
A Step Toward Protecting Fair Use on YouTube - jacquesm
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-step-toward-protecting-fair-use-on.html?m=1
======
walterbell
From a comment on the article,
[http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-step-
toward...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-step-toward-
protecting-fair-use-
on.html?showComment=1447952666085&m=1#c8130636333639258122)

 _" … a far more effective change would be to remove the immediate monetary
reward for a false claim. As it stands now, the instant a claim is made, all
ad money is diverted to the claimant and is never recoverable by the creator.
This is further compounded by the fact appeals go to the claimant, not a 3rd
party, for review and along with the conflict of interest can take weeks to a
month to be addressed during which time the claimant is still monetizing the
creator's work.

A simple change would be once a claim is made against a video to hold (escrow)
all revenue until the dispute is resolved or one party fails to respond in the
given time. After there is a resolution, the revenue is released to the
correct party."_

~~~
devindotcom
A legitimate problem, but the solution proposed sounds even worse. If Google
said they were going to put all the money in a box when there was some dispute
over who owned it, I feel that neither creators nor copyright owners would be
happy.

I don't have a better solution, of course. I started typing one out and
immediately realized how it could be gamed. It's not a simple problem and it
doesn't have a simple solution that I can see. But it's good that it's being
looked at, at least.

~~~
gizmo686
It doesn't seem like that big of a problem to me. Currently, it seems like the
claimants are big companies, who should have the cash reserves to absorb a few
months delay in the relatively small amount of ad revenue that they are
missing out on. Small creators may still face hardship as a result of the
delayed income (although if they are cannot absorb this, then I think they are
still spread to thin to be sustainable), but under the current system they get
nothing from this time period.

~~~
nemothekid
> _Currently, it seems like the claimants are big companies, who should have
> the cash reserves to absorb a few months delay in the relatively small
> amount of ad revenue that they are missing out on._

I've found this parallel really interesting, as Facebook has now been
criticized for not having Content ID and those criticisms are led by smaller
creators (I guess the big media companies have given up being outspoken about
piracy on video platforms that don't have Content ID-like systems).

~~~
codewithcheese
It's pretty amazing. Facebook whole strategy seems to be encouraging people to
rip YouTube videos and put them in the Facebook player. A YouTube embed share
on Facebook is just not given the viral weight a Facebook video has, and
Facebook is doing nothing to stop piracy. They will of course crack down...
when they feel like enough creators have moved from YouTube to Facebook.

~~~
majani
Poetic justice for YouTube, who grew off the back of willful ignorance of
music copyright for the first few years before cracking down.

------
Jerry2
Last year I uploaded some old footage onto Youtube.. the footage was from WW2
that was filmed by US Gov. I saved it from a site that went down in 2000s and
wanted to put it up for my cousin who was studying WW2 in HS.

In less than 24 hours, there were 4 different copyright claims by various
companies. Over a 20 min clip. They obviously didn't own the copyright but
they were claiming the clip as their own and wanted cuts of revenue.

About two years ago I uploaded an animation that I did in Apple Motion and it
used stock sounds and music from Apple. Within a day of upload, I received a
copyright claim by some company and they demanded I remove audio.

From my brief experience with Youtube/Google's Content ID system and the way
they do business, I'm really glad I don't have to deal with this mafia on a
daily basis.

~~~
shiftpgdn
Try uploading classical music as played by yourself or a computer. It will be
monetized by Sony/BMG nearly instantly.

~~~
e40
Yep. I uploaded a video of my son playing several hundred year old piano piece
and it was within hours "claimed" by someone.

It doesn't seem to hurt Google's business, but I won't upload stuff anymore.

~~~
marcosscriven
I'm curious how that would be found so quickly - presumably it would have to
be the title, because performances are individual.

And why would Google even take such a claim seriously? If you're playing Bach
clearly no one has a claim.

~~~
such_a_casual
It doesn't work like that. You can take down any video instantly just by
filing a copyright against it.

