My understanding is that you can't claim copyright for a piece of work that's out of copyright just on the basis of the recording of the performance.
No, but your performance is still copyright. If I play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on the piano, and put it on YouTube, the copyright on that recording is mine. However, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata remains public domain. It is likely that hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of different people legitimately own the copyright on a recording of that particular piece of music because it was their performance, despite the actual work itself being public domain.
Therefore, if you use a performance of some public domain work on your video, that's still copyright infringement. (For example, "The House of the Rising Sun" doesn't belong to the group the Animals (well, actually their record company), but that particular performance DOES belong to them or their record company. So if you want to use "The House of the Rising Sun" on your videos, you can - so long as you use your own performance of it, or perhaps some other performance to which you have the copyright owner's permission).
Sure we mentioned it before but i was always stunned when the Speccy version of Mikie featured 'a hard days night' by the Beatles ? (Sure that was the tune). There wouldnt have been any official permission asked there would there ?
Who knows - but computing wasn't really mainstream then. It's unlikely that someone in the Beatles (the copyright holder of the composition) has ever played Mikie and just simply never knew about it. So if they didn't have the copyright holder's permission they probably could quite easily get away with it.
But everyone, including the dinosaurs running the record companies, has heard of YouTube. Much harder to get away with that sort of thing now.
No, but your performance is still copyright. If I play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on the piano, and put it on YouTube, the copyright on that recording is mine. However, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata remains public domain. It is likely that hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of different people legitimately own the copyright on a recording of that particular piece of music because it was their performance, despite the actual work itself being public domain.
Therefore, if you use a performance of some public domain work on your video, that's still copyright infringement. (For example, "The House of the Rising Sun" doesn't belong to the group the Animals (well, actually their record company), but that particular performance DOES belong to them or their record company. So if you want to use "The House of the Rising Sun" on your videos, you can - so long as you use your own performance of it, or perhaps some other performance to which you have the copyright owner's permission).
Oh well, I'm still disputing it under fair rights - also that they think it's the budapest Symphony Orchestra recording when it's from my London Symphony Orchestra CD I have here :D
1982 has been cleared, I'm just about to do the others now.
That's great news! Here's hoping the other parts may also be permissible.
On a different not, I bought myself an LG BD370 (Blu-Ray player) yesterday and this networked bad boy has direct native access to YouTube as well.
Oh. My. God! I can now directly stream everything. Upscaled to Full HD! Right into my beamer!
I'll be playing 1982 now, thanks. :D
Hmmm, how does the YouTube version of the 1982 MPEG look? As it's a "low quality" YouTube video from MPEG1 rather than MPEG2, I'm not sure it would look too great.
But in other news, I know that Facebook video can handle DVD-resolution MPEG2 files fine, so I'm guessing that the Xmas special will look rather cool on YouTube when released - although it'll be a 1GB upload :-O
1982 has been cleared, I'm just about to do the others now.
Oh yes, it may take a while, but unless the music is clearly being used in it's entirety just for listening pleasure, and not making a point, it's kinda hard not to win.
I've just had a successful dispute on the "Ride of the Valkyries" video. Woot!
Oh yes, it may take a while, but unless the music is clearly being used in it's entirety just for listening pleasure, and not making a point, it's kinda hard not to win.
I've just had a successful dispute on the "Ride of the Valkyries" video. Woot!
The PRS can be buggers! You can usually get a minutes worth of music for nothing before having to pay (sampling is different, something like 3 seconds).
You can get around this by playing a minutes worth of tune, having a tiny tiny gap, then playing anther minute - etc.
The PRS can be buggers! You can usually get a minutes worth of music for nothing before having to pay (sampling is different, something like 3 seconds).
You can get around this by playing a minutes worth of tune, having a tiny tiny gap, then playing anther minute - etc.
This is kinda why I try to restrict myself to 1m40s (ideally ~1m30s) when I use songs in the soundtrack as I don't want to be seen as taking the piss. OK, for some songs which are only three minutes long, that's half the track! But still several shades lighter than using the whole song.
