Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?
from the it's-in-the-recording... dept
Mark Guertin writes in with an interesting situation that he's dealing with, which I think highlights some of the problems with copyright law today. Guertin put together a YouTube video of some swimming pugs as part of a promotion for a charity he's involved with. Knowing that music on videos is a potential copyright issue, he went to Wikipedia to find some public domain music, and chose Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries to accompany the swimming pugs.Except... he got blocked. YouTube's content ID system told him that the song was owned by (who else?) Warner Music Group, and thus the soundtrack was muted. Guertin filed a counternotice, and the music was reinstated, but then muted a second time as apparently someone (Google/Warner?) didn't agree with the counternotice. Without knowing the details, my guess is that the situation has to do with the different types of copyright coverage. While the song Ride of the Valkyries is public domain, each individual recording of it is covered by copyright. It seems likely that whatever recording was used is still under copyright.
Guertin is reasonably upset about the situation, especially the whole concept of having the music blocked until WMG has a chance to weigh in on it, noting that "guilt before innocence" seems incredibly unfair.
But the bigger issue may be how this (once again) shows how out of sync copyright law is with what people think is reasonable or fair. If you found out a piece of music was in the public domain, it's natural to assume that a recording of that same piece of music is in the public domain. And to make things more confusing, that's absolutely true (in the US at least) of a photograph of a public domain painting. But making a new recording of a public domain song? Bam. A new monopoly created.
Unfortunately for Guertin, the track he used probably is not in the public domain, even if the music is (yes, that's confusing). That's why, these days, it's probably more reasonable to search out Creative Commons-licensed music than public domain music -- because you can't be as sure whether the PD part covers the recording as well as the music. To some of us, that seems like a problem with current copyright laws, while others appear to view it as a feature.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, music, public domain, recording, ride of the valkyries, videos, youtube
Companies: google, warner music group, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Composition--the sequence of notes, whether written or performed.
The Lyrics--if any.
The Recording--a specific recording of musical work. However, recordings (as opposed to the underlying composition) didn't get copyright protection until, IIRC, the 1950's.
In the case of the OP, the composition is public domain, not the specific recording of a performance. A few decades ago, though, the recording wasn't copyrightable, only the underlying work, so Mark Guertin could have freely used any recording of Ride of the Valkyries to his hearts content--almost. It turns out that the specific musical *arrangement* created for the orchestra to play the public domain work is separately copyrightable. So, Mark Guertin was likely using a copyrighted recording of a copyrighted arrangement. Sigh.
The Constitutional purpose of Copyright is to increase creativity. Copyright maximalism does the opposite, stagnating creativity and locking up culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with Auto-Filters
Scary to think that automatic filtering systems like this could allow WMG or anyone else to potentially block the uploading of public domain music simply by rerecording and having the new version put into the filter database. That is no good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, without knowing the details why did you even post this thread? They are rather critical to the post. If Mark Guertin used a Public Domain MIDI track or some such then the take down was unconscionable. If he used a copyrighted recording of a copyrighted arrangement, then the issue is more nuanced, and is a more general, policy oriented question of whether one should be able to copyright a recording of a Public Domain composition, as is currently the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? Who are you to tell others what they should and should not post? He posted it because he wanted to, what's wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't get it, still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's confusing because copyright is designed around that popular music model. It gets awkward for something like Ride of the Valkyrie's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is confusing? The 2006 recording by Whatever Symphony Orchestra is copyright. How hard is that to understand?
The music is public domain, and if so inclined, he can play it himself.
The only thing that is confusing Mike is why you try so hard to throw up a cloud of smoke to make copyright seem difficult when it is pretty simple in this case. At best, this guy was a "moron in a hurry".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because a big part of the problem is that the details in these kinds of situations are hidden. They didn't explain why the soundtrack was blocked; they just blocked it. With the details of the notice/counternotice process being kept in the dark, outside parties have no choice but to guess at the details. I suppose you think that Google and Warner Music must know what's best for us and that we shouldn't question them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Official!
(C) :Lobo Santo 2009
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er, except we don't have to ask YouTube. This post by Mike Masnick is based on correspondence with the YouTuber in question, Mark Guertin. Surely Guertin knows the source of the track he used, yet Masnick didn't bother to find out that rather key detail before posting a thread titled "Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?" If Guretin used a copyrighted commercial recording of a public domain musical *composition*, then the answer is "not exactly."