~~~
jacquesm
It would appear to me that that is a knife that cuts both ways.

~~~
newjersey
Even John McCain's people should know this is true.
[https://www.eff.org/files/mccain_youtube_copyright_letter_10...](https://www.eff.org/files/mccain_youtube_copyright_letter_10.13.08.pdf)

Although their request for special treatment shows they just want YouTube to
expedite cases that they care about.

[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/15/john-mccain-
you...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/15/john-mccain-youtube)

> "But we believe it would consume few resources - and provide enormous
> benefit - for YouTube to commit to a full legal review of all takedown
> notices on videos posted from accounts controlled by (at least) political
> candidates and campaigns."

------
15charlimit
Just as video uploaders can have strikes placed against their accounts, so
should users of the ContentID system.

A potential solution would be adding a "fraudulent claim" response option
(requiring a detailed explanation) for people to reply to
takedown/monetization notices with. When a ContentID account gets too many of
these checks (verified by an actual human being working at youtube) they are
cut off from the system for a period of time.

If this response is used incorrectly more than a couple of times by a given
account, they would be locked out of using it in the future to prevent
flagrant abuse/bogging down of the system.

Potential for liability on false copyright claims will never be added to the
law because big entertainment has the government in its pocket. Thus it falls
on content hosts/providers to force abusive industries to "play fair".

ContentID itself being a terrible system is beside the point, and an argument
for another day.

~~~
jacquesm
That sounds like a workable and practical solution and it almost makes you
wonder why it isn't there right now, it's that simple.

------
CM30
It's a good start, though I think reviewing their content ID system is far
more important at this point. I've seen videos claimed or taken down based on
everything from outright fraud (companies and individuals claiming to own
songs and video footage they don't have the rights/exclusive rights to) to
weird coincidences (like songs being 'claimed' because a song they used was a
bit similar to a popular pop song, even if it had nothing to do with it).

It's nice to see them stand up for their users in at least some sense though.

------
minimaxir
Jim Sterling, who has been the victim of malicious copyright claims on videos
which are clearly fair use, has a good video on the implications of the
policy: [https://youtu.be/w-UgOXP82UI](https://youtu.be/w-UgOXP82UI)

~~~
oxide
I remember when Konami tried to silence Super Bunnyhop awhile back via DMCA
abuse and Youtube stepped in, I'm glad to see that has in a way evolved into a
proper policy, caveats be damned.

------
rdancer
The Content ID juggernaut was devised by Google to placate the copyright
holders and content creators whose backs YouTube had been built on. As it
stands, 90%+ of all music played on YouTube is produced by the oligopoly of
the three major music labels, so it is in YouTube's existential interest for
the labels to be catered to. That means giving them a portion of the <10%
revenue generated by the works of independent creators, and sometimes shutting
down videos and channels.

YouTube is popular because it is cheap, user-friendly, and popular. And it is
that way thanks to rampant copyright infringement, redeemed by Content ID and
the associate policies.

------
lfam
Why would you use YouTube if you care about these issues? The whole business
is based on monetizing your effort without compensating you.

Sure, youtube has a big network effect, but that doesn't matter for the use
case of using it as a host for videos shared on social networks or embedded in
other sites.

You could try something like MediaGoblin instead. Taking these steps help
ensure that we never have to worry about YouTube letting some random claimant
knock our videos offline again, at least not without them filing a claim
against a registrar, VPS host, etc.

From MediaGoblin.org: "MediaGoblin is a free software media publishing
platform that anyone can run. You can think of it as a decentralized
alternative to Flickr, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc."

------
adrae5df
So I visit the website, click on the link _some of the best examples of fair
use on YouTube_ , and land on this:
[https://i.imgur.com/ygLwM6S.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ygLwM6S.jpg)

Priceless.

------
Cogito
Thanks for posting this.

Is it possible to change the link to the non-mobile version?

On mobile it will redirect automatically, but the mobile version is a bit
janky to read on desktop. It's a pretty minor thing, and it's not that
important, but here it is!

------
pablo-massa
Few years ago I see this video of a YouTube creator that usually uses
copyrighted material on fair use. He explain some problems with the current
(now updated) system.

YouTube's Content ID System SUCKS (2013)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTHhtCyzLg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTHhtCyzLg)

------
DHJSH
I just wish they'd help me when there's no copyright infringement at all, so
there's no need for a "fair use" argument--but I still get an infringement
notice.

This happens, for example, if I sit down at my own piano and record myself
playing some unambiguously out-of-copyright work, for example Mozart, Chopin,
or Bach.

Just last week I got a notice from a record label because their matching
software identified a Beethoven piano piece as being that from one of their
copyrighted recordings. It wasn't--it was me playing.

Google should stop allowing companies that do this access to their content
match system.

~~~
jacquesm
I guess that's their way of telling you that you are so good now that they
would like to sign you to their label.

