YouTube Taking Down Public Domain Works?
from the make-it-stop dept
In the past couple of days I've received emails from two separate people who found that public domain material they put on YouTube was taken down to companies claiming ownership of the work. In both cases, the stories seem pretty ridiculous, and for all the complaining that copyright holders do about how awful it is that they need to "police" their own content on YouTube, it seems like those who are getting hurt are people who are putting up public domain material and getting shut down -- often with little recourse.The first story comes to us from two self-described "hippies," Haint and Littia, who had put up a video showing some of Haint's works, and used as background music a song by a group called the Psalters, who put their entire album into the public domain so that anyone could do what they wanted with it -- such as using it for background music in a video. However, music licensing company Rumblefish, supposedly uploaded its catalog into YouTube's content ID system -- and apparently (and I'm still trying to figure out how, because no one seems to have a good explanation), the Psalters song is somehow in Rumblefish's catalog. Hence, YouTube took down the video. Apparently others have also been finding their perfectly legal and licensed content taken down thanks to Rumblefish as well, and were told that they needed to call and get Rumblefish's permission to get the content back up.
Haint and Littia note that they can't issue a counternotice, because Rumblefish never sent a DMCA notice which they can counter (Update: to clarify, as explained in the next sentence, they can dispute, but that's slightly different than countering the DMCA notice, and comes with its own problems). The "takedown" was triggered by the content ID match, which still makes things a bit tricky, since "disputing" such things could potentially lead to a lawsuit, so there's a bit of a chilling effect in disputing a content ID match. Poking a big company with a stick where they can turn around and file a lawsuit is a bit scary -- even if you know you're in the legal right.
While looking into that story, reader Stephen Pate sent over his own story of having his entire YouTube account suspended. He's not entirely sure why, but believes it has something to do with video he posted of the recent "crash on the moon." The video was taken directly from NASA's live broadcast, which NASA makes clear is not covered by copyright.
But... along came everyone's favorite news organization, the Associated Press, and claimed the video was their copyrighted material. Nice of them. Due to at least one other similar incident, Pate's entire account was shut down, and to make matters worse, this apparently happened at about the same time that YouTube switched emails to gmail logins, leading Google to claim that it can't match his email to the email of the account in question.
I'm sure Google and YouTube are trying their best, within the confines of copyright law and various lawsuits, to handle such situations, but it seems like things are a mess -- and more and more users are finding that even if they have what appears to be perfectly legal content, they may face takedowns and even loss of their entire account, with limited avenues for recourse.
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: content id, public domain, takedowns
Companies: associated press, google, rumblefish
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
hey that a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of proof
For the moon landing stuff, it's pretty easy: if the video used is the "nasa only" video (you know, the video they apparently lost) then there wouldn't be an issue. But if he posted up network news coverage of the event, then that is in fact copyright. Effectively, the moon landing footage may be in the public domain, but not the network news presentation of it.
As for the Psalters, I would say that the issue may be that they granted certain rights to Rumblefish, and also issued contradictory "open source" license to everyone. Without knowing the details of each license, there is little to do here. The error may in fact lie with the band or their management / rights holders. We don't know, so it's a big jump to go off on Youtube as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
Absolutely, but isn't this instance a little murkier due to the fact that no DMCA takedown notice was issued? It was matched by Youtube's content ID, and my understanding is that there isn't the same provisions for challenging a takedown with that method as with a traditional DMCA notice.
"Effectively, the moon landing footage may be in the public domain, but not the network news presentation of it."
That was what I was thinking as well.
"The error may in fact lie with the band or their management / rights holders. We don't know, so it's a big jump to go off on Youtube as a result."
I don't agree. I think the "big jump" was in YouTube summarily taking down content when there is clearly something fucked up going on. This is one of the problems with the way things like the DMCA are written: because it's written to lend deference to the rights holders, companies like YouTube just start treating EVERY situation with that deference. There is no reason why, in this instance, that video should have been taken down. They should have sorted out who did what and why there was confusion and THEN made their decision.
