
Youtube claims I don't own my own film - angrycoder
http://www.mdotstrange.com/2012/06/youtube-claims-i-dont-own-my-own-film.html
======
slapshot
I do not work for Google/Youtube (or BMF), but I have experience with their
systems. The short version is that YouTube has an automated tool that scans
for duplicates of copyrighted videos that have been uploaded by verified
creators. It looks at every upload and compares it against a library of known
videos for video and sound issues. When it gets a hit, it automatically
classifies the video as containing potentially copyrighted content. Sounds
like this got hit by the automated scanner.

Nothing in the notice means that BMF made a claim against this video in
particular (in fact, it sounds like it's a private video, so there's no way
BMF could review it). It's not a DMCA issue at all -- this is a system that
YouTube chose to put in place completely unconnected to any DMCA claim system.

Sounds like this automated scanner result is wrong. I believe there is an
appeal process, where a human will look at the video. Also note that the video
is not being blocked in the meantime; it's still available.

The bigger problem that comes up is how can YouTube deal with the flood of
video copycats (ever notice how every popular video leads to 20 copies of the
same thing?) without stifling independent artists whose work gets a false
positive in the scan system? It's an interesting challenge to get the right
mix of false positives and negatives.

Please post what happens after you try the appeals process -- this could be a
simple fix and I'd be curious to know.

Edit: Here's an overview of the automated "Content ID" system:
<http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid>

~~~
X-Istence
It is still available alright, but someone, not the content creator, is making
money off the video due to the ads being placed on the video. That is unfair
to the content creator.

How long will it take YouTube to review the video? What possible actions are
there? I understand that YouTube provides video hosting free of charge (and
makes money from advertisements) and that this stuff can happen, but it seems
entirely unfair... how can I get my content added to their content ID system
so that people don't re-upload my stuff?

~~~
slapshot
> how can I get my content added to their content ID system so that people
> don't re-upload my stuff?

There's a signup form here: <http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup>

~~~
stephengillie
Is there any penalty for adding content you don't actually own to the content
ID system?

~~~
andypants
I don't know, but it has happened. News companies post videos that they
actually find on youtube because it is part of a story, then the original
video gets a copyright claim made against it.

------
droithomme
It's not accidental, they make money doing this and there is no penalty when
they get it wrong, so doing this makes "business sense".

Previous cases:

[http://njnnetwork.com/2009/10/associated-press-and-fox-
news-...](http://njnnetwork.com/2009/10/associated-press-and-fox-news-make-
false-copyright-claims/)

[http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-
copy...](http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-
music/)

[http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-
topic/youtu...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-
topic/youtube/archive/z1f2Hz2dV0c)

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-
youtube-...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-youtube-
lawsuit-universal-music-285298)

In addition to these media covered cases, I have noticed cases of very old
public domain works being seized by corporations with no involvement in their
original creation.

~~~
rdl
So the solution to this, as with anything where getting caught and punished is
infrequent and high costs are imposed on the victim, is to set damages high
enough to make the expected return from this strategy non-positive.

If they owed $100k every time they made a false takedown, they'd probably be a
lot more careful in the future.

~~~
droithomme
I agree with you that harsh penalties for blatantly false copyright claims
done in bad faith would help greatly. However there is a much larger problem
in that the victims of these scams are small regular guy artists and content
creators and the scam perpetrators are multi-billion dollar media
organizations that control the media that advocates for new laws and have the
congress, who ignores "small person feedback" in their back pocket with their
SuperPAC and other bribery schemes/"campaign financing". How to solve that
problem is the one that keeps coming up. Despite many realizing what a problem
this situation is and discussion going on about it for many years, things only
get worse, such as with the Supreme Court's Citizen United Ruling in 2010.

------
msg
I hate to break it to all the people that failed to read, including the OP,
but the hated acronym you want is BFM not BMF.

