|"Matched third party content. Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition", but no music in the video||eeplox||2/24/12 9:45 AM|
I posted a video which is basically just me walking and talking, outdoors, away from any possible source of music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPBlfeuZuWg
And apparently youtube identified my video as containing copyrighted music from a company called rumblefish. I filed a dispute, and now I'm waiting for said company to respond to it. Is this a freak occurrence? I feel pretty violated by this, a mysterious entity claiming to own my content and apparently profiting from it with ads.
There are birds singing in the background in the video, could they own the rights to birdsong?
|Re: "Matched third party content. Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition", but no music in the video||markimatang||2/24/12 3:03 PM|
NO! It is a very common occurrence. It is a well-known error. One person has had to file over 100 disputes for mistaken bird sounds. For some reason Google is reluctant to fix this so companies like rumblefish take advantage of it to gain fraudulent income (google makes something also).
Companies registering reference file with the CID are required to manually review any disputed video but rumblefish is one of many companies who just automatically confirm the content regardless of how ridiculous the match is.
Now then, when a dispute is filed advertisements are cancelled until the dispute is answered. There are advertisements on your video so before we go further I need to know the status of your dispute. Please post the notice found on your “Copyright Info” page. It might be something like “These content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Sound Recording”
|Re: "Matched third party content. Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition", but no music in the video||eeplox||2/24/12 9:57 PM|
Thanks for the help. This is what it says:
All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content:
|Re: "Matched third party content. Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition", but no music in the video||markimatang||2/25/12 12:04 AM|
Well then, that was a quick review (and confirmation). Most likely they don’t have a clue what’s in your video. Google gives them what was matched and where it occurred in you video but they obviously didn’t check. Google is finished at this point so your only recourse (short of a lawsuit) is to contact rumblefish and remind them of their error. Not surprisingly, they are usually quick to correct it.
Give them the URL to your video, state that you own all of the audio and video that it contains and ask them to release their claim.
|markimatang||2/25/12 12:16 AM|
P.S. This illustrates a couple of my pet peeves about this process. Google hides the notification by only changing the wording on the notice but gives you no way to know that other than to check periodically. At least this was fast. I sometime have to check daily for weeks.
Oh, the second peeve, google hides the identity of the claimant by giving an abbreviated name and no contact information.
|Bior||2/26/12 2:34 PM|
This is outrageous. Rumblefish should get punished for false copyright claims.
|FormerGogleFan||2/26/12 5:24 PM|
Google could do something about this, but they clearly don't care. That is evil.
|markzmen101||2/26/12 5:30 PM|
Wow, these claimers are real terrorizing perpetrators. The bizarre thing is that someone would actually consider such self-centered egoism in respect of a law. Shows one how laws are to be twisted. SOPA lovers beware.
|clevershark||2/26/12 5:53 PM|
Google tips the balance towards the copyright claimants regardless of whether the claims are valid or not that I just won't post anything to Youtube anymore and instead have chosen an alternate video host who isn't so willing to throw its users under the bus. I did this as a result of a phony copyright claim by Formula One Management over footage of the Canadian Grand Prix which I captured myself, with my own equipment, and having paid for my own grandstand ticket.
With Google, money talks and the truth walks.
|clevershark||2/26/12 5:54 PM|
Incidentally it's difficult for me to imagine why Google and its subsidiaries are against SOPA as they have themselves fully adopted SOPA's "shoot first and ask questions never" attitude towards copyright claims no matter how dodgy they are...
|seriusissue fao google staff||2/26/12 5:57 PM|
welcome to future of the internet
|Zisteau||2/26/12 6:06 PM|
Rumblefish cost me several hundred dollars in ad revenue because of this very issue. They're slimy thugs abusing the system.
|Nothingness||2/26/12 6:09 PM|
|DanChorley||2/26/12 6:16 PM|
That's absolutely pathetic, I agree completely with Bior, they should definitely be punished - their rights to remove content should be restricted, or their requests should be moderated by someone at YouTube before content is actually removed.
