothing else to do with them in the future.
Max @ CV
(Kip lol @ that ramble to Gen!)
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 1:15 AM|
@ CinemaVintage Was just in our email. Half of the Diva/Viewster emails bounce, the other half merit nothing. Their bogus claim on House on Haunted hill (PD, Vincent Price) is still there. Gen contacted them through their site's form multiple times. (See screen shots in folder under Docs) She searched employees and contacted them by email. She contacted their channel. She left messages on their channel and their videos. She emailed their business partners and associates. She even copied YouTube and Google's copyright, sales and marketing departments, as well as fraud and privacy. No one has even bothered to reply. She fwd to Cory Doctorow, J Mezanine, SLU, BLU, Corn and IA admins. I'll do follow up and updates here for Diva/Viewster while Gen's out. This really is effin' ridiculous at this point. (Gen, seriously, htf do you do all this, babe?) Their support email in...@viewster.com was contacted immediately but no response. Great support. What a joke. - Kip @ CV
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 1:19 AM|
FYI Multiple infringements on Ivorkornuta, Tubebarred, Astrofist and MissVoodooKitten's channels as well.
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 1:34 AM|
Adshare AdRev GoDigital
"Should you have occasion to address any Claim by us in the future, please complete and submit the online form at www.AdShare.tv/copyrights . That system will allow set-up by our staff of a service ticket by which you can be kept informed on a timely basis via email.
Despite what you may have read lately in various online forums ... Please do NOT send emails to Kevin Scott, in...@godigitalmg.com, or any channel on YouTube. None of those methods are an effective means of communicating with us regarding Claim Disputes.
Please know that we are working with YouTube to find a solution to a recent wave of inappropriate matches between Public Domain performances of music and more modern, copyrighted performances.
Our apologies for any inconveniences this situation may have caused."
Did you see that form they want to force YouTube users to use on their site? Who the n their right mind is going to give this shady company their personal information not knowing they would do with it just to remove their bogus claims? Are they off their heads?
If this company (and I use the word loosely) can use YouTube's Content ID to immediately place all these fake claims then they can use YouTube's system to immediately remove them when they are disputed. No one should have to do the equivalent of mortgage their first born child to have their bogus claim removed from a public domain video. Don't fall for it. Email the heck out of them until they remove the fake claim.
Kip @ CV
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 4:29 AM|
7 ENTITIES CLAIMED THIS VIDEO UPON UPLOAD - READ MORE!
Your video, 1913 The Bangville Police , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:
Entity: WMG, SME, The Orchard Music, IODA, Believe, GoDigital MG For a Third Party, and Pirames International Srl Content Type: Sound Recording
Video ID: ecaWhA3oBgo
Video URL: http://youtu.be/ecaWhA3oBgo
"We are overwhelmed that all seven of your entities - WMG, SME, The Orchard Music, IODA, Believe, GoDigital MG For a Third Party, and Pirames International Srl - would attempt to simultaneously claim this public domain video. If you feel you somehow hold the rights to it - all seven of you that is - we will require the actual legal verifiable registration information from each of you. If we should verify you do indeed own this video and the Library of Congress, Cornell and Standford Universities are grossly incorrect we will happily remove this video from our channel upon such verification, penalty free, and with our express apologies. We will be certain to email each of you a copy of this dispute to your company sites and contacts immediately. Or you could release this public domain video and white list our channel as we have requested for months now from each of you. Sincerely, CinemaVintage."
Kip and Gen X
I am deciding how to address this matter. I'll get back to you.(Gen we miss you A LOT. How the hell do you deal with these people? Get better and get back here ASAP)
Kip @ CV
|rnickeymouse||3/1/12 7:22 AM|
Thanks for doing this.. very useful info.
Here is a good thread with a comment from RumblefishID to give everyone an idea of how sleazy companies justify gaming the system. RUMBLEFISH.com is repeatedly stealing money from me by - Google
Another important note, many of these companies like RumbleFish do not look at the disputes, they default to reinstate their claim.(Rumblefish's Words) You need to contact them to get them to release their claim.
|puppetgirl||3/1/12 6:36 PM|
|CinemaVintage||3/1/12 9:21 PM|
Welcome and thanks, Crop Circles and furballfBLES, for support and adding to the info arsenal.
Drop by our channel anytime. Sub to stay in touch and we'll sub back. If you post public domain materials, let me know. We form special alliances with other PD channels and feature them on our own. SUPPORT!
This is our playlist on Fighting False Claims.
If you made or know of videos that should go in there that help people email me with ATTENTION KIP FALSE CLAIMS VIDEO ADD in the header. If you need a copy of that playlist, you should be able to copy it if you're subbed. Not sure how the new tubes work yet tho. Just send us some love in the play list descrip and shoot us a link so we can bookmark ya.
"Copyfraud: The Real Pirates of YouTube and What To Do About Them"
Probably the most generally helpful vid on our channel. Gen included loads of info, pasted below so you got it handy if you're set for email updates on this thread. It's okay to feature or mirror that video. She asks everyone to throw us back some love and be sure you copy the video description and tags entirely cos the info there is is gold. Thanks.
What is CopyFraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
Copyfraud and other Abuses of Intellectual Propertyhttp://www.copyfraud.com/
Copyfraud: Poisoning the public domain - How web giants are stealing the future of knowledge
Copyfraud News at SlashDot
The pirates of YouTube: The real villains of YouTube are the multinational companies cashing in on public domain footage they claim is their own
Sherpa: Don't Fall for CopyFraud http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html
MORE LINKS & HELP
The Incredible Shrinking Public Domainhttp://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/shrinking
What the law actually says http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Search copyright information: Works since January 1, 1978.http://www.copyright.gov/records/
Discover whether a work is under copyright or in the public domain.http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyright-public-domain.html
10 common misconceptions about the public domain
Quickie Visual Guide: Dispute a False Claim on a Public Domain Videohttp://youtu.be/71P3J0CS5-c
Common Repeat Offernders Filing False Claims on YouTube and their Contact Information
Add stuff here if you got more company info, email addresses, articles, videos, anything. Keep this thread alive. Let us know if you start a relevant thread by posting the link here for everyone to see. If you made videos about this that are important to you don't forget to email them to me. Our channel setting are open so you don't need to add us as a contact to email us. If you need help with anything, have questions or need support, just contact us. We'll do our best.
Forward this thread to everyone you know so they can add even more information to it so we can help each other. They might take one of us but they can't take us all so let's make some damn noise.
|CinemaVintage||3/2/12 4:47 PM|
Sent emails to all addresses and contacted all channels yesterday and today the claim still sits with no word from anyone at their many channels, companies, partners or various business reinventions.