YouTube apparently wants to act first and think later, leading me to believe they have been attending motivational speaking sessions by Dubya....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
YouTube is doing what is required: Remove first, restore is proven otherwise. That is the part that is the burder on the end user (non-copyright holder). If they cannot show legal use, they cannot get it restored. It's a pretty simple concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
So basically what is listed has already gone through a DMCA takedown request? If that's the case, then it makes more sense. However...
"YouTube is doing what is required: Remove first, restore is proven otherwise. That is the part that is the burder on the end user (non-copyright holder). If they cannot show legal use, they cannot get it restored. It's a pretty simple concept."
While you're absolutely correct that they are following the guidelines, is this really the best way? I guess the simple question when it comes to civil matters like infringement and enforcing those matters is: which activity causes the least amount of harm. So is there more cases of actual infringement that wouldn't be taken down immediately if we did things differently, or is there more abuse of DMCA by rights holders with the way we do them now.
Seems to me that the answer to that question ought to tell you which course of action is best. I don't know that answer, nor do I know how to GET the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
Nope. You don't get to claim copyright if you just broadcast (or otherwise publish) a public domain work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
As I said, it's only public domain if it's the original NASA video. Everyone else's use of and additions to it are NOT in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
'Use of' is not copyrightable (despite what the networks would have you believe.) 'Additions to' *might* be copyrightable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
Slapping a logo on the video does not put it under copyright. So even if it has a ABC watermark, it is not a Copyright under ABC.
ABC does not have any video that was not shot by NASA, I imagine. It is not like they had thier own cameras up there shooting it. (And hey, if they did, wow.) If they showed footage from someone other then NASA and that was what was put onto Youtube, again, that is NOT ABC's to take down. (Unless ABC purchased the copyright along with the footage I guess, but moving on.)
The only way ABC could fairly claim the footage, is if they shot any part of the on-Youtube footage themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
Since NASA apparently lost much of it, well... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
By that logic, if I reprint a DVD with a gold border around the image, I can claim ownership of all copies of that movie. You cannot PROVE you didn't crop the boarder, thus you are infringing. Doesn't matter if the INNER part, the part you are showing is copyrighted, I made a easy to remove modification and now it is MINE! MINE!
Simply, no. Yes, showing the ABC logo may be a trademark. However, claiming copyright over a factual statement about the video? The creator of the font would have more valid claims then ABC on such an overlay.
A dubbing over the video may qualify for Copyright. Then again, if it is from a news source, it should be FACTUAL information. Besides which, only the AUDIO would be covered, not everything. So recording silent should cover that.
Mmm... anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
Think of it like software. You take an open source product, wrap it inside a bigger product, and sell the product commercially. The bigger product is copyright, even though there are some parts that may not be. If you can pull the part away from the whole, you are free to use it.
The video, which might have commentary, graphics, annotations, lower 3rds, subtitling, or other material that was added by the network, example, would make that as a whole copyright. It doesn't mean they own the NASA video, just that this version with their additions is copyright to them. It does not mean that they can stop people from using the stock NASA footage, but they can control how their finished product is used within the boundries of fair use.
It's a simple concept really, which is why I am confused why anyone doesn't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burden of proof
By that logic, if I reprint a DVD with a gold border around the image, I can claim ownership of all copies of that movie. You cannot PROVE you didn't crop the boarder, thus you are infringing. Doesn't matter if the INNER part, the part you are showing is copyrighted, I made a easy to remove modification and now it is MINE! MINE!
Simply, no. Yes, showing the ABC logo may be a trademark. However, claiming copyright over a factual statement about the video? The creator of the font would have more valid claims then ABC on such an overlay.
A dubbing over the video may qualify for Copyright. Then again, if it is from a news source, it should be FACTUAL information. Besides which, only the AUDIO would be covered, not everything. So recording silent should cover that.
