Tu non mi vuoi più bene - Enrico Caruso

[Valecnik]

Why on earth did I need to dispute EMI's copyright claim and then, when I lost, file an appeal??? The 1903 recording was reissued recently by the Berlin Phono Works. Recently I've uploaded 12 cylinders and discs on youTube and had to deal with multiple claims on 11 of the 12 and on this one, lost my dispute and had to appeal to get it cleared.

Screen Shot 2013-07-23 at 5.21.17 PM.png (37.23 KiB) Viewed 1583 times

[youtubehd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39hoEhlAlo[/youtubehd]

[KerwoodDerby]

Valecnik,

Whether or not EMI is the actual claimant here or not, you (and all other YouTube posters here) should be aware of the new game being played on YouTube.

Specifically, people running melody-matching algorithms on YouTube posts are filing claims of copyright infringement. The scam is that the claimaints aren't necessarily the copyright holders, and they're not required to submit proof to YouTube unless it's challenged. But if the accused doesn't dispute the claim, then advertisements can accompany the video, and both YouTube and the claimant get to share in the ad revenue, and the poster gets nothing.

These scammers are counting on most posters not knowing how to dispute a claim, or not caring to dispute it. The piano roll people are starting to encounter ridiculous claims of infringement on the roll performance videos they upload, including badly mis-identified work titles or the specific performance/arrangement bearing the claimed copyright.

I imagine we'll all soon be hearing more about this latest bit of well-poisoning.

Marshall

[52089]

Valecnik,

Whether or not EMI is the actual claimant here or not, you (and all other YouTube posters here) should be aware of the new game being played on YouTube.

Specifically, people running melody-matching algorithms on YouTube posts are filing claims of copyright infringement. The scam is that the claimaints aren't necessarily the copyright holders, and they're not required to submit proof to YouTube unless it's challenged. But if the accused doesn't dispute the claim, then advertisements can accompany the video, and both YouTube and the claimant get to share in the ad revenue, and the poster gets nothing.

These scammers are counting on most posters not knowing how to dispute a claim, or not caring to dispute it. The piano roll people are starting to encounter ridiculous claims of infringement on the roll performance videos they upload, including badly mis-identified work titles or the specific performance/arrangement bearing the claimed copyright.

I imagine we'll all soon be hearing more about this latest bit of well-poisoning.

Marshall

This is not exactly a new game. It's been going on for a while now, both for composition copyrights (which are easily disputed in the USA if published before 1923), and sound recording rights (which are another whole can of worms I won't go into here.)

Suffice it to say that there are scammers taking advantage of ambiguities in the law, differences in laws between countries, and Youtube's shall we say "gullibility". So weak are some of these claims that many of them are dismissed immediately upon dispute.

There are many posts here on the forum that go into more detail and there are even videos on Youtube about this.

[Lucius1958]

'Twas ever thus…..

[Valecnik]

Thanks for your replies guys. Yes, I know this is an old game but if you don't fight every one of these, then they win and can sprinkle your videos with trashy adverts. So here's the latest. Even though I won against IODA and won against EMI on appeal, I'm not done. This morning there's a NEW claim from SME, whoever the h*ll they are...

[Wolfe]

So how is it that people can upload things like full length Beatles albums in HD which stay on You Tube without getting taken down? And doesn't E.M.I. (or whoever owns things like that now) get all on that as protecting a valuable saleable property?

Meanwhile ancient out of print Sousa Band cylinders that a few people care about get deleted?

Maybe I should go YouTube to watch babies spit up on themselves or some junk like that.

[Lucius1958]

Thanks for your replies guys. Yes, I know this is an old game but if you don't fight every one of these, then they win and can sprinkle your videos with trashy adverts. So here's the latest. Even though I won against IODA and won against EMI on appeal, I'm not done. This morning there's a NEW claim from SME, whoever the h*ll they are...

SME is Sony Music Entertainment. Here's their website:

http://www.sonymusic.com//

I didn't check whether they have a contact page, but if they do, give them hell. Tell them in no uncertain terms that the content is Public Domain, and that what they are doing is illegal.

Most likely they will release that false claim.

Bill

[52089]

Thanks for your replies guys. Yes, I know this is an old game but if you don't fight every one of these, then they win and can sprinkle your videos with trashy adverts. So here's the latest. Even though I won against IODA and won against EMI on appeal, I'm not done. This morning there's a NEW claim from SME, whoever the h*ll they are...

SME is Sony Music Entertainment. Here's their website:

http://www.sonymusic.com//

I didn't check whether they have a contact page, but if they do, give them hell. Tell them in no uncertain terms that the content is Public Domain, and that what they are doing is illegal.

Most likely they will release that false claim.

Bill

Copyright rues vary by country, and they get particularly tricky when you talk about copyrights on sound recordings (as opposed to the compositions that are recorded).

(Insert standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer here.)

Since Valecnik is in Europe, the 50 year sound recording rule applies, meaning that sound recordings made prior to 1963 are public domain there, so indeed SME (or anyone else for that matter) has no valid claim, at least for viewers in Europe. (FYI, reportedly this is supposed to change to 70 years non-retroactively starting next year, but I have not been able to confirm this.)

In the USA, it's quite another story. Believe it or not, sound recordings made prior to early 1972 have no Federal copyright protection, but they are covered by a network of state-by-state anti-piracy laws, virtually none of which has any expiration date for covered material. (The USA's pre-1923 public domain rule applies to publications other than sound recordings.) That means that technically, someone owns the copyright on this sound recording, which in the USA, is still valid. Now, since the Anglo American Commerce Company is no longer around, determining who owns that copyright would be a challenge and the small royalties wouldn't be worth the legal expense. SME could possibly be the owner, but it doesn't seem likely. And of course the fact that multiple people are trying to claim copyright on this means that there are definitely scammers out there.

Also FYI, under current laws, in the USA, all sound recordings made prior to early 1972 will become public domain in - 2067!