If you have time and inclination, please contact them on our behalfusing the contact information on the thread above and this dispute information.
Our video about DIVA/VIEWSTER is here and contains all current known many company names and contacts and emails.
ViewsterTV (DivaAG) Copyfraud Piracy and Content ID Abuse\
Kip made a rather amusing video directly to Viewster (and emailed it to them) .. from the point of view of his pet chinchilla, Cherub.
A message for Viewster
I almost choked on my tea laughing on 0:56
Diva is now VIEWSTER at http://www.youtube.com/user/ViewsterTV
Video ID: jP6VnvNIRdI
VIDEO URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6VnvNIRdI
"This video is public domain, see catalog and content information in the video description for verification. Please remove your false claim. Thanks.
|CinemaVintage||3/2/12 4:50 PM|
Two new false claims here, both contacted yesterday and no word from either.
If anyone has more info on these entitles, please post it.
in...@cineticmedia.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, sa...@cineticmedia.com, fina...@cineticmedia.com, cinet...@cineticmedia.com, email@example.com
TWO FALSE CLAIMS
Copyright Info: Classic Television Commercials (Part III)
Your video, Classic Television Commercials (Part III) , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:
Entity: Break Media Content Type: Audiovisual content
Entity: Cinetic Media Content Type: Audiovisual content
Video ID: ZGP2kXkRD4k
"This movie is part of the collection Prelinger Archives, which Rick Prelinger (the owner) declared PUBLIC DOMAIN himself. As he is the only viable rights holder, you may both release your false claim now or produce the proper registration for copyright required by law and we will remove this video, penalty free, with apology after notifying the Prelinger Organization, The Library of Congress, The US Copyright Office, and Cornell, Brooklyn and Stanford Law Universities of your claims. Thank you."
|CinemaVintage||3/6/12 4:42 PM|
Copyright Info: Classic Television Commercials (Part III)
BREAK MEDIA finally removed its claim, after umpteen emails and tweets mostly with no reply. Their PR Rep, Dale, who I think gave in just because he knew I wasn't going away, insisted he hadn't seen any of my emails and had no knowledge of this problem, even though he was cc'd on every single email I sent to his company.
Dale Legaspi <dleg...@breakmedia.com>, jo...@breakmedia.com, in...@breakmedia.com, pr...@breakmedia.com, bms...@breakmedia.com, copy...@break.com, support@Break-inc.com, mken...@break.com, adver...@breakingmedia.com, w...@breakingmedia.com, ler...@breakingmedia.com, da...@breakingmedia.com
No one at the company, including Dale, would answer ANY of our questions, although he literally invited me to ask them. Those questions are:
Why is your company so difficult to contact?
Why is their no specific contact information for copyrfraud and its removal on your site?
Why is your company claiming the public domain in the first place?
How, exactly, did that happen, as you enter the criteria when you create the account with YouTube?
What, exactly, are you doing to fix this specific problem?
When, exactly, do you expect this to be fixed so your company stops doing this?
Why can't you log into your YouTube Content ID Program and release this video right now, instead of tomorrow morning or so?
What do you do with the money you made off this video? Who do you return it to? The Prelingers?
If your company was losing money over these false claims, do you think it would take very logn to "fix" the problem?
No reply, of course. None of them ever have any answers for those questions. They just blame YouTube, although they are responsible for the criteria they upload into the ContentID system.
CINETIC MEDIA insists they don't have a claim on our video. After umpteen emails (this is the same video btw) I finally get this:
On 3/6/2012 8:08 AM, Anna Barnes wrote:
> I don’t believe we made any kind of copyright claim against this. You must have the wrong Cinetic Media. Please stop emailing us.
I sent them screen shots to prove otherwise and sent this message:
Thanks for your terse reply, but perhaps Cinetic Media should look into this one.
Attached is a screen shot of what we see when we log into our account. As you can see, it says "Cinetic Media". Search "Cinetic Media" and the only company involved in film or video that shows up is yours.
Obviously, this is important to us because it's copyfraud; more false claims on the ever-shrinking public domain. It should be important to you, if this is your company, for the same reason
However, if this is not your company, I imagine it's even more important: it means that someone's doing poor business - and making money at it - using your company's name.
Why don't you look into this and get back to me?
If that was my company I would be very irritated to find out that someone is using my name to do illegal business on YouTube making money off copyfraud on the public domain. That lady should have been thanking me for bringing this to her attention, right?
That's why I think I have the right company as, other than that abrupt dismissal, I haven't heard a word from anyone. That and there is no other CINETIC MEDIA listed anywhere that does entertainment anything. And they have stuff on YouTube, you know. So what are the odds?
The claim is still on our video.
|CinemaVintage||3/6/12 4:54 PM|
Right now, I have had it up to my eyeballs with both Orchard and IODA, who are now a blended company. That's right, they threw in together. They've been promoting themselves and their new union all morning on Twitter. Each time I tweet them back and ask them what they're doing to fix the criteria they fed the Content ID system that makes them claim public domain videos.
IODA has said nothing. Not one word. Zilch.
Orchard, on the other hand, tweeted me asking me to contact them privately to resolve this "issue". (I'd love to know how an email instead of a tweet is going to solve the fact that they programmed their ContentID to make false claims on the public domain, but okay. Hint: It won't and it didn't.)
Gabriella voided every question I asked her, She blatantly disregarded most of them. I left no wiggle room and called her on it every time. Basically it was a load of BS wrapped in email text. She even sent this as some kind of response:
On 3/6/2012 1:02 PM, UGC Affairs wrote: Any public domain recordings that are connected with The Orchard would have been delivered to YouTube because they are part of The Orchard's catalog, and due to the nature of them being public domain, our clients have a right to release those recordings. If you look at a public domain asset in YouTube's system, you will see that there are many different parties claiming the same track, and one party cannot refute the rights of the others, because they all have valid rights to these masters.
Um, no, wrong on several counts. Orchard's "clients" don't own public domain material. Public domain means it cannot be claimed by anyone. Duh. That's why it's called PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Bottom line? They NEVER addressed the fact the both ORCHARD and IODA made false copyright claims on a video, above, that had NO SOUNDTRACK. Gabriella, it seems, had no quick reply to circumvent that issue. I literally told her AGAIN (and all of Orchard's companies, including IODA) to white list my channel and let me know when it was done.
You guess it. Still waiting for that email. But ya know if the Conent ID "prblems" caused them to lose money they would have been fixed about an hour after they lost their first dollar.
