It's probably not surprising that there are less and less Youtube Channels like mine remastering music videos as even if you play by the rules no one else does. Youtube really needs to update how they deal with copyright and stop penalising people who are effectively innocent parties. This weeks example - Pink Floyd - Live At Pompeii.
I remastered this concert and it came out really really well. I did it twice, one copy has the original 5.1 sound and the other 2 channel stereo. Now previously you could not upload this concert. No problem. Then I noticed "they" changed things as I saw some others had uploaded it. By "they", I refer to the copyright holder SME - Sony Music Entertainment. When both above mentioned copies of the video were uploaded, I received the following message for each :
I think that is pretty straight forward, yeah ? I can safely post it. It's the same message that has gone out ever since I have been on Youtube that the copyright holder allows it's use on Youtube and doesn't restrict it. So I published both copies. At first the 2 channel stereo version got the most views, then after a few weeks the 5.1 started overtaking it in popularity. Then 4 days ago I received an email from Youtube about the 5.1 channel version :
Despite the seriousness, I can only laugh at the final sentence directly above. "๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐งโ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐"
Sigh............ I did NOT upload content that I am not allowed to use. I uploaded content that stated quote "๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐"
So where does this leave me ? At the moment, it leaves me with a copyright strike on content I was allowed to use. It also leaves me not knowing what to do, as I have two copies of that content on my channel. I turned the other concert to "unlisted" as I attempted to make contact with the copyright holder.
So I sent them an email to the address that was provided as the contact email for the complaint. See below :
Dear Sir/Madam/Other title,
I refer to the below mentioned video in the forwarded email and the actions taken against my Youtube account by Youtube in regards to a claim made by you.
I uploaded the video in good faith and in return received on screen notice that there were no copyright restrictions and the copyright holder allowed it to be used on Youtube.
Less than 2 months later, it would appear you have made application to Youtube to remove the video and thus apply a penalty to my account in the form of a copyright strike.
"You received a copyright strike
You now have 1 copyright strike. If you get multiple copyright strikes, weโll have to terminate your channel. To prevent that from happening, please donโt upload videos containing copyrighted content that you arenโt allowed to use."
The great irony of the above is that I am NOT uploading copyrighted content that I am not allowed to use. I am uploading content that states : "Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube".
I think most reasonable people, such as Rick Beato, would find it unfair that something can be uploaded with permission only to then have permission withdrawn and a penalty made against the uploader.
I would note I have previously had a positive relationship with Pink Floyd and video uploads. My channel is not monetised, I do not make a cent on anything I do, I am simply a fan of music from the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I also do not engage in selling your content illegally, despite many regular offers. Unfortunately doing the right thing seems to get you nothing other than a kick in the groin in our current day and age.
I would point out that you could have just blocked the video and not penalised me, and would ask that you repeal your current action so that the copyright strike is removed from my account. Or that you cancel the current claim and as soon as I am notified
I will pull the video down manually.
I do note that I have two versions of that concert on my channel. The one I have just mentioned, and another with 2 channel stereo. Just like the one you have removed, the other states : Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube. Are you now going to do the same on this video as well and I end up with two copyright strikes and potentially the end of my channel ? I have been forced to switch it to unlisted until I can get a clear idea of whether it is being treated the same as the other.
Happy to work with you, but it's hard to do so when information conflicts badly. This statement : "Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube" should be what an uploader can depend on when the content is licenced through a major studio. But regardless, happy to work with you.
Regards,
MY FULL NAME (redacted for this post)
Now that was 3 days ago. And I have heard nothing back from them.
My only options are a retraction, which is what I refer to above and cant get if they don't answer me and there is one other, more serious option.
"If you believe you're not at fault in one or more of the instances above, you can appeal this removal by submitting a counter notification. There may be severe legal consequences for submitting a counter notification with false information."
I am considering doing the above but need to do some further research in regards to what can happen to me legally. Certainly I would not be giving any false information. As far as I am concerned I am in the right and I think people would agree with me based on the evidence I have posted above.
I have a lot on my plate as it is at the moment so will do some research on it over the weekend.
Austech
It's probably not surprising that there are less and less Youtube Channels like mine remastering music videos as even if you play by the rules no one else does. Youtube really needs to update how they deal with copyright and stop penalising people who are effectively innocent parties. This weeks example - Pink Floyd - Live At Pompeii.