This just proves the point of Internet blackout day and all of the anti-ACTA/SOPA/PIPA demonstrations - as soon as someone has the power to restrict access or remove content, it is used in a careless and lazy way which will generally punish the people who are doing nothing wrong.
|enantiomer2000||2/26/12 6:22 PM|
Shame on you Google. I am throwing away my Android phone and going down town to buy myself an iPhone!
|Wuggyboobeaufuf||2/26/12 6:34 PM|
Google and Youtube should be forced to pay $1000 every time a false claim is abused like this.
Rumblefish should be barred from making any copyright claims at all.
EEplox should sue both their asses.
|edmartech||2/26/12 6:36 PM|
I experienced this in one of my videos. My video has no background music at all. Just my voice. The complaint is not from Rumblefish though, it is from Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society. As you can see, it is a generic name. I believe that they're gaming the system to earn money from your hardwork.
|jrbrewin||2/26/12 6:39 PM|
I'm interested in learning how Rumblefish were able to automatically detect bird song, or your voice and claim it as their own. Have they somehow fingerprinted bird song with google, and all videos with song from a particular breed of bird are automatically flagged?
Surely this is blatant abhorrent abuse of the good faith system google have put in place, and as such Google should be looking very closely at Rumblefish, and the processes by which anyone can seemingly get content fingerprinted without first being sanity checked and peer reviewed by Google employees.
|PoisonSnow||2/26/12 6:42 PM|
I have had three videos that have been TAKEN DOWN because an external site has uploaded them. This is getting out of hand...
|RHStevens||2/26/12 6:52 PM|
Wow, this is crap. This whole strategy of pulling content and THEN having to petition for its legal and legitimate return is RIDICULOUS.
|fraize||2/26/12 7:23 PM|
People. It's not Google. It's DMCA. Google is merely following the law. Blame the law.
|Russell VT||2/26/12 7:30 PM|
|Movitarx||2/26/12 7:30 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|shayne oneill||2/26/12 7:31 PM|
I should note filing fradulent copyright claims is actually illegal, not in the civil, but in the criminal, sense in most countries. (Its something like a 3 year prison term here in australia).
Google, you actually need to put a human onto investigating this. Rumblefish are commiting fraud, and its something you need to take seriously.
|This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.|
|mr5rockhopper4||2/26/12 7:52 PM|
Just came here from Reddit, and I agree, this is incredible. I think that if someone makes so many false copyright claims, they should loose their privileges of that copyright, and prevented from copyrighting that particular thing.
|ehrensw||2/26/12 8:02 PM|
Rumblefish lists YouTube as a client. Graft anyone?
|BajaChepe||2/26/12 8:05 PM|
It is total BS they giving you grief about it, hope you win this and you should counter sue them for excessive bull$hit, and fu*& Rumblefish!
|markimatang||2/26/12 8:15 PM|
“People. It's not Google. It's DMCA. Google is merely following the law. Blame the law.”
This is Google. This is NOT DMCA. This is NOT law. This is google’s Content ID program. In fact it is Google’s contrivance to perpetrate an end run around the law and avoid any due process required by the DMCA. Google could fix this in a keystroke IF THEY WANTED TO.
|GarretMH||2/26/12 8:35 PM|
This is honestly not a big deal (beyond being a pain in the ass for victims)
It is an isolated (if horribly abused) issue in the system and google's only fault is that they likely aren't even aware of it or how to effectively fix it.
In this case, Rumblefish is abusing those tools and google's avoidance of human labor. While google can't refuse to review copyright requests, I'm not sure why they don't seem to be scrutinizing Rumblefish's requests or filing abuse or something.
The way it works is this: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, which by the way is the act which SOPA hoped to effectively replace) says that google must take down copyrighted material at rights holders' request. Google, both for simplicity and profit decided to offer tools to rights holders that automatically searches videos for sound or video they own. However, google still requires right's holders to review the scanned material before take-down request submission.
|John-Dee||2/26/12 8:47 PM|
In my opinion this IS a big deal! Companies such as rumblefish are allowed to game the system into submission effectively limiting free speech in many cases. This is something that google needs to fix immediately. It is the current situation that companies are given the benefit of the doubt where google should be striving the uphold the rights of the user. Clearly this takedown process needs more moderation by google themselves.
|Zeraliten||2/26/12 8:51 PM|
Content ID is in place because it grants youtube the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. As long as they have the CID system in place and respond to takedown requests either filed through traditional DMCA takedown requests or CID takedown requests they are protected from liability suits without having to actively screen every single video that gets uploaded (which would not be possible given the enormous volume of content uploaded on a daily basis).