Gabriella and Orchard's contact info is above and has not changed. However, she's apparently handling disputes for IODA, too. So everyone contact Gabriella at Orchard for problems with either company - and there will be problems galore - and I wish you better luck than I've had.
|CinemaVintage||3/6/12 5:43 PM|
GODIGITAL wants YouTube users to use their site's form to dispute their false ContentID claims from now on, the end.
Why do YouTube users need to use their form?
Why can't it be handled in YouTube?
Why can't you just pay proper attention to the dispute notices?
Why can't it be handled effectively through YT's built-in dispute process?
Why should anyone need to contact you any other way at all?
Why can't it be done with an easy email if we need to contact you?
This is their form, which they insist in their emails to me we MUST use and they have made it exceedingly clear that they will accept no other form of communication.
My question was and is: WHY DO YOU NEED ANY YOUTUBE USER'S REAL LIFE PERSONAL LEGAL INFORMATION - name, phone number, address, etc anything - in order to remove a false claim you put on a YouTube video? Are you kidding me?
|madatlantic||3/10/12 9:45 AM|
Got three copyright claims on my ORIGINAL music from [Merlin] Phonofile. I'm a little worried that this stemmed from my time with TheBizmo, an indie distribution site similar to TuneCore. Still disputed it and emailed the company threatening a lawsuit. Any other action I should take?
|FrostyTheDragon||3/13/12 8:31 PM|
Been fighting with AdRev, GoDigital MG, and Music Publishing Rights Collection Society collectively for nearly two weeks now. However, mine falls under the dominion of "companies filing claims on content they do not own".
See, what I put on YouTube mainly consists of gaming videos. If it were the actual companies who owned the material claiming it, I wouldn't care. However, I find it REALLY dubious that AdRev and GoDigital would have ANY claims on the game Wizardry 8, much less pick only two videos out of a 129-video playthrough I did for that game to decide they own the sound recording. When I disputed, they confirmed their claims at a rate that automatically tells me they didn't even LOOK at the videos in question. I've been trying for a week and a half now to get SOMETHING from AdRev directly, but no response besides the robotic one. I've decided they're the ones I need to go after first, because they claimed two videos but GoDigital only shared a claim with them on one.
As for Music Publishing Rights Collection Society... I should be more annoyed because they've been claiming my videos of Minecraft and Raptor: Call of the Shadows for "musical composition" practically left and right. However, those have been clearable at least.
|lordmm66mhz||3/14/12 3:36 AM|
this has copyright madness writen all over it! this really needs to stop if companies keeps this up no one is going to buy there products.
|Blaiyan||3/14/12 4:21 AM|
I know EMI has some christian/gospel music like Chris Tomlin. I haven't checked for any contacts.
IODA has a site http://www.iodalliance.com/catalog
I'm still not sure there are real even with the site but you can check the link.
|Lucius1958||3/14/12 5:36 PM|
From what I have heard , MRPS is not a single entity, but a loose organization of groups. I don't know how one can confront them as a whole; but they generally seem to be the easiest claims for me to dispute....
|Lucius1958||3/14/12 5:43 PM|
I agree here: EMI has gone so far as to block recordings that are WELL over 100 years old, and refuse to listen to reason.
IODA is just as shameless. If YouTube users are required to sign a 'statement of good faith', why aren't these corporations? Especially when it is obvious that they are NOT acting in good faith....
|(unknown)||3/31/12 12:10 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|CinemaVintage||3/31/12 12:20 PM|
On 3/31/2012 5:17 AM, Dina Castelino <dina.ca...@shemaroo.com> cc'd vi...@shemaroo.com, kal...@shemaroo.com, anki...@shemaroo.com, tapolin...@shemaroo.com, 'Mansi' <ma...@shemaroo.com>, kau...@shemaroo.com, 'Kranti' <kra...@shemaroo.com>, 'Jai Maroo' <jaim...@shemaroo.com> wrote:
> Re: Your purported email dated 20/02/2012 at 8:26 PM
> 1) We have received your e-mail dated 20/02/2012 at 8:26 PM, in which you are alleging that you have sent several e-mails to us.
> 2) Please note that we have not received any of the emails except the above. Kindly inform us the ID on which you have sent alleged e-mails.
> 3) In fact, one of the importers of English Films in India has assigned us on an exclusive basis the YouTube rights for the film “Amazing Adventure” (hereinafter referred to as “Said Film”) vide a valid Agreement. On the basis of their representations and submissions, the Said Video was uploaded by us on the YouTube website.
> 4) As regards the Said Film, we would like to state that the Said Film and its every part is in Public Domain and thus anyone is entitled to use/exploit the same anywhere throughout the Whole World as per the existing Copyright Laws.
> 5) For your information, we are carrying on business of acquisition, production, post-production, distribution, exhibition and exploitation of films, tele-films, animation films etc in various languages on different platforms for more than 30 years. Our company is a reputed organization in the entertainment industry and has never been involved in any kind of dishonest, false, wrongful or fallacious claim/allegation.
> 6) In the above matter, you sent us an email on 20/02/2012 at 8.26 p.m. stating your query about films in the Public Domain. It is a standard practice of almost every organization/company to respond to queries and questions pertaining to their products within at least 5 to 7 days. However, it has come to our knowledge that you have uploaded a defamatory video titled “Shemaroo: Pirates of the Public Domain” on the YouTube website along with several other related videos containing defamatory statements and images about Shemaroo Entertainment Limited, a day prior to your email i.e. 19/02/2012. This proves that you have no interest in obtaining the truth or the facts of the matter; instead you have gone ahead and posted defamatory videos on the YouTube website to malign our reputation and goodwill in the media and entertainment industry.
> 7) The abovementioned videos uploaded by you on the YouTube are defamatory and damaging our reputation. It is your intentional act with malafide intention to lower down our dignity. These videos showcase negative and damaging information pertaining to our company and the use of content/clippings in your videos, such as Super K, Shilpa’s Yoga and others are misleading as we are the lawful Producer/Right Holder for the same, which kindly note.
> 8) This e-mail should be treated as a formal word of warning from us to remove/delete the videos uploaded by you on the YouTube website or anywhere else on the Internet. Other than the deletion of the defamatory videos, you must apologize for your behavior formally through the same medium/platforms where these defamatory videos were uploaded. Else, immediate legal action for Defamation, Libel, etc as per the laws prevailing in India shall follow and you shall thank your self for the same.
