| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2009 09:18:08 PM · #1 |
I just received this note... Youtube removed a 2 minute video (or so) excerpt of our high school choral group singing O Fortuna.
This is absurd. So I guess it's only a matter of time before they remove the rest of the choral performances I have up there.
And if that's so, youTube is really worthless. I am really tempted to take EVERYTHING off of YouTube; They are being too stupid.
I don't know why that would be covered by copyright. It's not the whole thing. It's a live performance by a high school chorus, for gosh sakes.
"Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG claiming that this material is infringing:
Concert Chorale - "O Fortuna" (from "Carmina Burana"): //www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUInNq87HZ0
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc."
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 09:38:53 PM · #2 |
| Hmph! I suppose that the groups need to pay royalties anytime they perform a copyrighted work now? And is YouTube contending that the video was posted for commercial gain? I don't get it. Have you considered filing a response with YouTube? |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 09:47:45 PM · #3 |
If your school group purchased the rights to sing the music to begin with, shouldnt you also then be able to show a video of it?
I ask that because at my high school, all the musical performances have to get the licenses first, but I dont know if they are then allowed to post video or audio recordings of the event.
Also, I think Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG are being a$$holes in this too. They should recognize that this is a school group, and encourage them to increase recognition of their product. |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 09:47:53 PM · #4 |
When I tried to log on, it gave me a copyright slap on the knuckles and wanted me to acknowledge. Since I felt they were asking me to acknowledge copyright infringement, I did not ok it, but instead logged out.
Now, when I try to login, it's asking me "if I want" to link my Youtube account to my Google account. When I don't do that, I don't get further.
I can still see my stuff though when not signed in. My account is //www.youtube.com/user/nrshapiro55
I have lots of our HS choral groups stuff; and my son singing a few different songs. So now, am I just waiting until they call that infringing too?
Heck, the only thing original I have up there in those terms is my son's band's songs, which they wrote.
What do they want to run their business on, home videos?
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:01:11 PM · #5 |
Be careful to not post any videos of your family singing "Happy Birthday". That is also copyrighted material.
This is all a result of our litigation happy society. Google does not want to be sued so they tow the line in accordance with any DMCA takedown notice they receive.
A trade forum I am a moderator on was recently offline for an afternoon because of the poorly thought out DMCA. A former member of the forum, who now has his own board and a chip on his shoulder, contacted the web hosting company, claiming our message forum had infringing material that originated on his board. The hosting company dutifully shut down our board without asking any question of our administration. Shoot first then ask questions, is the way this seems to work. |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:04:37 PM · #6 |
You should google O Fortuna. It seems like Schott has been very VERY vigilant about exercising its rights.
One of many examples: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_(album)
There are a lot of entries around this piece of work. |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:10:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
What do they want to run their business on, home videos? |
It's not YouTube that's doing anything, it's the company that sent the notice, "Schott Music". YT is simply protecting their ass...ets.
Message edited by author 2009-04-17 22:10:40.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:17:53 PM · #8 |
tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if these publishers are using an automated script which searches YouTube continuously for any occurance of names of their copyrighted works, and automatically fires an email off to YouTube with the 'offending' link to the video.
YouTube have their hands full with copyright issues - I doubt they're going to send every single flagged video to their legal team for review. How many MTV and chart videos do you think are getting posted, flagged and taken down every single day? - It must run in the thousands at this stage.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:18:24 PM · #9 |
There was a piece on CBC Radio One today about copyright and how it is beginning to become seriously over-extended to the point where it's infringing on free speech.
I have to agree that this is getting completely out of hand. How far into the future before we have people from the RIAA and MPAA and all the other AAs out there sending around goons to collect royalties for any and every 'performance' of any and every song/play/movie/etc out there? How long before schools simply stop having christmas concerts because the entities owning the rights to songs want pay per play fees? How long before preschools can no longer sing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" without having to send in royalty payments?
Sure, that's Chicken Littling a bit, but it really is getting massively out of hand.
I wish some major entity could be formed to stand up to this ridiculous bullying. |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:27:08 PM · #10 |
I agree that it's the copyright holder that is causing your video to be removed, not YouTube.
Consider it this way, if you will... it's your favorite, copyrighted photograph you've ever taken. Someone has made a video consisting entirely of your image, completely still and there.
Then, they post it on YouTube as their own.
What would you think? What would you feel?
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here... I'm just putting it into perspective.
IF they gave permission for the chorus to sing their copyrighted song, and they gave permission for any videos taken (illegally??) to be posted on YouTube, you should sue.
If not, you should think again about how you would feel.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 10:43:21 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I agree that it's the copyright holder that is causing your video to be removed, not YouTube.
Consider it this way, if you will... it's your favorite, copyrighted photograph you've ever taken. Someone has made a video consisting entirely of your image, completely still and there.