<http://bfmdigital.com/>

As for judgment on the actual issue, I think ContentID bends over backward to
big content to forestall more heavy handed moves, at the expense of bad
mistakes like this one.

It looks like it's profitable for BFM to claim or create lots of media clips
so they get paid for these ads, in the interim period before the creator
appeals. To fix it the incentives would have to change.

Here's a prior example where BFM erroneously claimed a license to a classical
performance, which messed with ContentID.

[http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/VdWWVV...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/VdWWVVC2Q3o)

Youtube should punish BFM's mistake.

~~~
DanBC
I'd be interested to hear (both from Youtube and from people caught by
ContentID) about how hard it is to fix these problems.

I also want to know what happens to the ad revenue - do Youtube just keep it;
or do they still pay it to the original company; or do they attempt to claw it
back at some point; or do they pay it to the real creator of the work?

------
cromwellian
YouTube has been sued several times in both the US and Europe, and if it
didn't offer this system, far worse more draconian systems would be legally
mandated. YouTube recently lost a case in Germany where the judge imposed a
less accurate filter on YouTube:
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/11573918587/huh-
to...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/11573918587/huh-to..). This
is a regrettable situation, that the OP got caught up in a detection system,
but YouTube must do this kind of stuff, otherwise, the courts will mandate it.
Not having it just lends more ammunition to SOPA/PIPA backers as well.

------
noonespecial
BMF violated his copyright. They claimed ownership and tried to exercise
rights over the distribution of work that wasn't theirs. There are legal
remedies for this. They're pirates.

~~~
Karunamon
Indeed. If this had a been a private citizen as opposed to a corporation, you
can bet the heavy handed "justice" system would have its wheels turning
already.

------
dhughes
This reminds me of the war on terror where it seems everyone is considered a
terrorist as if that will solve the problem.

Regular law abiding people are accused of being terrorists and resources are
used to chase shadows.

It's the same thing in this situation everyone is guilty unless _you_ can
prove you're not, meanwhile the real crooks are nowhere to be found.

------
gareim
Did BMF actually make a claim? The creator seems to imply that he uploaded the
video as a private one so far, which means that BMF can't have made a claim
unless corporations are allowed to scan even private videos?

Could this possibly be a case of YouTube mistaking something in the video as
similar to something registered to BMF?

~~~
Mdotstrange
When I disputed the claim I learned that BFM is claiming a wind sound from a
"Sounds of Nature" CD they own the rights to has been infringed upon-so
apparently they own the wind, all wind. So beware when recording the wind with
your digital recorders, those evil copyrighted natural content devices!

Thanks for all the tips! I'm reading through these comments now.

~~~
gareim
Wow, that is just pure evil! They're making a total mockery of the copyright
system and I'm relishing the idea of someone exposing them for who they are.
If they don't resolve this reasonably, would you consider taking them to
court? Is it financially feasible?

~~~
stellar678
What if we float the possibility that it's not evil, but just incompetent and
lazy? It seems pretty likely that they learned they could upload all their
content in order to protect it and then did so without any input from someone
who knows anything about the fingerprinting algorithms and where they were
likely to fail.

It seems that the fault rests squarely on YouTube for not getting this right.

~~~
billswift
I would claim that being willfully "incompetent and lazy" in a way that harms
others IS evil.

------
ricardobeat
This has happened to a band I was part of - we posted a self-produced video
for an original song a few years back, and it was denied for monetizing
because I "couldn't prove I had all the rights necessary".

------
beedogs
I'm honestly starting to think this planet would be better without any
copyright protection at all.

~~~
stevewillows
Nice thought until you spend a large sum of money to create something personal
and someone copies it and starts stealing your potential audience.

~~~
aviraldg
In turn you'd get other things people spent large sums of money creating.

~~~
rprasad
Eventually you would get no people spending anything on creation because it
would simply be cheaper to use something that someone else has already
created.

There are some forms of art which can survive on minimal economic returns.
There are other forms of art which will not.