> Thanking you,
> Dina Castelino
> Executive – Legal Team
> Shemaroo logo04-04-04
|Re: Companies filing claims on the Public Domain: MOVIECLIPS||CinemaVintage||4/7/12 12:22 PM|
We can find no company or contact information on the web for this entity - Anyone got a lead?
Featurette: Alfred Hitchcock presents Psycho (1960)
Your video may include the following copyrighted content:
Audiovisual content administered by:
MOVIECLIPS Your dispute awaiting response by 05/07/12
What does this mean?
After your dispute has been submitted, your video will soon be available on YouTube without ads for third parties. This is a temporary status and might change at any time. Learn more about copyright on YouTube.
This claim does not affect your account status.
Featurette: Alfred Hitchcock presents Psycho (1960)
Claims to dispute
Audiovisual content administered by:
Reason for dispute
This video is a Public Domain featurette not eligible for copyright claims and, by law, you must release your false claim or provide the proper registration identification and, upon verification of the validity and legality of your claim and after notices to all other involved parties and agencies is given, this video will be removed without argument or penalty, and with apology. Thank you for removing your false claim promptly.
|roundtheblock1||4/7/12 1:13 PM|
There is a classical guitar piece variously called Romance, Spanish Romance, or Romanza, which was used as background music for a 1949 French movie called "Jeux Interdits." The piece, widely occurring in anthologies, is usually credited as "anonymous." If you want to see a real case study in the absurdity of copyright claims, read the Wikipedia article under the heading "Romance (Guitar Piece)".
|bobhairgrove||4/27/12 8:58 AM|
This thread has helped me tremendously ... thanks to everyone who contributed!
I had three content ID matches on this video:
...from IODA, Harry Fox Agency (HFA) and Social Media Holdings:
Thanks partly to information revealed in this thread, I was able to contact each company by email directly. To their credit, each time their claim was released within 24 hours of my notification.
Additionally, there is this video of an older documentary film (1966) showing Arthur Rubinstein trying out a piano in the Steinway factory in Hamburg:
I added my own subtitles and edited the French commentary out of the right stereo channel so that both channels were in German (you can read more about it in the description).
Then I had a content ID claim by the ominous "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" for the little Schubert snippet he plays in the clip. I had let it ride for almost a month because I wasn't 100% sure about whether adding subtitles in English and fixing the audio would constitute fair use or not.
Emboldened by my success with the other clip, though, I decided to challenge it -- especially after reading all the stuff out there on "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society". No sooner had I clicked "Submit" on the dispute form, I immediately (i.e., within seconds) received an email from YouTube stating that they had released their claim on the Rubinstein video!!!
WTF??? Nobody can tell me that this involved a real person looking at the video! This is more automated BS in action by YouTube! I suspect that "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" is actually YouTube trying to collect ad revenue where they can! How else would the claim be released so fast?
To top matters off, living in Switzerland I cannot monetize my video, so I am at the mercy of the content ID matching system...
|princesssookeh||4/27/12 10:15 AM|
It says a lot that no one on youtube's staff has replied to this thread
|bobhairgrove||4/28/12 2:12 PM|
It's really crazy:
I just uploaded three clips of myself playing Rachmaninoff preludes:
Once again, Music Publishing Rights Collection Society put a content ID match claim to the 2nd and 3rd clip no sooner than they had finished uploading them (as in "instantly"). I challenged both of them on the grounds that I have written permission from Radio Bremen, who in fact do own the copyrights to my recorded performances here. Immediately, the claims vanished!
I can verify here that the ONLY real person involved in these disputes was myself.
|(unknown)||5/13/12 3:06 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|HELP WANTED !!!! False Claim: Chinese Television System (TBS)||CinemaVintage||5/13/12 4:03 PM|
False Claim: Chinese Television System (TBS)
Because Google Translate can only take you so far, we need your help as none of us speak Chinese and we cannot locate proper contact information.
FALSE CLAIM It Happened One Night (1934) http://youtu.be/sZhXV5Hf1x4
"藝術與人生_20101006-藝術與人生_20101006", audiovisual content administered by: Chinese Television System, TBS
(Note: This is the Taiwan Broadcasting System. http://www.tbs.org.tw/
Some of the symbols or the site map page cannot be translated.)
This film is Public Domain which, by its very definition, means that no one owns the rights to it and it cannot be claimed anyone, including you. If the Library of Congress (US) verified entry is somehow mistaken with its identification of this film as Public Domain works,.provide the proper legal registration information to be verified or release your false claim immediately. Thank you.
Your dispute awaiting response by 06/12/12
(Note: We won the prior dispute, below.)
"Hochzeitsmarsch-Medley", musical composition administered by:
Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Claim released.
|WIZDEO||CinemaVintage||5/24/12 3:42 PM|
This is the email we sent to Wizdeo, both their channel and site. At this time, we have not filed a formal dispute through Youtube. I am hoping to resolve this peacefully (JUST ONCE UGH!)
There has been a mistake.
Your company filed a false copyright claim on our video "1902 Georges Méliès: Le Voyage Dans la Lun (English)"
This video is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Obviously, your claim is in error. Please release your claim.
Thank you and best wishes,
Gen at Cinema Vintage
NOTE: If we do not hear from them in a week, I will file the dispute. I will also email the company through addresses I can find on the web and ask them for the copyright registration information for their claim so we can verify it. We may post to their channel, comments and videos as well. We will also make a video notification of this process and upload it to our channel as we are documenting all the stages in this process as per usual.
These people seem to be having problems with Wisdeo as well
IF ANYONE HAS MORE INFO ON THESE PEOPLE PLEASE SUPPLY IT - THANK YOU.
|Re: HELP WANTED !!!! False Claim: Chinese Television System (TBS)||CinemaVintage||5/24/12 3:45 PM|
WATCH OUT FOR THESE PEOPLE
CTS/TBS has not responded to any of our emails or attempts to contact them, and neither has YouTube. Instead, TBS reinstated their claim without a word to us. We are STILL trying to contact them (even in Chinese) and we put the video with their fake claim on it to private so they will not profit illegally and unethically from the public domain on out channel.
IF ANYONE HAS INFO ON THESE PEOPLE PLEASE SUPPLY IT THANK YOU
|guptaexchange||6/4/12 6:39 AM|
Thank you for such great contact information. I uploaded a Public Domain performance of a Public Domain composition on a youtube video today, and it immediately got strikes from The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA), Sony ATV Publishing, and GoDigital MG For a Third Party. I found contact info for the first two on Google search, but I found GoDigital contact email because of you, thank you very much.
I have emailed all three citing the Copyright law in the US, Canada, and the EU which all agrees the composition is Public domain.
