EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
EEVblog => Other Blogs => Topic started by: Radio Tech on December 10, 2016, 11:05:41 pm
-
Hi Guys, Thought you may help shed light on this. I uploaded a video on YouTube today and got a mail.
Looks like they were saying that I have copy righted music in my video. Funny I do not have music in any of my videos.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/youtube-and-copy-right-material/?action=dlattach;attach=277113;image)
The Content ID claim is from a company called Believe music. I have not filed a dispute yet and on the way out, just wondering if anyone has this happen before, it is my first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03DN_xls5mU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03DN_xls5mU)
-
I never have, but I do have quite a dislike for copyright and patent trolls. I do believe that any music in your video is a figment of their imagination.....
Google search yields some results on them:
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/34iij2/beware_of_fake_copyright_claims_by_believe_music/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/34iij2/beware_of_fake_copyright_claims_by_believe_music/)
http://phishlist.com/beware-of-fake-copyright-claims-by-believe-music-on-youtube/ (http://phishlist.com/beware-of-fake-copyright-claims-by-believe-music-on-youtube/)
https://audiojungle.net/forums/thread/copyright-claim-by-believe-music-on-youtube-video/166453 (https://audiojungle.net/forums/thread/copyright-claim-by-believe-music-on-youtube-video/166453)
-
yeah, it does artifact for me as well
-
I had it happen once on one of my videos. I don't recall if it was due to "Believe Music". My video also had no music, just a bunch of white noise from the device I was demonstrating. I submitted a dispute, and clearly some human somewhere must have checked my video because the copyright claim went away after a few days.
-
Thanks for the information guys.
Funny about those artifacts at 18.06. Is not in the video stored on the pc. But clearly see it on the YouTube video. Interesting.
-
It says that the copy righted material is from 0.00 to 0.32. In the beginning of the video. I filed a dispute with these folks.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/youtube-and-copy-right-material/?action=dlattach;attach=277141;image)
-
White noise got a false match. File the dispute and see what the actual listener then does.
-
False automated flagging happens, the algorithm is not perfect. I've had one or two, just dispute it and it's fine.
-
Thanks. I have disputed the claim so guess we have to wait it out now and see what happens. It was very cold yesterday and had the heat full blast in the shop. The heating duct is just over my head and reeks havoc on the camera with the noise. Darn mic is so sensitive.
After doing quite a few Google searches last night at midnight when I got home I see that this group does this a lot. Makes one wonder lol.
As far as those artifacts in my video I do not see them at all in the footage on the pc. So something must have happened during the upload or on YouTube.
Thanks again all.
-
Thanks. I have disputed the claim so guess we have to wait it out now and see what happens. It was very cold yesterday and had the heat full blast in the shop. The heating duct is just over my head and reeks havoc on the camera with the noise. Darn mic is so sensitive.
Yep, I generally turn the aircon off when shooting videos, especially using the shotgun mic in the Mailbag for example. About to shoot one now and lettign the room cool down first before I swithc off and record for an hour.
It's ok if I'm doing behind camera shots with my mouth 30-50cm from the mic, or a lapel mic doing whiteboard stuff, but worth turning off anyway
-
Thanks. I have disputed the claim so guess we have to wait it out now and see what happens. It was very cold yesterday and had the heat full blast in the shop. The heating duct is just over my head and reeks havoc on the camera with the noise. Darn mic is so sensitive.
Yep, I generally turn the aircon off when shooting videos, especially using the shotgun mic in the Mailbag for example. About to shoot one now and lettign the room cool down first before I swithc off and record for an hour.
It's ok if I'm doing behind camera shots with my mouth 30-50cm from the mic, or a lapel mic doing whiteboard stuff, but worth turning off anyway
Understand that. I do turn the unit off or set it so it does not come on while shooting.
But the day I recorded the video it was a cool 23 degree F (-5 degree C) so just let it run.
I can get the shop pretty warm but the floor is suspended and not well insulated. Been meaning to fix that one day.
-
Been meaning to fix that one day.
That phrase sounds far too familiar .......
-
Been meaning to fix that one day.
That phrase sounds far too familiar .......
:-DD Oh yes, so many times that has been said. I really meant to do it while it was summer. But somehow summer is gone lol.
-
This is not a fault in the copyright checking software. There are reports that some individuals are reporting fake copyright claims to steal your monetization while the claim gets solved by youtube (and that could take a month),
Some people disable their videos while the dispute is going on to avoid getting robbed.
Here is some info
http://phishlist.com/beware-of-false-copyright-claims-by-pirames-international-srl-on-youtube/ (http://phishlist.com/beware-of-false-copyright-claims-by-pirames-international-srl-on-youtube/)
-
Well good news.
They removed the copyrighted claim. Did not take as long as they said it would.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/youtube-and-copy-right-material/?action=dlattach;attach=280134;image)
-
Time to issue the false DMCA claim then, get at least the money you lost, plus costs, out of them.
-
Good, I'm still of the opinion they are doing as stated earlier.
-
So am I, Like SeanB said I should push it. From what I am reading on the internet this company has done this to many YouTube folks.
-
Sadly the only thing that would work is that each false claim results in a suspension on automatic flagging. 1 claim, one day, second claim, 2 days, 3rd claim 3 days and so on. That would quickly result in them not filing false claims, as the penalty would be prohibitive, so they will improve the detection to reduce the false positives. They can still file claims manually, but that will require somebody to put a signature, with the resultant having to pay the counterclaim cost, per request. If there is no penalty for lying, then there is no reason not to do so, it is a way to make money.