I realize it puts a minority of users in a shitty position when companies abuse the CID system and take down videos that aren't theirs, but on the flipside all a user has to do in turn, provided that he does in fact not use any copyrighted material in his video, is file a counterclaim and the video is put back up until the company that filed the takedown request in the first place either (in the form of a proper lawsuit, which they won't unless they are absolutely positively certain they will win) puts up or shuts up.
You might not like it, but the current system is the lesser evil.
|MrOrientalOccidental||2/26/12 9:58 PM|
He did. rumbefish still claimed copyright
All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content:Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Musical Composition
This is what you get after you dispute and the copyright holder reviews the video. They could either put a link to Itunes identifying the song asking people to buy it or put ads on the video and collect revenue from this video. ContentID matches are not DMCA notices. See this (http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=190763),
Can I use this to dispute a DMCA notice?
No, the dispute process is separate from the (DMCA) counter-notification procedure outlined here.
The ContentID dispute process is a one time process reviewed by the copyright holder who has a vested interest in confirming their claim to collect revenue. It's not held to the same standard as an DMCA notice. I guess people could sue on the grounds of breach of YT contract, but the chance of that is minimal compared to the companies like UMG, Warners, etc who have plenty of lawyers.
|Parabola949||2/26/12 10:37 PM|
I'm sorry everyone.... but I have to point this out -
Bior merely admonished rumblefish. Markimatang gave a proper answer. How is it Bior has 3K votes for helpful? That "Yes" button isn't a like or +1 button - it's actually asking if it was _helpful_.... I do agree with Bior, however.. Markimatang had the helpful response.
That being said, eeplox, best of luck in getting this handled!
|Anti-X||2/26/12 10:59 PM|
|markimatang||2/26/12 11:10 PM|
The provisions of the DMCA do not require Content ID and it has no effect on any safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that YouTube may enjoy. Content ID is google’s alternative to the DMCA should the copyright owner wish to “claim” the video, enjoy a profit from its publication and avoid the due process of the DMCA. That copyright owner may at any time also file a formal DMCA notice, and that is the notice that google must follow or loose its safe harbor. That is the notice that is part of the due process laid out in the DMCA and if the dispute is not resolved eventually ends with a court decision.
|simoncpu||2/26/12 11:20 PM|
The United States of America comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive republic were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the states. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the American people appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the President the executive powers of government.
But its fall was announced by a clearer omen than the flight of vultures: the American government appeared every day less formidable to its enemies of liberty, more odious and oppressive to its subjects.
|JPizzle1122||2/27/12 12:16 AM|
As someone with a Content-ID YouTube account... I'm getting a real kick out of these replies.
I've seen the back-end of this situation, as I have access to the same tools UMG, and Rumblefish have -- and I can tell you: not only is the system complicated, it's also very easy to do a lot of harm with it if you're not careful.
Everyday, my videos are stolen by other users, YouTube's system notifies me of matches, and I can take them down immediately, send the user a message, or ignore it. It seems likely though, that Rumblefish set their system up to an automatic takedown: anytime their is a match (in this case, a bad one, of birds singing), YouTube removes the video on their behalf.
If the OP counters this claim, he should win easy -- as it seems, to only be a mistake, or over-eager robot that is at fault here.
But, if Rumblefish is knowingly submitting false copyright claims... well, fuck: take them to court, pronto.
/ Professional YouTuber
|MrOrientalOccidental||2/27/12 12:34 AM|
Very interesting. I wonder if the system tells you what song/content at what time period of the video ContentID matched. Also, what stops people with just auto confirm all disputed ContentID matches and collect ad revenue?
|gwebmaster||2/27/12 4:04 AM|
Take them to small claims court. No lawyers needed. They will have to spend time and money to show up.