I also submitted a dispute slip to youtube, which says I have to wait until July 7 for my dispute to be resolved.
Just in case any or all of these BLOOD SUCKING WEASELS tries to reinstate their fraudulent, and illegal claim against my video, I will send the next step Youtube dispute form- this one requires legal action from the companies complaining to prove they have legal copyright claim on the material in my video.
Here is where to find that second youtube dispute form if you need it:
|jessica fischer||6/4/12 1:27 PM|
Thank you all! Instead of waiting a month for my youtube copyright dispute to be settled, I was able to email Sony ATV and Harry Fox and GoDigital directly. Within five hours, Sony ATV and GoDigital released their claims. Now I'm just waiting on the Harry Fox email I sent them.
This is a GREAT STRATEGY you people have come up with.
|CinemaVintage||6/4/12 11:27 PM|
You are most welcome. I am glad this worked out for you. We are currently fighting a false DMCA from Warner Brothers and may not be so lucky. Please post any additional information (experiences, contact information, procedures) that you can add to this list about any and all companies or entities that you have dealings with. It helps to have as much info as we can in the same place. Please also share this link with everyone you know who cares about this growing and often out of control problem. Thank you and best wishes.
Gen X (CinemaVintage)
|CinemaVintage||6/4/12 11:29 PM|
You are most welcome. I am glad this worked out for you. We are currently fighting a false DMCA from Warner Brothers and may not be so lucky. Please post any additional information (experiences, contact information, procedures) that you can add to this list about any and all companies or entities that you have dealings with. It helps to have as much info as we can in the same place. Please also share this link with everyone you know who cares about this growing and often out of control problem. Keep us posted. Thank you and best wishes.
Gen X (CinemaVintage)
|FALSE DMCA FROM WARNER BROTHERS||CinemaVintage||6/4/12 11:34 PM|
Without prior claim or warning, on Friday, June 1, Warner Brothers hit us with a false DMCA for the 1959 public domain movie "House on Haunted Hill" putting a strike against us and crippling our channel.
We uploaded a video about our experiences so far and it contains information for anyone who may need it. It shows WB contact information, emails, channels and cites our notices. It also includes proof of Public Domain status for the film in question (1959 House on Haunted Hill) and the sources of the verification.
Please read the video description for information. We may yet be forced to file counter-notification against Warner to have their false DMCA removed and restore our channel.
|guptaexchange||6/5/12 9:18 PM|
Thank you, and good luck with your claim. I think you will prevail because if you can demonstrate the law is on your side, who needs a lawyer?
I have some further information for this group here:
I am currently testing youtube uploads of material from two royalty free websites: http://musopen.org/, which posts mainly classical music in the public domain; and also http://incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/, a site featuring original music and original performances of many kinds of material by Kevin McLeod, who has licensed all of this music under under Creative Commons "Attribution 3.0" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
So far I have received Youtube copyright claims on virtually every video I've uploaded, but I've taken the steps to not only dispute the claim via youtube, but also to email the companies making the claim. So far, after three days of this experiment, the only companies refusing to release their claims is The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. and MVD.
The Harry Fox Agency Contact page URL is http://www.harryfox.com/public/ContactUs.jsp
MVD Contact page URL is http://mvdb2b.com/?site_id=help&sub=contact
I did receive two polite letters of apology from Believe and from Sony.
Here are the return contact emails from those letters:
I have been very polite in every email I sent to each of the companies, but I tried an experiment today to maybe cut off a bot-trawler at source with regard to Kevin McLeod at incompetech.com. I sent this email to MVD Entertaiment today, since they seem to be dragging their feet:
You have fraudulently claimed copyright on two pieces of original music in my youtube video here:
You claim that you have legal right to "administer" this music? I think Kevin McLeod (incompetech.com) might be interested to hear about your fraudulent attempt to make money from his work?
I have archived and saved your copyright claim, in case Kevin would like to review it himself, so your claim is now a matter of legal record.
This audio content is not in any way "administered" by Music Video Distributors Entertainment Group, as you claimed. Copyright belongs solely to Kevin McLeod (incompetech.com), the composer and performer of these two original compositions. I have permission directly from Kevin McLeod to distribute this audio content, which is licensed under Creative Commons "Attribution 3.0" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
Therefore, please release your fraudulent copyright claim at your earliest convenience.
In addition, I advise you to either fix or stop using the obviously faulty software you used to "identify" music that you have no administrative or financial right to of any kind. Kevin's copyright is encoded in the actual mp3 file of all his original music. Any further frivolous claims from you against any of my youtube videos for legally using Kevin's music in future will result in me contacting him directly."
Good luck to us all, and bless this youtube group!
I will keep reporting as my experiment continues.
I want to know which music I can safely use in soundtracks to the documentary films I post on youtube.
|Re: FALSE DMCA FROM WARNER BROTHERS||Jean_guy||6/6/12 7:53 AM|
This happened to me as well. My channel got a strike because I uploaded HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL which is a public domain film. Here's the discussion I made here:
The idea that Youtube can put a strike on your account for uploading a PD film is insane and tells me that YOUTUBE is not YOUTUDE anymore but THEYTUBE.
|Tigranspetrosian||6/9/12 12:10 AM|
Here is a contact for "Believe" who actually sent me an apology.
However, "Believe" has just made another false claim on one of my videos, so I just sent this off, I'm curious what response I'll get. I encourage all to do the same. Nothing bad can happen to you for writing this kind of letter, so long as you are absolutely sure your material is in public domain, or licensed by the copyright owner under Creative Commons.
Here is the letter I just sent to "Julien" from "Believe"
from Larry Brown
Youtube channel in question: http://www.youtube.com/user/tigranspetrosian?feature=mhee
Unlike most of the third party companies, at least you sent me an apology letter a few days ago for your last false copyright claim. Thanks for that.
However, there is obviously a persistent malfunction with the Content ID software you are using for identifying media that you may have copyright or a license to administer.
I have just received yet another mistaken claim from "Believe" on my youtube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1pp809Cbg8
This is in fact an arrangement and performance by Kevin McLeod, who owns copyright on it. Kevin has licensed this sound recording under the Creative Commons as: Satie “Gymnopedie No 1” arranged and composed by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons "Attribution 3.0" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
I'm afraid that your previous apology, although appreciated, isn't enough. I am getting fraudulent claims on this and other freely licensed videos on a daily basis, and I don't really feel like writing these letters every day for the rest of my life.