Mmm... anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
It wasn't very interesting, and I don't know why anyone would want to watch that over and over again. I know it was boring because I watched the live NASA TV feed on NASA.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
I think not. But I wouldn't put it past them to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
We fully expected companies to abuse this....if we ever made music people listened to.....a handful of people do...and so a handful of companies over the years have abused our refusal of rights. I was prepared for folks like rumblefish to claim to own our stuff. That is the land we live in.
We never heard of or granted anything to rumblefish or anyone else. When folks ask to use our stuff we simply respond "do what you want with what you want"...we have never registered or dealt with anything in a formal manner...even when our stuff is used by large publishers or movies etc......we just tell them the same thing we tell the random kid behind a computer. we don't deal with companies or contracts, and have certainly never dealt with rumblefish. This stuff will happen.
There are a few cases where download sites have actually had the audacity to charge money for our music....as if they incurred a cent of expense. I guarantee we don't see any of that. The positives of doing things the way we would like have far outweighed the annoying consequences of dickish folks like rumblefish. As for youtube.....many folks have posted our music without any rumblings from various fish...so i would say just put it up again and know that ultimately you are not in any legal danger....and will always have our untrademarked, unbound, unregistered, uncopyrighted, unenfringed thumbs up! .....unless you use it in a shitty or hippie way (i hate hippies!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Botchamania, now this. Allow me to be the first one here to say that YouTube has officially jumped the shark.
(Can I use that phrase? Is Viacom going to sue me for using it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Urgh
Who's the frakking thief now??? Who is taking something they have no right to AND PREVENTING OTHERS from using it too?? (the proper definition of theft).
Few things piss me off as much as abusive double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyfraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the media..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative Commons
The bottome line is, Psalters put their music out for free, so that they would get exposure. RumbleFish is limiting that exposure. That should be grounds for civil and criminal action.
What do you think, Mike? Make a new CC license, no attribution necessary, Derivative Works allowed, commercial allowed, distribute with any license you like, but no copyright claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creative Commons
It's called the Zero License.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An explanation of how that match might have been made
Perhaps someone took the music in question, made some kind of derivative work (say, ran it through software filters for compression and limiting, and branded the result a 'remaster') - this new work is potentially copyrightable.
I'm not sure exactly how much modification needs to be done before you can qualify your work as different enough from public domain to warrant its own copyright. In the case of the really nice Metropolis remaster, I can understand why there's at least some level of legal copy protection - a lot of work went into that, and the costs should be recouped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights are just plain copywrong
Simply bizarre. One of the main complaints copyrights holders have is that everyone wants to freeload. It seems that with this example freeloading is exactly what the copyright holder does.
I think this is my general problem with copyrights in the first place. They cannot get were they are without "borrowing" from the culture around them, but no-one can borrow from them. Double standards abound.
Re-masters!?? Ohh, I re-sampled the original soundtrack at a higher bitrate, now I can claim copyright. Pretty pathetic in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
That is NOT what copyright is for (in the US). As defined by the Constitution, it is for the purpose of encouraging creation. If that remastering would not have happened with the ability to copyright it, perhaps it's appropriate. Otherwise, copyright is being used for an inappropriate purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
Yeah, understandable. But can they extend their copyright back to the public domain original and claim copyright on it?
I don't think they can-not legally anyway. But I wouldn't put it past them to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
> back to the public domain original and claim copyright on
> it?
No. Doing that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
Actually, solely putting a notice claiming copyright onto a public domain work is already copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its even more outrageous that AP can say they have rights on NASA broadcasts that are explicitly in the public domain. I suppose NASA should punish AP by telling them that anyone BUT the AP can use their footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No seriously what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Random-Music Video Was Mistakenly Flagged
I generated the music with Cinescore, which is Sony software that generates random royalty-free music clips. You tell it the style of music and the length of the clip, and it generates the soundtrack.
I received a notice from YouTube that GoDigital Media Group owned the music in my video.
Luckily I was able to protest to YouTube and they removed the flag on my video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Random-Music Video Was Mistakenly Flagged
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Takedowns
Over at Expecting Rain we have been following the takedown and suspension of Bob Dylan videos - a barometer of life on the web by Web Sheriff.