~~~
Peaker
There may be different ways to make non-minimal economic returns without
copyrights.

------
steve8918
I would try suing for damages, especially if their claims are denying you the
ability to make money. I think you might be able to sue for slander as well,
since they made the claim that you are stealing licensed material, which will
affect your reputation as a producer of original content.

~~~
peeters
I don't see how one could consider this slander/libel, since the allegation
was completely private until publicized by M dot Strange. Obviously reputation
would not have suffered if the claim remained private.

~~~
rmc
Their reputation with YouTube might be damaged. Prior claims against his
account might negatively affect him.

------
daimyoyo
Upload it to Vimeo. I know the audience is smaller, but they seem to be much
more friendly toward content creators than youtube.

~~~
gee_totes
I disagree. Uploading to Vimeo is a treatment for the symptom, not the
problem. I'm rooting for an internet uproar over this.

~~~
ewillbefull
Actually, the problem is definitely YouTube in this case. BMF didn't file a
claim, YouTube's automated detection flagged it improperly. It's a question of
both the accuracy of automated content detection systems AND why YouTube --
despite having no legal obligation -- is bending over backwards for giant
record companies.

~~~
cromwellian
Because YouTube has been sued several times in both the US and Europe, and if
it didn't offer this system, far worse more draconian systems would be legally
mandated. YouTube recently lost a case in Germany where the judge imposed a
less accurate filter on YouTube:
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/11573918587/huh-
to...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/11573918587/huh-totally-
clueless-german-court-says-contentid-isnt-good-enough-youtube-must-block-
infringement-keywords.shtml)

This is a regrettable situation, that the OP got caught up in a detection
system, but YouTube must do this kind of stuff, otherwise, the courts will
mandate it.

------
veyron
Does the DMCA have a provision allowing BMF to be sued for improper claim? If
so, someone should actually challenge them.

~~~
ben0x539
I believe youtube's takedown process isn't strictly a DMCA feature. From the
submission it looks like it's not even a takedown, it's just a thing where
google is letting someone put ads on other people's videos if they claim
copyright and possibly bully them, but it doesn't look like they're serving
DMCA notices.

Edit: The comment at <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4122258> was posted
while I was typing this post and is a lot more informative. :)

------
angrycoder
Could the moderator who changed the title please explain why? Normally I would
not care, but now it reads as if _I_ am the film creator.

If the titles on HN now have to match the article title, you should just
change the posting guidelines. Coming along 12 hours later and changing a post
title is just power tripping.

------
jeffool
I wish you the best of luck Mdotstrange (if you didn't see it, he posted in
this thread claiming BFM actively claimed copyright over the sound of wind.)

Yes, piracy and copyright infringement is rampant, but by both individuals and
corporations. A great example is the Amen Break. If you've got 20 minutes, I
can't suggest this video enough for everyone:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac>

It's in everything from old hip hop, to Oasis' "D'You Know What I Mean?" to
the original Futurama theme song!

And all used with, according to the creators, absolutely zero royalties. (And
they're fine with it, having been told. They get it.)

~~~
sp332
Sampling happens a lot in music. Using a few seconds of someone's performance
in your very different song probably falls under fair use, or it might even
meet the "transformative" criterion for being a completely different creative
work. There's another discussion about this issue going on:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4120691>

------
rivo
One of my music videos on YouTube is blocked in Germany with a note that it
infringes copyright. I wrote the music and the lyrics myself. I shot the video
myself. I'm the sole copyright owner. The appeal didn't lead anywhere. It was
detected as such because it's likely registered on Content ID because it was
published by Sony, the record label. But Sony does not have the copyright.
Still. Nothing I can do. (Even calling up Sony to resolve this didn't lead
anywhere.)

------
unicornporn
O boy, I don't think there's anything that looks worse than the new Blogger
themes in Opera Mobile. Unreadable, unusable.

~~~
icebraining
It's not much better on the desktop, in my opinion.