Plainly put, and without prejudice:
A systemic software malfunction is leading your company to make FRAUDULENT copyright claims on other people's content. The fact that money is involved here- you get a share of any potential ad revenues that may derive from my youtube videos- makes this a CRIMINAL matter. Any such revenues, if Kevin had not licensed his performance under creative commons, would legally belong to Kevin and youtube. NOT TO YOU.
IF I GET ONE MORE FRAUDULENT NOTICE FROM YOUR COMPANY I will be pleased to refer the matter to Kevin McLeod, or any other relevant bona fide copyright holder, and a criminal suit against your company may not be out of the question.
I have documented the history of each of your claims against my videos (all of them mistaken- and fraudulent), so they are a matter of public record.
I advise you to bookmark Kevin's website (incompetech.com) and also the other public domain website I use (musopen.org) and also my youtube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/user/tigranspetrosian?feature=mhee
Bookmark them and encode this information into your trawling Content ID software.
Youtube's policies have nothing whatsoever to do with this. Rest assured, if I continue to receive FRAUDULENT claims on my videos that contain content from either of these royalty free websites (incompetech.com and musopen.org), I will indeed take legal action, in concert with Kevin McLeod, or Aaron from musopen.org, depending on which of my videos your software tags in the next week. Hopefully none, eh?
Look, just fix your software so it doesn't pick up false notices ok?
|Tigranspetrosian||6/12/12 2:58 PM|
Saga of Kevin McLeod's creative commons music, misidentified by ILLEGAL FRAUDULENT ASSHOLES I wrote letters to:
<Kevin Macleod: Erik Satie Gymnopedie No 1 Arranged and Composed by Kevin Macleod>
"Stéphane Blet-3 Gymnopédies", sound recording administered by:
The Orchard Music Your dispute awaiting response by 07/12/12
"Martin Ermen-Gymnopedie Nr. 1", sound recording administered by:
SME Claim released.
"Satie, Erik-Gymnopedies - No.1-Extreme Music", sound recording administered by:
AdRev for a 3rd Party Claim released.
"Marcela Roggeri-Gymnopédie No. 1", sound recording administered by:
Believe Claim released.
|bobhairgrove||6/21/12 1:41 AM|
I had peace and quiet for a couple of months -- now I got two content media matches on the same day! Of course, I disputed both of them immediately since I am the performer of the audio material here (Chopin Piano Sonata No. 2):
RumbleFish ... I got the contact info from their website, sent them a polite email, and they have already released their claim.
EMI ... sent them a message through their contact form on the EMI website, but haven't heard a word. They claim it is Cécile Ousset performing (???) ... last thing I want is for ads for her CDs to appear next to my clips, so I made the clip unlisted.
Does anyone know a good contact address for EMI concerning this stuff? Thanks!
|bobhairgrove||6/22/12 5:00 AM|
Didn't Universal Music Group buy EMI's music production segment (i.e., everything except for the music publishing business) back in November? Maybe I should contact someone at UMG.
Anybody else have any suggestions?
|bobhairgrove||6/23/12 1:37 PM|
Now Orchard has chimed in ... check out this screen shot of all the mistaken content ID matches here! Thanks to the information in the first post in this thread, I am hopeful that they will also soon remove their claim after having sent them an email about it.
|bobhairgrove||6/25/12 11:32 AM|
Orchard dropped their claim today. I found a German EMI website with a contact form. Hopefully they will supply me with an appropriate email address of someone at EMI who can address this issue. They did reply, but whoever processed my request obviously doesn't know what is going on here.
|bobhairgrove||6/26/12 1:04 AM|
Here is the URL of EMI's contact page:
Hopefully, this will be forwarded to the correct person. I still do not have any specific contact information related to YouTube disputes.
|bobhairgrove||6/28/12 1:52 AM|
Here is a page with some useful contact information including email addresses and telephone numbers:
This is the website of "The Copyright Society of the USA". The link above is meant mostly for teachers who need clearance for educational reasons, but possibly can help resolve YouTube disputes.
We'll see! EMI has yet to respond to my dispute.
|bobhairgrove||7/4/12 2:01 AM|
EMI has released their claim as of yesterday!
Had to bother some people pretty high up in the company's hierarchy to get them to look at it. But sometimes it pays to just start at the top and work your way down.
In my case, however, I own all the rights to my own clip. I wouldn't try this with a cover song or mash-up clip where fair use is being argued about using someone else's songs. In this particular instance, if they had confirmed their claim, they would have eventually been guilty of copyright fraud, IMHO. But I am really glad that I won't have to take them to court now! :)
|bobhairgrove||7/4/12 2:30 AM|
Now I have entered a dispute for a long-standing claim by SME about this clip:
ARTHUR RUBINSTEIN in POLAND - Sentimental Journey
Where do I contact the good people at SME about this???
Interesting that IODA also had a claim on it which they released as soon as i put in my dispute (not immediately, but within hours). I thought that both of these entities are actually SONY (SME)...?
Although this documentary film was made in 1979 and released in 1981, there are numerous reasons why it should be, or actually is, in the public domain. It was produced by POLTEL, or Polish Television, back in the days of communist government. As such, it is entirely a government production. According to Polish copyright laws of 1952, government productions were similar to U.S. government productions and as such not subject to copyright. There are numerous other reasons, but under modern Polish government, there is also this interesting statement by Prime Minister Donald Tusk:
where he states that "All information funded from public sources should be available as public property, free for everyone to use it as they wish (...)"
Of course, under communist rule, everything was "public property", so it should also apply here.
Any other opinions?
|bobhairgrove||7/11/12 2:55 AM|
CONTACT for EMI: contentprotection [AT] emimusic.com
This email address was sent to me from EMI after filling out the OpenEMI contact form. However, the claim on my video was already released earlier, so I am just passing this information along here in case someone else has any problems contacting EMI.
|Tomnibus||7/19/12 8:05 AM|
I have a video that uses a Garageband loop: I believe it's Fifth Avenue Stroll. Pirames International Srl claimed it as copyright. I disputed it saying it was garageBand, they REJECTED the dispute and the claim remains.
Am I out of luck now?
|bobhairgrove||7/20/12 2:22 AM|
First of all, make sure you do have the right to use the audio material. Having bought a loop as part of another product does NOT automatically give you the right to incorporate it in some product of your own. The licensing terms of the GarageBand product should state clearly whether or not you are allowed to do so. It might give you permission to use the loops for private use only, but hosting it on YouTube would not fall under that category. As you can tell, I really have no idea about GarageBand. :)
As to the dispute, once a dispute has been rejected, there is unfortunately no recourse through YouTube. This is one of the major flaws of the content matching scheme they use. Read about it here:
If you have a legitimate right to use the audio material, I would try the following:
(1) Remove the video in question (if it hasn't already been removed by YouTube);
It seems that a lot of these companies just let the dispute ride until the time limit is reached, then reject it automatically simply because they can't be bothered.