You have an easy win. If everyone did this, then companies would take the time to have a human review their BS claims.
They would put themselves out of business with too many false automated claims.
|Xyzwao||2/27/12 4:18 AM|
Google, don't be evil.
|mbtria||2/27/12 6:06 AM|
When a takedown notice is issued, the person issuing the takedown swears to the truth of the allegation under penalty of perjury. I know of no one ever having been charged with the felony of perjury for having falsely issued such a notice. Maybe it is time for that to happen.
|leon.san.email||2/27/12 6:35 AM|
We need to take back the internet.
|billjaber||2/27/12 7:23 AM|
|geoffrey g||2/27/12 8:18 AM|
Have you thought of contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation? https://www.eff.org/ Sadly the internet is full of bottom feeders like Rublefish, who will continue their practices until there are real consequences. Having been slashdotted and posted on FARK, this may be a good opportunity for the Interwebs to stand up.
|apurvasukant||2/27/12 8:46 AM|
The only reason that Google seems to be acting from their side, because they anticipate (reasonably) that the companies would be the one filing suits, and not individuals. That is just an educated guess on Google's part. You can change all that, by filing a suit for perjury (?), harassment, and so forth. They would surely change their attitude.
In an unconnected note, I would like to mention that this is certainly most 'evil' on part of Google, but I think that is cause Sergie doesn't have as much control now-a-days.
|markimatang||2/27/12 9:49 AM|
The rumblefish page that your reference is full of half-truths and outright lies. Rumblefish’s disclaimer: “The FAQ does not reﬂect the opinions of YouTube, Google, it’s subsidiaries or afﬁliates and has been created entirely by and is property of Rumbleﬁsh in an effort to help answer questions for YouTube users who receive Content ID claims from YouTube for music content represented by Rumbleﬁsh on behalf of its content providers, including record labels, music publishers, artists, writers and estates.”
But if we just look at the section germane to the OP’s question that is Number 4: “…If you believe one of the following facts to be true, you should dispute the claim and it will be reviewed within 48 hours: a) the YouTube Content ID system has misidentiﬁed the music in your video as a song you did not include in the ﬂagged video or b) you own the identiﬁed music content that has been claimed outright and have not designated a third party to claim and monetize the content in the YouTube Content ID system.”
So the OP filed a dispute. Rumblefish DID NOT actually review the video or they would have seen the absurdly obvious Content ID error. They merely confirmed the match without reviewing the video. I’ll give you a quote from an old rumblefish FAQ that is no longer included in the current FAQ.” What if I dispute my claim? Our default policy is to reinstate claims since 99% of the time we do have the right to monetize the video since it contains one our songs. Again, your video will not be taken down.”
My guess is that they have not changed their default policy.
|Simbamatic||2/27/12 10:22 AM|
|nskinsella||2/27/12 10:33 AM|
"SOPA lovers beware." Actually the fascist supporters of SOPA want this kind of result and control and fear-tactic/chilling effect. Copyright should be abolished. the problem is not "abuse" of the system, but copyright itself, which is legalized censorship. For more information see www.c4sif.org/resources. BTW I am a practicing IP and patent attorney.
|Gudsine||2/27/12 12:08 PM|
This sort of problem is rampant everywhere. If you can't provide the man power to monitor your own mandated rules, laws and TOS then you can't enforce those laws when they are violated or broken based solely on accusation and assumption.
Last time I checked, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If we were to follow google and youtubes negligent and poor rule enforcement practices you would be automatically charged as guilty by way of technological mistake and not actually proven to be guilty by the said property owners simply by their own shear laziness and lack of respect for said laws.
If this were brought before a ruling court the accusers (in this case Rumblefish) would be held accountable for perjury as they stated the confirmation of said accusation without even actually looking at it, secondly they gained monetary compensation based on their false accusations aka larceny.
Both Google AND Rumblefish should be held accountable.