This is kinda why I try to restrict myself to 1m40s (ideally ~1m30s) when I use songs in the soundtrack as I don't want to be seen as taking the piss. OK, for some songs which are only three minutes long, that's half the track! But still several shades lighter than using the whole song.
You'll probably get more into trouble (or hassle from) YouTube, rather than the copyright owners (I think they turn a blind eye and see stuff posted/used as free advertisments).
I removed loads of films off of YouTube years ago because, although I owned the copyright, I had a BBC logo on one of them (they showed the film), and YouTube blocked it.
What is funny is that the BBC don't seem arsed one way or another about their stuff being shown by other people.
You'll probably get more into trouble (or hassle from) YouTube, rather than the copyright owners (I think they turn a blind eye and see stuff posted/used as free advertisments).
Yeah, I agree. This is just YT mitigating against any problems with the rights holders.
My Account ▼ / Dispute Status / The Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - 1983
Your video, The Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - 1983 , includes audio content that is owned or licensed by UMG .
In response to your dispute, the claim on some or all of the audio content that is owned or licensed by UMG was confirmed .
As a result, your video has been blocked everywhere except in these locations:
What should I do?
No action is required on your part. Your video is still available in the locations listed above. In some cases, ads may appear next to your video.
Please take a few minutes to visit our Help Centre section on Policy and Copyright Guidelines, where you can learn more about copyright law and our Content Identification Service.
What I cut and pasted was what I saw - an empty list of countries!
And yet it's marked as "Live" and you guys can see it...
If that's the case, either the dispute was unsuccessful but Youtube has fucked up and not applied the restriction, or for some odd reason it's failed the dispute but Youtube have decided to keep it running.
Sorry to bump this old thread, but I didn't really want to start a new one just to ask a quick question...
Is there any way to file a general complaint to YouTube? I've tried going through the "contact us" page, but my complaint doesn't fit into any of their categories. For some obscure reason, they're not letting me embed my own video, which is pretty much the reason I upload to PooTube, so I can post the vids on other sites. There's no copyright issue here, it's all my music.
I'm very "grrrrrr"!! :mad:
EDIT: Sorry, peoples... ignore this, I've found out what the problem is.
Viacom had claimed that "tens of thousands of videos" based on its copyrighted works had been posted on YouTube, and that both YouTube and its owner Google had known about it but had done nothing about it.
But District Judge Louis Stanton said in his ruling: "Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. The provider need not monitor or seek out facts indicating such activity."
Google and YouTube had argued that they were entitled to "safe harbour" protection under digital copyright law because they had insufficient notice of particular alleged offences.
Judge Stanton agreed, saying that when "YouTube was given notices, it removed the material... it is thus protected from liability" under a provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Music on videos on YouTube is blocked by an automatic system. Like most automatic systems, it's not very smart. You can evade it by speeding up or slowing down the music by as little as 5%.
It also only works on tracks where the rights-holding company is actually paying YouTube to do it, and has supplied the appropriate audio/video for sampling and 'fingerprinting'. In other words, Google still makes money out of it!
Music on videos on YouTube is blocked by an automatic system. Like most automatic systems, it's not very smart. You can evade it by speeding up or slowing down the music by as little as 5%.
I've tried that before (with the track I was on about in the original post), and it didn't work for me. :-(
Comments
No, but your performance is still copyright. If I play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on the piano, and put it on YouTube, the copyright on that recording is mine. However, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata remains public domain. It is likely that hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of different people legitimately own the copyright on a recording of that particular piece of music because it was their performance, despite the actual work itself being public domain.
Therefore, if you use a performance of some public domain work on your video, that's still copyright infringement. (For example, "The House of the Rising Sun" doesn't belong to the group the Animals (well, actually their record company), but that particular performance DOES belong to them or their record company. So if you want to use "The House of the Rising Sun" on your videos, you can - so long as you use your own performance of it, or perhaps some other performance to which you have the copyright owner's permission).