Having said all that, this particular thread is actually concerning claims on PUBLIC DOMAIN audio and video material -- your issue is more likely something else entirely, but I could be mistaken.
|Believe The Orchard Music IODA - REFILE PRIOR FALSE CLAIMS||CinemaVintage||7/21/12 2:26 AM|
Claims to dispute "Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam, Willem Mengelberg-Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Op. 74, "Pathétique"", sound recording administered by:Believe The Orchard Music IODA
Reason for dispute material is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.
PRIORS: "Willem Mengelberg-Symphony No. 6 "Pathetique": IV. Adagio lamentoso", sound recording administered by:
The Orchard Music Claim released.
Explanation ORCHARD released its prior false claim they made months ago on this video and I am not sure why it was suddenly refiled, along with Believe and IODA. It was verified as public domain the first time. Release it again, please do not refile, and please WHITE LIST this channel, all thee companies Believe, The Orchard Music and IODA - or simply provide the correct active verifiable legal registration and ownership of this public domain video and we will gladly remove it from your channel without penalty when our legal counsel has verified all three of your company's claims and states them as valid. Thank you, now please stop filing false claims on our public domain videos and white list our channel
|Re: Believe The Orchard Music IODA - REFILE PRIOR FALSE CLAIMS||bobhairgrove||7/21/12 3:04 AM|
IODA is Orchard. Send an email to Kyle Pierce <kpi...@iodalliance.com> and CC to ugc-a...@theorchard.com ... so far, they have released every claim for which I had entered a dispute.
Don't know about Believe, though.
Is this audio really public domain? When was it recorded? Tschaikowsky's music, of course, is PD, but the performance of it might not be.
|Rodenburg||7/31/12 11:58 AM|
I've had AdRev also flag content of mine that they in no way own. Maybe this will eventually get to be a big enough Youtube wide problem to set itself up for a class action lawsuit. I'd think it'd be fertile ground for such a thing.
|(unknown)||8/28/12 12:36 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Believe The Orchard Music IODA - REFILE PRIOR FALSE CLAIMS||Gaara-T||8/30/12 1:08 PM|
Had a claim against a PC game video. No music used in it but AdRev Publishing are claiming a copyrighted song has been found in it. I really don't know which option I need to select to dispute it.
|Keeper1st||9/2/12 3:28 AM|
I get false claims all the time too. Some groups are set up to release the claims immediately upon dispute, but others wait the entire 30 days so that they get as much illegal revenue as they can.
AdRev is not only fraud, but they're stupid. Their claim on videos of original performances of Scott Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag calls it "Maple Leaf Rag (Opus 1)". Opus 1?? Maple Leaf was not Joplin's first work; it wasn't even his first rag, for heaven's sake! So they're claiming ownership of a piece of 19th-century music they don't even know much about.
|[Merlin] Ninja Tune Ltd (There is no audio to claim!)||CinemaVintage||9/4/12 9:12 AM|
FALSE CLAIM AND DISPUTE INFO
4 September 2012
"The Cinematic Orchestra-Manhatta", visual content administered by:
[Merlin] Ninja Tune Ltd Your dispute awaiting response by 10/04/12
Reason for dispute
This video contains the material at issue, but the material is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.
[Merlin] Ninja Tune Ltd,
We notice the audio reference in your company's name. However, your company is not known to us and, ironically enough, this public domain film has no soundtrack or audio for you to claim.
Perhaps we are confused. Are you claiming the images instead?
This film is registered public domain in its entirety which, by its very definition, means that no one can claim this work, not in part or as a whole. This includes you and all other claimants.
Release your claim immediately upon receiving this notice or produce the valid copyright claim stating your entity's ownership as registered with the Library of Congress within one week from this date,
Upon this notice, the original owners of the film who dedicated it to the public domain have been contacted so that they are made aware of your attempt to claim this film, allocated by them to the public domain. We have also contacted all the standard legal and public domain organizations so that they will be aware of your company and your claim on public domain materials.
Provide the correct legal Library of Congress registration information (title, kind of work, date filed, claimant ID number, date issued, entity of ownership, etc.) for the work you have entered into YouTube's Content ID System to produce this DRM notification so all involved parties may compare your work to the public work you have claimed here.
We suggest you white list our channel afterward to avoid such extraneous mishaps in the future.
|bobhairgrove||9/22/12 8:42 AM|
On Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:07:29 AM UTC+1, CinemaVintage wrote:
> AdRev has not responded to any of my emails, ...
What email contact do you have for AdRev Publishing -- anyone? I can't find them anywhere, just "www.AdShare.tv". Are they the same?
Thanks for any info!
|Rellana1||9/24/12 4:33 AM|
I'm surprised someone hasn't filed a lawsuit against these companies if they Insist on claiming that Kevin McCloud's music is there's. I'd imagine that he's getting more than slightly annoyed about this on a regular basis.
|markimatang||9/24/12 8:31 AM|
“I'm surprised someone hasn't filed a lawsuit against these companies…”
Do you have any idea how expensive, time consuming, and life invasive a copyright lawsuit is? (And these companies count on that to continue their theft.)
|Rellana1||9/26/12 3:37 AM|
I do,but this has to stop. Surely if a class-action suit was pressed against them,at least this would stop this piracy of the Public Domain.
|video123456||12/29/12 1:07 AM|
Well it happened as I predicted YT just terminated my channel "Days gone by" for the past week I have been CONTINUALLY fighting FALSE claims against Cinetel Multimedia 5 in all then of course WB thought they would get in on the action with their claims I counter disputed that also and drafted an email to WB.
The content in question is all over the www as PUBLIC DOMAIN yet this does not stop these copyfraud claims, heres the good part, YT give you a whole 200 characters to put forward your case how the hell I am suppose to do that? god knows, of course I heard nothing back from WB's representatives the whole thing goes on RIGHT UNDER YT nose and they don't do a thing about it, not one single thing.
I just feel physically sick I really do and mixed emotions are always the worse with so much pent up rage at being unfairly dealt with it just makes me laugh every time I hear that Hippocratic rule "do no evil" or words to that effect spoken by google, YT just killed off my channel NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER I have absolutely NO SAY in the whole matter just ...
"Thanks for contacting our Google Accounts team. We'll review your report, and will contact you only if we have additional information to share.
We appreciate your taking the time to contact us."