Fixes?: Maybe when said atrocity happens the parties who supposedly own said intellectual property should provide PROOF that they are being infringed upon and have that proof provided to the accused.
This is not to say that people don't violate TOS and CWL on a dialy basis, they do, but the innocent should be protected under such laws and TOS and not play victim to "we dont have the man power". FULL CIRCLE, if you don't have the man power, you can't enforce the rules, PERIOD.
|Linuxluver||2/27/12 12:36 PM|
I've taken clevershark's approach, too. I don't post all my videos to YouTube and when they do flag one, I delete it and post it on another site instead. At the end of the day, it's YouTube who lose out for allowing copyright sharks to steal from the public domain.
|Linuxluver||2/27/12 12:39 PM|
Gudsine: many countries now have copyright laws that asume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. New Zealand became of them last year. This law was bought and paid for by the RIAA and MPAA who provided NZ$500,000 to 'assist" in developing the law. Yes, we have a conservative government at present: That means "Law for sale! Highest bidder! Get your vested interest laws here!"
|markimatang||2/27/12 1:00 PM|
I was introduced to this snafu nearly two years ago by posting this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9w9_wlJXNU (The resulting discussion is here: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=7211adc7d6974a05&hl=en )
I have lost track of the number of disputes that I had to file for this one video but three of them were from rumblefish. To this day the notice on my video reads: “These content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Sound Recording
These content owners have reviewed your video and agreed with your dispute: Entity: Kontor New Media and INgrooves Content Type: Sound Recording Entity: Kontor New Media Content Type: Sound Recording Entity: INgrooves Content Type: Sound Recording”
Rumblefish removed the first two confirmed claims after being contacted by my licensor. Out of sheer frustration I have not pursued removing the third confirmed claim. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THREE FALSE CONFIRMATIONS ON THE SAME VIDEO AND RUMBLEFISH IS BANNED FROM CONTENT ID FOREVER?
|RF-Josh||2/27/12 1:23 PM|
|jcobia||2/27/12 5:18 PM|
Did you get any help from any attorneys? This is the type of problem I would be happy to help you with for free. If you happen to see this, email me at my username at gmail dot com and I'll see what we can do. I am not an expert by any means on this subject (but I would argue no attorney is), but I am an attorney and I did write an article about it that you can read here - http://mjlst.umn.edu/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/@mjlst/documents/asset/ahc_asset_366013.pdf
|markimatang||2/27/12 7:29 PM|
Your link doesn’t work but the link given by Simbamatic above does. Here it is a live link:
I wonder, why doesn’t iampaulanthony CEO of Rumblefish answer us here?
|ScottKin||2/27/12 11:58 PM|
@eeplox - Congrats on getting your video back on YT.
Your next step would be to file a Civil suit, claiming Restriction of Trade, Conspiracy to Restrict Trade and possible Copyright Violations against Rumblefish, with Google as a co-conspirator ASAP. Demand that in the suit, that they meticulously include details of their Content Review Process, especially on the Rumblefish side of the issue, along with renumeration of lost income from your video AND damages for the usual "Pain, Suffering & Mental Stress and Duress". Immediately after filing your suit and your receipt or confirmation of delivery of the writ to the legal offices of Rumblefish and Google, ask them if they are interested in settling this case out-of-court, and that if the case does go to court that you will instruct your attorney to seek FULL DISCLOSURE of the processes that both Rumblefish and Google use to determine Copyright Ownership, which will be required by your attorney and the Court to determine Rumblefish's culpability, as well as Google's conspiratory actions.
IANAL - but I could easily be,
|wooldog||2/28/12 5:52 AM|
oh, I thought videos get reviewed manually. So I have been lied to?
|Libertina||2/28/12 8:05 AM|
The second form of copyright fraud includes making false claims:
Copyright fraud includes unlawfully placing a copyright claim over material that is often actually in the public domain. It also includes unlawfully removing a copyright symbol from intellectual property. In each instance, all unlawfully obtained profits must be forfeited. In addition, a fine of up to $2500 may be imposed for each offense.
|eeplox||2/29/12 12:28 AM|
The worst thing about this whole thing is that they took my property away from me to put their advertisements on it, denying me ownership of my own creative work and forcing my viewers to view ads for products I have no interest in being associated with. Ads from which they profited.
