Archive for the ‘YouTube Removal’ tag
YouTube Content ID Tool Capable of Muting Video Sound
- YouTube now mutes recognized copyrighted songs in user’s videos.
As the court cases against YouTube and similar services, they are testing the employment of various strategies to keep them out of hot water. One such tool, YouTube’s Content ID Tool, is capable of identifying music in the audio stream of a video and muting it. This link to YouTube, YouTube: Joni Mitchell - Summertime (1998) !STEREO OPTION!, clearly demonstrates their ability to remove the sound from a video. In this particular case, the user, MYoutcastOR, clearly was infringing the song “Summertime” by Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder and Joni Mitchell that is featured on the album Gershwin’s World, which is a Polygram Records record. Ploygram Records is owned by Universal Music Group, who is currently battling tube site Veoh.
This has several intended and unintended effects. On the upside, it allows youtube to leave creative works that might have um, “borrowed” some tunes to help them make their point in arguably viewable and working order. Whatever visual and textual messages were contained in the video are not lost. However, on the negative side this filter cannot determine when the occurance of such music would fall under the terms of fair use, and other exceptions to the copyright doctrines. And finally, for the users it results in un-removed YouTube dead pages like the one meationed in this article, which frustrates users, and hurts user exerpience.
User Counter Claims for YouTube Videos Removed by Warner Music Group
The Los Angeles Times reports that some users are filing counter claims against Warner Music Group for their removal of popular YouTube videos.
Chatham, who plays in a bluegrass group called the Whappers (no, they’re not signed to Warner), is fighting back. Since receiving the e-mail from YouTube regarding Warner’s claim, Chatham has filled out copyright counterclaim papers. If Warner doesn’t respond within 10 days, YouTube may put the banjo video back online, according to a YouTube support page.
He says he can’t understand how the innocent clip of him playing his cover version on a couch — a video that was once chosen by YouTube to be featured on its home page — could be illegal.
“It’s me just sitting there, playing on my banjo,” he said. “If someone actually stopped and looked at it, they would be like, Oh, well, that’s just some guy being silly.”
Neither Warner, nor the company’s lawyer, nor YouTube would …
… comment on the case. But Chatham appears to have been dinged for performing a copyrighted song without permission. The legal definition of “performance” in situations like these remains a gray area and may continue to be until YouTube hobbyists begin to bring these cases to court.
This and other cases of removal has left many users wondering what exactly their protections are against big media companies like the Warner Music Group. While it is understandable that YouTube fears legal proceedings from Warner Music Group more than from its users, it does not make the legal rights of the users any less valid. Perhaps Warner Music Group’s removals have been overzealous? What if any legal responsibility should concern Warner regarding removals?
User Outrage:
YouTube Users Affected by Warner Music Dispute
It appears to be somewhat unclear what rights users have over derivative content made from original works. In this article, CNet: YouTube users caught in Warner Music spat, Warner Music extended the rights to use their music to YouTube’s community of users, then revoked those same rights later. Warner even went as far as to request removal of any derivative works that were created by users, with some questioning the authority and spirit of such requests concerning derivative creative works.
The article also aserts that some affected users have attempted to respond to the complaints, recieving little help (CNet):
But he has so many questions about whether his video truly violates copyright law and if so, what part of the video infringes? That’s the other problem raised by the quarrel between Warner Music and YouTube. When users are dragged into it, there’s few places to get answers. Vidal said he called Warner Music and talked to about half a dozen people in the eight days since his video was removed. He has yet to hear back why exactly the video was pulled down or whether he and the record company can strike a separate deal.
To its credit, Viacom set up a support hot line to help answer questions and address disputes when it began pulling content from YouTube.
Although unlikely, it is possible for a person to seek damages for false copyright claims, especially if organizations are unresponsive to attempts to resolve such issues. Could Warner Music be exposing itself to some degree of liability by so liberally removing YouTube content?