Then, they post it on YouTube as their own.
What would you think? What would you feel?
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here... I'm just putting it into perspective.
IF they gave permission for the chorus to sing their copyrighted song, and they gave permission for any videos taken (illegally??) to be posted on YouTube, you should sue.
If not, you should think again about how you would feel. |
It's not quite the same thing though. What you are comparing to is someone taking a video of an original recording (say a music video) then posting it and claiming it's their own just because they recorded it.
I suppose the photo equivalent would be to set up the exact same shot you took and take it over again then post it. Though I don't believe this would actually infringe copyright. |
|
|
|
04/17/2009 11:04:19 PM · #12 |
Kinda reminds me of the time they tried to bust me for copying copyrighted material.
Some time ago I wrote a couple of articles on hand spinning that were published in a magazine. I was asked to give a talk and demonstration on the subject and went to a national chain, which shall remain nameless, to make copies of the articles for hand-outs.
I was working away at the copy machine when a very polite employee came up to me and told me that I couldn't make copies of the articles because they were copyright. I explained that I was the author, and it was OK for me to make copies, and thanks for being vigilant. The employee wandered away, and the next thing I knew, here was his supervisor. More discussion of copyright law, and this guy wanted to confiscate the copies, but I'd still have to pay for them. I asked to see his supervisor. Supervisor comes on the scene. After some discussion, he tells me, "only the author can make copies of these articles", to which I replied, "I am the author". He went and got the store manager who, after I showed him my driver's license, which he scrutinized to compare my name to the name on the article, finally allowed as he'd let me make the copies, "but just this time".
In the chain's defense, I think they had just paid a huge judgment for allowing indiscriminate copying of books and magazines, but I did feel like I'd fallen down the rabbit hole.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 11:14:19 PM · #13 |
There's no rule in the high school about videoing the performances.
I sit in the front row often and shoot it.
Why? Because my son and his friends in the chorus like to see them.
I'm sure the school had permission to perform it, or they would not.
Lets see: you sing a well known song, into your web cam, and post it on youtube. Is that infringement? if so, they take down all of those.
I'm sure all the unauthorized videos of famous bands playing will come down next. That's probably legally "right", but...
Then, there will be nothing left of YouTube. The only remaining reason to go there would be for independent film producers, small bands like my sons, etc. But they probably have their own website anyway, they don't really need YouTube. Hence the end of YouTube.
Yes, I know it was Schott Music GmbH & Co. that requested the removal. But YouTube should be looking into these, and defending the use of such "personal and educational video" (especially school peformances).
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 11:27:14 PM · #14 |
Basically from what I understand the owner of the copyrighted work has requested youtube.com to take down his work based on section 106 - subsection 5 (in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly).
If youtube.com only looked at that copyright section and subsection then they would take it down. But section 106 (Exclusive rights in copyrighted works) are subject to sections 107 through 122 which may allow you by law to preform and display [his] copyright material lawfully.
I would go here (copyright.gov) title 17 and view section 106 and then see if any of sections 107 through 122 would make it lawful for you to preform and post the performance of the copyright material on digital media [youtube.com].
My thoughts, from what I have read, is youtube.com took it down because of section 106 without looking into the "Fair Use" of the work that is covered in sections 107-110.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2009 11:49:25 PM · #15 |
| I wonder is Schott is the original owner. I also wonder when the copyright was originally registered. I think going after a high school performance on YouTube is going a bit far. I think copyright should be limited in time to a persons productive lifetime. Perhaps 50 or 60 years. I don't think a commercial interest that purchases it should be able to extend it. Many of the classics were built on the backs of past works that cost the current creators not a penny. Walt Disney would be one good example. I believe in protecting the works of creative people, but their lifetime should certainly be long enough. Patents have gotten really bad lately too. Some individual has patented the "stick". Do a patent search and be amazed. |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 11:56:21 PM · #16 |
Thanks for those links Scott!
I wish I could speak legalese though. I guess I'll just sit on the rest of the videos. My forward looking question is whether or not I should be removing the other choral works.