I remastered this concert and it came out really really well. I did it twice, one copy has the original 5.1 sound and the other 2 channel stereo. Now previously you could not upload this concert. No problem. Then I noticed "they" changed things as I saw some others had uploaded it. By "they", I refer to the copyright holder SME - Sony Music Entertainment. When both above mentioned copies of the video were uploaded, I received the following message for each :
"๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ-๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ญ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐. ๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐"
I think that is pretty straight forward, yeah ? I can safely post it. It's the same message that has gone out ever since I have been on Youtube that the copyright holder allows it's use on Youtube and doesn't restrict it. So I published both copies. At first the 2 channel stereo version got the most views, then after a few weeks the 5.1 started overtaking it in popularity. Then 4 days ago I received an email from Youtube about the 5.1 channel version :
" ๐๐ข ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ก,
๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ. ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ, ๐ฐ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐:
๐๐ข๐๐๐จ ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฅ๐: ๐๐ข๐ง๐ค ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐ - ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ข๐ข ๐๐๐๐ - ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐
๐๐ข๐๐๐จ ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฅ: ๐ก๐ญ๐ญ๐ฉ๐ฌ://๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฐ.๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐.๐๐จ๐ฆ/๐ฐ๐๐ญ๐๐ก?๐ฏ=๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐: ๐๐ข๐ง๐ค ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ข๐ข - ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ: ๐๐๐
๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐๐จ: ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐ฌ@๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐.๐๐จ๐ฆ
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐ง ๐ง๐จ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐.
๐๐จ๐ฎ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐
๐๐จ๐ฎ ๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐. ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐โ๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ง๐๐ฅ. ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐งโ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐. "
Despite the seriousness, I can only laugh at the final sentence directly above.
"๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐งโ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐"
Sigh............ I did NOT upload content that I am not allowed to use. I uploaded content that stated quote "๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐"
So where does this leave me ?
At the moment, it leaves me with a copyright strike on content I was allowed to use. It also leaves me not knowing what to do, as I have two copies of that content on my channel. I turned the other concert to "unlisted" as I attempted to make contact with the copyright holder.
So I sent them an email to the address that was provided as the contact email for the complaint. See below :
Dear Sir/Madam/Other title,
I refer to the below mentioned video in the forwarded email and the actions taken against my Youtube account by Youtube in regards to a claim made by you.
I uploaded the video in good faith and in return received on screen notice that there were no copyright restrictions and the copyright holder allowed it to be used on Youtube.
Less than 2 months later, it would appear you have made application to Youtube to remove the video and thus apply a penalty to my account in the form of a copyright strike.
"You received a copyright strike
You now have 1 copyright strike. If you get multiple copyright strikes, weโll have to terminate your channel. To prevent that from happening, please donโt upload videos containing copyrighted content that you arenโt allowed to use."
The great irony of the above is that I am NOT uploading copyrighted content that I am not allowed to use. I am uploading content that states : "Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube".
I think most reasonable people, such as Rick Beato, would find it unfair that something can be uploaded with permission only to then have permission withdrawn and a penalty made against the uploader.
I would note I have previously had a positive relationship with Pink Floyd and video uploads. My channel is not monetised, I do not make a cent on anything I do, I am simply a fan of music from the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I also do not engage in selling your content illegally, despite many regular offers. Unfortunately doing the right thing seems to get you nothing other than a kick in the groin in our current day and age.
I would point out that you could have just blocked the video and not penalised me, and would ask that you repeal your current action so that the copyright strike is removed from my account. Or that you cancel the current claim and as soon as I am notified I will pull the video down manually.
I do note that I have two versions of that concert on my channel. The one I have just mentioned, and another with 2 channel stereo. Just like the one you have removed, the other states : Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube. Are you now going to do the same on this video as well and I end up with two copyright strikes and potentially the end of my channel ? I have been forced to switch it to unlisted until I can get a clear idea of whether it is being treated the same as the other.
Happy to work with you, but it's hard to do so when information conflicts badly. This statement : "Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube" should be what an uploader can depend on when the content is licenced through a major studio. But regardless, happy to work with you.
Regards,
MY FULL NAME (redacted for this post)
Now that was 3 days ago. And I have heard nothing back from them.
My only options are a retraction, which is what I refer to above and cant get if they don't answer me and there is one other, more serious option.
"If you believe you're not at fault in one or more of the instances above, you can appeal this removal by submitting a counter notification. There may be severe legal consequences for submitting a counter notification with false information."
I am considering doing the above but need to do some further research in regards to what can happen to me legally. Certainly I would not be giving any false information. As far as I am concerned I am in the right and I think people would agree with me based on the evidence I have posted above.
I have a lot on my plate as it is at the moment so will do some research on it over the weekend.
Cheers
Austech
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 31