-
Well this is the second time that "Believe Music" has falsely claimed one of my videos for copy right material.
Already filed a dispute on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv__zArVB4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv__zArVB4w)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/youtube-and-copy-right-material/?action=dlattach;attach=285242;image)
-
What I wonder if youtube can block or require believe music to have to manually claim. Or perhaps the DMCA doesn't allow for it. Rotten though. :(
-
Complaints against Believe Music for doing this are easy to find on the net.
They claim monetisation - which might be a pittance for any given video, but I would think thousands of such pittances would make a decent sum.
-
Make the video private, which will mean no views for them. Then do the dispute, and when it is reviewed you can release it again. Annoying, but they then make no money off it either as well.
What might also work, is if they have a US office or representative at some US address, is to work out the lost revenue, and then do a small claims court claim in your local town, and have it served on them. Will cost you the day of your time, the court costs ( all of which you can claim as part of the claim as well), but they have to send a representative to the court as well to counter. You have to pay somebody ( sheriff in their area) to serve them, but they have to pay somebody to come to you.
-
Time to issue the false DMCA claim then, get at least the money you lost, plus costs, out of them.
You can't be serious?
The only way you can get "the money you lost, plus costs" is to sue them and win in a court of law that can order them pay up.
Only a fool would do that.
-
What might also work, is if they have a US office or representative at some US address, is to work out the lost revenue, and then do a small claims court claim in your local town, and have it served on them. Will cost you the day of your time, the court costs ( all of which you can claim as part of the claim as well), but they have to send a representative to the court as well to counter. You have to pay somebody ( sheriff in their area) to serve them, but they have to pay somebody to come to you.
That's insane. Why would anyone do that?
-
Hey so I just noticed on both it says "visual content" what I wonder if perhaps the intro is what is triggering the match for some reason.
Ah, found it! The intro is similar to yours cause they used the same video software which likely they can't copyright ironically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js220bKpCW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js220bKpCW4)
-
Hey so I just noticed on both it says "visual content" what I wonder if perhaps the intro is what is triggering the match for some reason.
Ah, found it! The intro is similar to yours cause they used the same video software which likely they can't copyright ironically.
Wow, yep, that's it. Same intro video effect.
I'd just go with something different or it will keep happening.
Fight all you want, but it will likely be a waste of time and energy.
-
Hey so I just noticed on both it says "visual content" what I wonder if perhaps the intro is what is triggering the match for some reason.
Ah, found it! The intro is similar to yours cause they used the same video software which likely they can't copyright ironically.
Great catch my friend. Time to move up to Sony Vegas Studio and drop the Movie Maker editor.
-
Hey so I just noticed on both it says "visual content" what I wonder if perhaps the intro is what is triggering the match for some reason.
Ah, found it! The intro is similar to yours cause they used the same video software which likely they can't copyright ironically.
Wow, yep, that's it. Same intro video effect.
I'd just go with something different or it will keep happening.
Fight all you want, but it will likely be a waste of time and energy.
I am afraid you are very correct Dave.
From what I have been seeing and reading they have been doing this for a long time and no one has stopped them yet.
I am just going to drop the intro for now on and just shoot the footage.
On another note I did find some good in this. Since I disputed the copy right claim neither party gets money till the dispute is resolved.
-
Great catch my friend. Time to move up to Sony Vegas Studio and drop the Movie Maker editor.
Glad to find it, really didn't notice until watching your video. Explains why its a more common thing since it's free on windows....
If you want something on the cheaper side PowerDirector is what I use.
Glad it's all figured out now anyways! :)
-
Not that I do much, but I also use PowerDirector. Inexpensive, but pretty decent from what I have used it for. I was able to get all the effects I wanted - and did so by poking around, not by hours of tutorials. It seemed pretty intuitive to me.
-
Thanks guys. I will look into that. Would have replied sooner but down with pneumonia.
-
Thanks guys. I will look into that. Would have replied sooner but down with pneumonia.
Hope you get well soon Buddy.
3DB
-
Thanks guys. I will look into that. Would have replied sooner but down with pneumonia.
No problem, get better soon! :) That does not sound pleasant at all!
Your call sign had me thinking back of someone I knew that was into HAM long ago, but I'm pretty sure his call sign was ended in ASC or something like that...
-
When the detectors came in I already had a video that blatantly used a copyrighted soundtrack
owned by DefJam recordings. The audio of my video was muted, the silent YouTube video was left
online, and it remained that way for a couple of years.
Without any action from me, as there was no dispute, the original audio was reenabled,
and has stayed that way ever since.
Explain me that one :D
-
Hey so I just noticed on both it says "visual content" what I wonder if perhaps the intro is what is triggering the match for some reason.
Ah, found it! The intro is similar to yours cause they used the same video software which likely they can't copyright ironically.
Great catch my friend. Time to move up to Sony Vegas Studio and drop the Movie Maker editor.
If you would like to keep using that same effect, just reverse it in the duration settings for whatever software you use or even change the colour of it......99.9% of the time that will do it......the algorithm see's the effect and thinks its looking at a commercial or film opening.
There are other ways to get this stuff through, slight frame shifting etc, but so many TV productions are done with basic editing software these days, its very easy to use something that some production is using elsewhere in the world.
I am involved in the TV industry and see this happen a bit...... YouTube algorithms are very broad
Cheers