They've made no attempt to return the profits they made from my work. It's worse that stealing, because not only did they take my creative property that I provided freely to the Internet, but they commercialized it and sold it and turned it into a commodity, and I was powerless to do anything about it. They only reversed their decision about maintaining ownership of my video when the public outcry forced them to go into damage control mode, after making an unknown sum of money off of me.
If a lawyer wants to represent me (I can't pay you), then please contact me on my youtube channel. I have a feeling that the moment the publicity dies down, they'll fall right back into their old tricks.
|JuryDutySummons||2/29/12 12:26 PM|
You would have an open-and-shut case. Send them a certified letter. It might just get their attention.
|youtubenation||3/1/12 3:17 AM|
I think people are missing a much more effective remedy here. Not merely "Complain and it will be corrected." Why should Rumblefish get away with that? No, here is what I propose:
1. Eeeplox made a new piece of intellectual property. A video, which included some bird noises. Eeeplox is the copyright holder to the video.
2. Rumblefish claim to own Eeplox's video and works. Rublefish actually have no such rights, and is falsely attributing the works as their own. In writing!! Yay!
3. Eeplox is now in a position to request all Rumblefish distributor sites, corporate web site, etc taken down while Eeeplox reviews it content for breaches of copyright held by Eeplox.
|gbcali||3/1/12 6:10 AM|
published 14 hours ago...
(article links to this thread)
Copyright kings are judge, jury and executioner on YouTube
|rnickeymouse||3/1/12 7:29 AM|
|markimatang||3/1/12 12:20 PM|
@Crop Circles - I suppose it’s pointless to keep repeating this but I will anyway. In the thread you reference rumblefish claims “What you’re currently doing:” They (royalty free music licensors) simply offer what is advertised as "Royalty Free" licenses but do not actually address Content ID or offer any guarantee to their customers that the music they license is not included in any online content ID system (that’s a difficult claim to even ask a library to make).” BULSHIT, they (royalty free music licensors) offer a non-exclusive license that is absolutely valid to synchronize, broadcast and monetize the audio when added to a video of your creation. NO ONE has any additional rights to your video (unless those are included in your contract). They absolutely DO guarantee that the audio cannot be (legally) claimed by Content ID. Rumblefish (and others) either have made a glaring mistake in confirming the audio or they are claiming audio for which they DO NOT have exclusive rights to administer. By “claiming” your video rumblefish (and others) are STEALING your ability to use your video for commercial purposes.
“Content ID exists to pay creators, both yourself and the artists music who you are using in your videos.” By purchasing the royalty free license you have paid the artists whose music you are using. NO FURTHER PAYMENT IS DUE, FOREVER (unless that is included in your contract).
“Rumblefish has a YPP music program for video creators exactly like you.” And this hides an unfair trade practice; rumblefish will molest anyone not using their license.
“Something that we're not aware of ( we're all ears if you know of alternate solutions for video creators)” Simple, ban companies from using Content ID if they add material for which they do not have a worldwide exclusive license to administer.
I repeat: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THREE FALSE CONFIRMATIONS ON THE SAME VIDEO AND RUMBLEFISH IS BANNED FROM CONTENT ID FOREVER?
|rnickeymouse||3/1/12 7:25 PM|
There is a thread on here by CinemaVintage, he had 7 entities claim one public domain video upon upload.
|KactuX||3/2/12 2:56 AM|
How do you call that? The american dream? the north america become verily the shit in terms of freedom. You will eventually make you boycotting the rest of the world.
|DarkStanley||3/3/12 1:30 AM|
I have the same problem. A DMCA filed against a video with NO copyright material. Not even birdsong in the background. The notice I got does not say if it was via content ID or if a user fraudulently filed the DMCA. In fact, if a viewer hadn't messaged me about it, I'd never have seen the notice at all. It's pretty well hidden and I bet big companies that are allowed to use content ID are stealing a LOT of videos from people who simply never saw the tiny notice on the third or fourth page of their video manager. In the meantime, while I wait for some underpaid secretary to check their Email, I am losing money because someone else is incompetent and lazy.