Posting the OP before bothering to find out if the recording was copyrighted or not was premature.
Knee jerk much? Perhaps you should, you know, read the comments before making presumptuous accusations, as in this one by me, Post #1:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"To some of us, that seems like a problem with current copyright laws, while others appear to view it as a feature."
If it was only for discussion, Mike wouldn't tell "us" how to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike doesn't tell me how to think...and if you believe he's trying to tell you how to think, then I feel sorry for you. Like any other topic, you gather information, consider the information, then, using your own brain, come to some conclusion (or fail to and go look for some more information).
This whole conspiracy-line of trying to figure out what motivates Mike's blog entries is really getting old. And, even if your accusations were true, does not negate a reader's ability to get something out of the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To some of us, that seems like a problem with current copyright laws"
Should be:
"To me, that seems like a problem with current copyright laws" - but by couching it a different way, he avoids it being his opinion.
It's fun to watch. I still get plenty out of this blog, although often it rivals the onion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow.
If the purpose of this site was to come read explicit statements defining Mike Masnick's opinion's and inner feelings about different things, then you might have an argument.
2) I think it's pretty damn obvious what his opinion is here without him spelling it out to you like you're a baby. Unless you're planning on subpoenaing him to court to get his views on record, this criticism is asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, because a culture and technology news blog shouldn't have to bother getting pertinent details before posting on a **specific incident**.
As to being constructive, perhaps you should actually read the whole comment thread before pulling out your snark, and read my, IMO, helpful and constructive Post #1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I did read your first post. I don't believe I criticized it anywhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't exactly categorize someone sending an e-mail into TechDirt as a "correspondence". Could the post have been more informative if Mike had followed up with Mark to find out more details on the recording? Sure. But maybe Mark didn't answer his follow-up e-mail. Who knows.
Besides, the whole idea of having to get down to the level of the exact nature of the recording -- music, lyrics, composition -- is precisely Mike's point. The layperson doesn't understand these distinctions. Sure, it's not that hard to understand in theory, but in practice, you have plenty of situations where even the lawyers can't agree on how to apply the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and if you believe that, I've got a bridge in the Sahara I'd like to sell you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't just have a single copyright for a piece of music! Oh no, music is SPECIAL! It has to have multiple copyrights and all sorts of legal loopholes to allow companies to claim copyrights on new recordings of songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain recording of Ride of the Valkyries
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10177
Change the music. I want to see the video with sound!
Regardless of the actual source of the music, the counter notice should have claimed that this was "fair use". If it did, then Google should have restored the music and let WMG take Guertin to court over the "fair use". Guertin could argue, in court, that the video is "fair use". IANAL but I think he might win -- the issues in court would be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use):
"1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
* Satire and nonprofit use could be used to argue for "fair use".
"3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;"
* Only part of the work is used in the video, and the part used is significantly altered by the transcoding. This could be used to argue for "fair use".
"4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
* The video improved the value of the copyrighted work by marketing the music. This could be used to argue for "fair use".
Of course Greutin would be bankrupt long before he won the "fair use" case in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy was just an idiot.
What'd he think the notes just played themselves? Classical musicians need to make a living too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The guy was just an idiot.
Everything recorded from public domain should be in public domain too. If anything, this would be good for education and promotion of classical music, which listeners base is shrinking. Is there any teenagers at all in US, who listen classical music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The guy was just an idiot.
I think the decision on how to monetize from public domain/classical/traditional-folk music etc should be left entirely to the musicians. The do own copyright and should be granted copyright. Another thing is that they may choose to reformulate the copyright using Creative Commons or similar arrangements. Some musicians do, and it is up to you and me to use it whenever it is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The guy was just an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The guy was just an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw
Jesus, at least when I hijack the thread I try to do it with some funny. C'mon Anonymous Harold, you too can be funny....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That last part is extremely doubtful. Wagners orchestrational ability was a good part of what he was famous for. Making a new arrangement of a famous Wagner piece would raise lots of eyebrows in the conservative world of 'classical' music.