I can't print the chart here but this is the link to NJN http://www.njnnetwork.com/njn/?p=26641
"There's something funny going on, I can feel it in the air"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time.
As soon as something gets popular, greedy corporate whores wrap their grubby fingers around and squeeze the life out of it... then try to make money from it... and if they can't to the latter, then they try to shut it down. Rinse and repeat.
I've been moving away from Youtube now since less-frequently used sites like Viddler and Google Video still have content up even after it's removed from YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's time.
correction, SELFISH not just greedy. They're SELFISH. Get it right next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this some ploy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traditional boycotts often fail due to the sheer number of physical locations. Since in the case of Youtube there is only a single virtual location, the effect would be much more apparent, even if only a small percentage of the overall "viewers" participated. Youtube might stop the BS if their ad revenues drop low enough for a few days/weeks.
A virtual "screw the tube" campaign might be the place to start. Greedy, sniveling, pawnish Youtube needs to be schooled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NASA Video
NASA is a government agency and that makes any public info they release automatically public domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NASA Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no laws saying you cannot upload your videos to other countries services that have no laws.
If youtube is getting cumbersome let people find other solutions in other countries that are more friendly. Then it may hit home that the U.S. will loose more than it already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a blinfold as to the reasons. They also have plenty of sway to tell the parties causing all the trouble to back off, but won't. It isn't out of fear, but out of lazyness and confusing, and inconsistantly applied standards. The redress process needs to be corrected. If you could READ twit, you might also notice that at least in one case, DMCA (WHICH DOES NEED TO BE REWRITTEN, IMHO) was not the culpret.
This is the same nonsense as the ebay take down awhile ago. If you don't see the pattern, then you and the youtube folks must be sharing the same blindfold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take Down Notices
* establishing that the illicit notice was provided with knowledge that it was errant [Arista] [Rossi] and
* establishing damage (if the local youth soccer club's website is taken down for a week due to an errant notice, what is the quantifiable damage)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content ID Match
(A screenshot of this notice can be found at http://cybertrips.blogspot.com/)
The notice does not claim ownership - just a match with something they own or license and takes control of the moneitzation of the video.
These content id matches can be because the content in their catalog is matched to videos with content:
1) in public domain
2) resold by a reseller who bought it from rumblefish
3) used with artist/owner] permission but rumblefish also has a license to distribute same content
This is an error - not coming down on YouTube (we've heard it happening on Vimeo) or Rumblefish.
The system needs a little de-bugging.
Meanwhile, we will just let it be - until/unless there is a move to assert rights over the video such as monetzation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-read Feist v. Rural Telephone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nintendo ds r4 says
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
follow up to my post from ten minutes ago
So perhaps rumblefish is not "dickish" but just has bad software. I believe them.
But in general the complaints we all share remain valid....and for me personally i think the response does too. If you don't like the copyright world...then live and relate in a way where it doesn't much affect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoDigital and YouTube monetizing
They ask the user to send them a URL of the video so they can check if the warning was a mistake.
They have a computer program that may or may not be able to match audio content. They may or may not have any legal connection to any or all of the content (audio in a YouTube video). BUT after they identify an audio portion of a file, they get to post an AdShare in the upper right hand corner of any video their computer program detects "may" or "may not" be a copyright/license violation.
These people at GoDigital are making money off ads they place by blackmailing YouTube posters. They say their detection system can make mistakes because there is no central clearing house for all music/audio content.
Kind of a "sub-prime" scheme for web content, instead of real estate.
Crazy world - the way some people "make" a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoDigital... where does the money go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
had the same issue with NIN Ghosts
I never did hear back about the results of my challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two years from this post and I think we just have to say that having your video removed or having ads put on top of it, is just the price you pay for using Youtube.
Youtube can do whatever it wants.
Have a backup plan to distribute anything important and expect you're gonna have to contest anything you upload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]