Who knows - but computing wasn't really mainstream then. It's unlikely that someone in the Beatles (the copyright holder of the composition) has ever played Mikie and just simply never knew about it. So if they didn't have the copyright holder's permission they probably could quite easily get away with it.
But everyone, including the dinosaurs running the record companies, has heard of YouTube. Much harder to get away with that sort of thing now.
Oh well, I'm still disputing it under fair rights - also that they think it's the budapest Symphony Orchestra recording when it's from my London Symphony Orchestra CD I have here :D
"Dispute Successful."
YAY! YouTube redeems itself!
1982 has been cleared, I'm just about to do the others now.
That's great news! Here's hoping the other parts may also be permissible.
On a different not, I bought myself an LG BD370 (Blu-Ray player) yesterday and this networked bad boy has direct native access to YouTube as well.
Oh. My. God! I can now directly stream everything. Upscaled to Full HD! Right into my beamer!
I'll be playing 1982 now, thanks. :D
But in other news, I know that Facebook video can handle DVD-resolution MPEG2 files fine, so I'm guessing that the Xmas special will look rather cool on YouTube when released - although it'll be a 1GB upload :-O
Oh yes, it may take a while, but unless the music is clearly being used in it's entirety just for listening pleasure, and not making a point, it's kinda hard not to win.
I've just had a successful dispute on the "Ride of the Valkyries" video. Woot!
The PRS can be buggers! You can usually get a minutes worth of music for nothing before having to pay (sampling is different, something like 3 seconds).
You can get around this by playing a minutes worth of tune, having a tiny tiny gap, then playing anther minute - etc.
This is kinda why I try to restrict myself to 1m40s (ideally ~1m30s) when I use songs in the soundtrack as I don't want to be seen as taking the piss. OK, for some songs which are only three minutes long, that's half the track! But still several shades lighter than using the whole song.
You'll probably get more into trouble (or hassle from) YouTube, rather than the copyright owners (I think they turn a blind eye and see stuff posted/used as free advertisments).
I removed loads of films off of YouTube years ago because, although I owned the copyright, I had a BBC logo on one of them (they showed the film), and YouTube blocked it.
What is funny is that the BBC don't seem arsed one way or another about their stuff being shown by other people.
Yeah, I agree. This is just YT mitigating against any problems with the rights holders.
But still appears online and with sound.
Eh??
Can any of you view it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Y3JhEcBzQ
The Itunes ad pops up and convinces me to buy tracks I already own though!
Does it list countries where it will not be played? I have a video up where essentially no-one can see it outside of the UK.
Wo oh, wo oh, for the wings of a dove.
er ... yes.
What I cut and pasted was what I saw - an empty list of countries!
And yet it's marked as "Live" and you guys can see it...
Works in the UK.
If that's the case, either the dispute was unsuccessful but Youtube has fucked up and not applied the restriction, or for some odd reason it's failed the dispute but Youtube have decided to keep it running.
Yes in UK with sound an an advert
Oooh, ta for the screengrab, I hadn't noticed that. I think that might be enough to keep the movie on.
Edit: Aha - Adblock Plus had suppressed that ad!
Is there any way to file a general complaint to YouTube? I've tried going through the "contact us" page, but my complaint doesn't fit into any of their categories. For some obscure reason, they're not letting me embed my own video, which is pretty much the reason I upload to PooTube, so I can post the vids on other sites. There's no copyright issue here, it's all my music.
I'm very "grrrrrr"!! :mad:
EDIT: Sorry, peoples... ignore this, I've found out what the problem is.
What was it? Or am being too cheeky?
The site I was trying to post it on was just being really rubbish (Facebook... surprised?)... I tried it on here and it worked fine.
I just initially jumped to the wrong conclusion... :oops: ... it's just that it's the first time I've ever had trouble posting my own vids.
Wish everyone involved would choose a policy and stick with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10399610.stm
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I've tried that before (with the track I was on about in the original post), and it didn't work for me. :-(