I'm done with it Gen I really am, they have killed 95% of my websites so I come to YT and now they are killing my channels, I play by the rules
im gunna go Gen before i say somethin i regret, i cant help but think of my poor father 76yo his site been around pretty much since the conception of the www and WELL before google 30-40k hits a day and today lucky if there is a 1000 if you still have the email ad i gave you (as I predicted this situation that finds me here would arise) you can contact me there
|CinemaVintage||12/29/12 6:32 PM|
Don't give up and stay in touch with us.
|BFM||CinemaVintage||12/29/12 7:51 PM|
They just did it to us on a public domain video. We contacted BFM using all below.
But it doesn't look good. The only response we got was an "I'm out for the holidays" automated response so far. Wgich seems to fall in line with the expectations we get from the following threads about dealing with BFM:
Here is another thread about BFM
and another about BFM's abuse of the content ID service
Recent activity for "scorn100bfm" who posts for BFM and a quick internet search shows they have a reputation as copyright infringing trolls.
And, of course, you will want to read my love note to Steve at BFM here.
I hear another video in the making. The last series we did almost choked Cinetel Multimedia, and all that bad press is the still first thing you see when you search for them. Screen shots should The Streisand Effect need employment? You betcha. I think I'll drop a line to my media contacts, outfit them with some info and maybe blog about this, too.
It's a beautiful thing. *sniffles*
NOW GET YOUR COPYFRAUD OFF MY PUBLIC DOMAIN VIDEOS AND KEEP IT OFF.
|Re: BFM (again)||CinemaVintage||12/30/12 12:24 AM|
Steve Con wrote me back to let me know he released the fake claim on my public domain video. He was condescending - telling me I knew nothing about copyright law and acting as if he was doing me a holiday favour by releasing it - so I responded in typical coyote fashion as I am wont to do,,, and he's still trying to be snappy in his emails with me as I type this. Guess he doesn't know how I pay the bills, huh? (Google faster!) However, we tripped over this and thought you all might like to see it. It's info about BFM's site, including traffic and money stats. I'll let you decide how seriously I take this whole thing. You know, right after you stop laughing. http://bfmdigital.com.w3snoop.com/
|Re: BFM (again)||gbcali||12/30/12 2:23 AM|
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:24:46 AM UTC-8, CinemaVintage wrote:By w3snoop's accounting 'OpenSocietyFoundations.org' is worth $10.However, we tripped over this and thought you all might like to see it. It's info about BFM's site, including traffic and money stats. I'll let you decide how seriously I take this whole thing. You know, right after you stop laughing. http://bfmdigital.com.w3snoop.com/
In 2010 Open Society Foundations had expenditures of $819 million.
BFM Digital is worth millions of dollars.
|Re: BFM (again)||CinemaVintage||12/30/12 6:08 PM|
This is BFM http://www.freewebsitereport.org/www.bfmdigital.com and it has a terrible reputation for making claims on material it doesn't own and how they deal with people. If you'd like me to go into detail just run a simple search and see for yourself. As for "other companies" BFM may or may not be associated with? I could care less. A fishmonger doesn't smell sweeter standing next to a dye maker.
#1,381,610Bfmdigital.com Estimated Website Traffic Net Worth $1,744 USD
Bfmdigital.com has ranked #1,381,610 in the world according to Alexa website ranking. Bfmdigital.com has Google pagerank #4. The estimated website net worth based on it's traffic value and online website advertisement revenue alone is around $1,744. Bfmdigital.com receives 796 pageviews per day and generates nearly $2.39 in daily ad revenue. Bfmdigital.com has website backlinks from #73 website. Bfmdigital.com has a popular site score rating of 1 out of 5 Stars. Bfmdigital.com appears to be hosted in United States. Bfmdigital.com hosted on webcontrolcenter.com.
|(unknown)||12/30/12 6:17 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: BFM (again)||CinemaVintage||12/30/12 6:19 PM|
|Re: BFM (again)||CinemaVintage||12/30/12 8:15 PM|
FYI an interesting thing happens when you run a search on "bfm digital complaints" including reports from youtube users, chilling effects. multiple entries at rip off reports (omg!), hacker news, TF, archives and more.
This guy puts himself out everywhere as a "big fish" when he's not and the complaints about him and his many "companies" are racking up like flies on a pile. I think this speaks volumes and tells the public everything it should know - Another competitor with IODA and Orchard trying to take advantage of the current loopholes (steadfastly closing) in legal-speak and never quite addressing the real topic or fixing the problems that put money in his pocket. Um, not a million dollar company (D list clients?) just another wannabe infringing on the rights of others. Don't miss this one http://www.glitch.com/forum/announcements/30512/ it's an eye opener, especially for TinySpeck. Google search their infringements, and you'll find at least seven companies BFM has done this to, and I'm waiting for the law suits to start flying if they haven't already.
As for BFM being "a million dollar company" as you claim, oddly enough they are not listed on Hoovers, Manta, Safer, etc. I also could not find their statements in Yahoo Finance. Do we just take their or your word fo rit that they might be worth a million dollars, and by whose POV?
BFM calls itself a distributor but what it really is is an aggregator, another "big fish" wannabe taking a chunk out of any profits. While Steven con insists he protects starving artists, the company seems to make its living off other people's works, as the acquisiiton announcement of karake and ringtones show here in a 8 yr old article. He purchased their catalog and makes money off it any way he can. Some "clients". Other people recording other people's legitimate music so they can make a fast buck off it. So much for his cry for the rights of starving artists being taken advantage of by others, huh? http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/BFM-Digital-Acquires-SongDog-Network-s-Extensive-3893535.php
|Re: Cinetel Multimedia (attention Steve)||CinemaVintage||12/31/12 3:40 AM|
|gjhfjspcfcxnz||2/18/13 5:39 PM|
yeah, this is actually becoming an epidemic, ad rev are making false copyright claims everywhere, on creative commons content. The thing is that today I started to host my channel content on my own website, I simply can't afford to spend 10 minutes per false copyright claim
|tinadb||7/29/13 1:39 PM|
Orchard is the worst culprit. They should be banned from Youtube. Its shameful that Google allows this to flourish.
|Phillip Wister||9/7/13 4:44 PM|
i got from adrev about bahamas natioanlantehm
Krav du vil bestride
"Bahamas anthem-USB", musikkomposisjon administrert av:
Årsak til tvisten
Denne videoen inneholder det aktuelle materialet, men materialet er enten uten opphavsrett eller er ikke kvalifisert for opphavsrettbeskyttelse.
sorry it is norwegian but you got google translate ;)