Just for the sake of being exact, the copyright form used for the music is form PA. The copyright for the recording is form SR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks folks
You really can't win these days when it comes to music copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks folks
I guess I am a "moron in a hurry". The actual music that I used was from the ogg posted on wikipedia, and on reading the wikipedia page more closely the IMAGE on the page was released to public domain (and since removed)."
Interesting, that is the kind of highly pertinent detail Masnick should have sought and included in the OP before posting it. It isn't like he had to beat a deadline for this kind of story.
So, assuming the PD recording on the wiki was indeed a PD recording, it seems that Warner/Google's music ID system lays claim to a wide swath of roughly similar public domain audio that they also happen to have a copyrighted recording of. That being the case, their claim is, indeed, outrageous, and a falsely sworn statement of copyright violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that is wrong on both points.
A "cover" is when a band performs a song written and/or made famous by another band. Orchestral music is rarely associated with a single orchestra in that fashion. And the fact that the underling musical composition is copyrighted seperately from the audio recording is not evidence that copyright is designed around "covers." Our current system of statutory copyright owes much of its structure to the player piano industry, not to "covers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think we're saying the same thing there.
We identify orchestral music more with the composer, while popular music gets identified more often with the performer.
Would someone say "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra covered Bach's Brandenburg Concerto?" The concept of a cover is more related to performer-focused styles of music, not composer-focused styles.
So, I can understand someone getting confused about the copyright of a recording of a public domain composition. We tend to think about the composers, not the performers.
I didn't mean to say its designed around covers, but around popular music, around performer-focused music.
Hence, some of the confusion when confronting other types of music (liturgical music also comes to mind, as a type that isn't performer-focused).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if you want to use that cover song for a video, you in fact need TWO approvals, one from the copyright holder of the song in question, and one from the copyright holder of the PERFORMANCE.
As this guy mentioned above, he was just the "moron in a hurry" that didn't realize that performances can also be copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having'trouble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a personal point of view, writing as a musician, the written score forms only one part of the music, but is a permanent record. The interpretation of that score, a transitory event, is a unique creative process that remains only in memory. If a single instance of interpretation is digitized, then it too becomes a permanent record, a record that is derivative but completely distinct from the original score (this record could then be used as the basis, whether score or instrument for a further derivation that will again be completely distinct).
The economic model that musicians will have to follow in the future in order to make a living remains in flux; under the current system there seems little ambiguity in the Ride of the Valkyries incident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US copyright law - souind recordings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US copyright law - souind recordings
http://www.musopen.com/ - public domain classical music performances.
http://www.archive.org/ - the internet archive.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ - project gutenberg.
The internet archive has The Ride of the Valkyries here - http://www.archive.org/details/EDIS-SRP-0197-06 - The performance is from 1921 so it is clearly in the public domain. I believe this is the file on project gutenberg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10177
Mark -- please update the video with this music. I still want to see how it works out. This has potential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's the simple test: If it isn't yours, and you have no idea where it came from, assume you DON'T have the rights to it. How hard is it to follow the simple rules of life? Forget court of law, congress, and all that, this is the basic stuff you were suppose to learn when you first played int he sandbox as a kid: If the toy isn't yours, you don't take it home with you. If you don't know that you have rights to use music, DON'T USE IT.
The most stupid assumption is to assume you have rights on something. It's like cleaning a gun assuming that it isn't loaded. You are likely to get your face shot off that way too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music is back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counter Notice confusionuse MIDI
Guertin should have use the MIDI method to ensure that it was a public domain copy of the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright protection
So if someone posts a comment on line, and mentions the word copyright in the posting, does that make the posting is now copyright protected and thus anyone copying that post to responed, violates the copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
February 15, 2067 - the Mayans never saw THIS one coming...
But the truth is that they're not truly public domain because sound recordings made before the federal system was put into place are still protected by state statutes. Hence, your video which includes a 1921 recording of Valkyries might be legal to exhibit in Wisconsin (for instance), but be completely illegal in Illinois.
So most copyright experts would tell you that by publishing your video on any kind of nation-wide or world-wide stage (such as TV, the internet, etc.) is still a violation of copyright law. And that will continue to be the case probably until February 15, 2067 (95 years after all music was put into the federal system). And I hope I'll still be alive to see it - assuming the big corporations don't find a way to extend it even more.
On that day EVERYTHING recorded before and published before 1972 will suddenly be public domain :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]