|PhantomSafetyPin||3/3/12 5:12 PM|
*sighs* I'm not surprised. There are more than a few companies doing this right now to scare, bully, or falsely claim pieces that either are not theirs to claim or that contain no copyrighted content to begin with. It's ridiculous and unfair to users. But since when has Google ever cared about its users?
|durhamtelly||3/19/12 4:39 PM|
Another thing that is occurring, Royalty Free Music from companies such as Sony Vegas is being used in tracks on rumblefish and the music is being claimed by Rumblefish.com I managed to get through to the head guy at Sony that creates the RF Music for Vegas & he threatened Rumblefish with legal action, they released the video but I still can't monetise it. The said video won't earn anything it is just the principle of the matter. Youtube are aware of the problem, they just won't act, probably because Youtube has a contract with Rumblefish to supply music for videos in the editor, where they make $m's with their partner. We seem to be just an irritant to YT Google it can't see how content creators fit in anymore.?
|sareis7||3/27/12 9:43 PM|
Me too! but not quite the same. Mine was that my video's are just me hanging out talking to everyone but then i see my video matched to a third party content. So what is a third party content and can i do anything to change it. Also there is a video blocked in some countries and i don't get why it has nothing what so ever bad.
|durhamtelly||3/28/12 1:07 AM|
Third party content is content created by other individuals or companies, it can be a image, music,moving image, perhaps there is music on in the background of your video and that has been found.? You can appeal to Youtube but whether they take any notice is what it is, if anything,many people complain that their content has been matched and it is just them in the video or them talking. Some countries don't allow certain content that is a fact and the list of reasons is long, best not worry about this area really, as YT won't change on that...
|markimatang||3/28/12 10:24 AM|
@sareis7 – “So what is a third party content…”
The first party is YouTube, the second party is you and the third party is someone else, so third party content is content owned by someone other than YouTube or you.
“…and can i do anything to change it.”
If you, in fact, own all the content in your video or you have a license from a third party to use their content in your video then the Content ID match is in error. (The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it OR I have license or written permission from the content owner to use this material.) If so FILE A DISPUTE!
|AGrandt||3/30/12 12:45 PM|
I wonder if it were Rumblefish that started claiming a lot of Kevin MacLeod's (incompetech.com) music as theirs as well. I don't think he ever mentioned the culprit, but I do know it were a major issue for him a short while ago.
|clemenzina||4/1/12 6:37 PM|
It can get worse, please see the DESCRIPTION in this video:
I have also put it on my Facebook page but probably won't get much attention, that's the downside of being a bit of a loner ;-)
There is no recourse when a rights holder claims to have reviewed your dispute and sticks to their guns, YouTube supports them and you cannot dispute further. And now they've removed the option to make an initial dispute on the grounds of "misidentification", we're going to have to go through hoops >:(
|Linuxluver||10/1/12 2:52 PM|
YouTube never responds to disputes in my experience.
I gave up in the end and took the videos off YouTube and uploaded them to other sites. Hassles over. I can link to them as I did before.
When YouTube make themselves unusable....don't use them.
|JimZubemo||11/21/12 8:55 AM|
I am also struggling with such claims on one of my videos.
I made a tutorial with no background music in it. But some how it showed matched 3rd party content.
I also claimed a dispute. This is stupid.
|JeremyShaferOrigami||12/27/12 10:35 PM|
You're not alone, I just lost several hundred dollars in ad revenue because I used songs from my own album as background music to over 30 of my YouTube videos. Here's how goes down...They make a claim on the music, I dispute it, a month later they release it, but when I try to remonetize my videos they remake the same claim! X 30 videos... that's a lot of lost advertising. Now I'm trying to pull my album off of Rumblefish, and no doubt I'll have to wait another month for that to happen. In the digital age a month is a long time!
|billel chinwi||1/2/13 10:20 AM|