Though I don't understand personally how someone's score copyright protects the recording of a public performance of that. Not to mention when it's done by a school on government property. It's easy to show that it's educational too--many of the comments I get on those are from students who themselves are in choruses, and from adults offering feedback to the kids. Of course, on the one in question, O Fortuna, we got a lot of really negative comments saying how awful it was. I'm no expert, but I didn't think it was awful, and it is a school chorus after all. They're a very good chorus (actually, my son is in three of the choral groups in school; it's a great music department. It wasn't "very good" according to my son's high standards, but it also wasn't awful. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:00:47 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I wish I could speak legalese though. I guess I'll just sit on the rest of the videos. My forward looking question is whether or not I should be removing the other choral works. |
Why not host 'em elsewhere? YouTube isn't the only game in town. Heck, for less than $30, you can register a domain and get a year's worth of hosting.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 01:46:06 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I wish I could speak legalese though. I guess I'll just sit on the rest of the videos. My forward looking question is whether or not I should be removing the other choral works. |
Why not host 'em elsewhere? YouTube isn't the only game in town. Heck, for less than $30, you can register a domain and get a year's worth of hosting. |
Oh, I have plenty of web hosts. The issue/question is the legal one, not the logistic one! Obviously, I feel they are perfectly legal. But having just watched "The Insider" tonight, that doesn't make me necessarily want to "take on the machine". |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 02:17:12 AM · #19 |
A question on youtube and copyright...how do people get away with using other peoples images and then putting well known music/songs to them and then posting them on You Tube. If your video was deleted for copyright...why are those others allowed to be on there?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 10:42:34 AM · #20 |
I'm looking into copyrighting the letters "r", "s", "t", "l", "n", and "e". Then I will have every video on YouTube disabled.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 10:55:17 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Judi:
A question on youtube and copyright...how do people get away with using other peoples images and then putting well known music/songs to them and then posting them on You Tube. If your video was deleted for copyright...why are those others allowed to be on there? |
They don't. I posted a slideshow (of my own images, not someone elses) that I set to music that I bought, and they disabled the sound for copyright. It was up for about a day before that happened.
eta: Maybe the trick is to use someone else's images! ROFL! ;P
Message edited by author 2009-04-19 10:56:03. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:03:54 AM · #22 |
Youtube is not responsible for the situation. The copyright owners of the actual music/lyrics are responsible. I had a Guitar Hero video removed! Me and my kids playing guitar hero was SILENCED. The music was cut out! I guess it was too easy to hear!
I also had a video of some old high school friends in a slide show with the song "Don't you forget about me" stripped of the music!
It is some kind of music script running that seeks out and destroys your vid.
I put my high school vid on Facebook so only my "friends" could see it and it stayed up for weeks. One day I clicked on the preferences to allow "everyone" to see....and within 2 hours it was taken down and a warning sent to me!!!! Seems that if you tag for just friends then it can't be sought out and destroyed !
On another note....even though you personally are not profiting from your videos...the copyright holder feels that Youtube is profiting.
Message edited by author 2009-04-19 11:13:22. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:10:03 AM · #23 |
Are you kidding? My kid's grade / high school already pays thousands of dollars to copyright holders to do concerts and plays. The school does OUTSTANDING concerts and plays and I guess someone found out and now the copyright holder wants their take!!!
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a piece on CBC Radio One today about copyright and how it is beginning to become seriously over-extended to the point where it's infringing on free speech.
I have to agree that this is getting completely out of hand. How far into the future before we have people from the RIAA and MPAA and all the other AAs out there sending around goons to collect royalties for any and every 'performance' of any and every song/play/movie/etc out there? How long before schools simply stop having christmas concerts because the entities owning the rights to songs want pay per play fees? How long before preschools can no longer sing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" without having to send in royalty payments?
Sure, that's Chicken Littling a bit, but it really is getting massively out of hand.
I wish some major entity could be formed to stand up to this ridiculous bullying. |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:24:52 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Are you kidding? My kid's grade / high school already pays thousands of dollars to copyright holders to do concerts and plays. The school does OUTSTANDING concerts and plays and I guess someone found out and now the copyright holder wants their take!!! |
This has always been the case, as far as I know. I mean, I was in high school in pre-computer times, of course, and even then the school was paying royalties to do stage productions of copyrighted works. And I don't see anything unusual in that, actually; makes perfect sense to me.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:33:39 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a piece on CBC Radio One today about copyright and how it is beginning to become seriously over-extended to the point where it's infringing on free speech.
I have to agree that this is getting completely out of hand. How far into the future before we have people from the RIAA and MPAA and all the other AAs out there sending around goons to collect royalties for any and every 'performance' of any and every song/play/movie/etc out there? How long before schools simply stop having christmas concerts because the entities owning the rights to songs want pay per play fees? How long before preschools can no longer sing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" without having to send in royalty payments?
Sure, that's Chicken Littling a bit, but it really is getting massively out of hand.
I wish some major entity could be formed to stand up to this ridiculous bullying. |
_________________________
Edward, as a family that is in "the biz" it's hard to look at this objectively and I didn't get to hear the spot on "Q" but I will check it out. You really have to be on the other end of
this to get a real feel for what happens sometimes. I filmed a commercial that was shown as a Canadian national and that's all the pay scale was for and because as an artist we are
supposed to be paid for all the blocks of time that the spot airs when it ran it's course I thought it was finished. Fast forward to several months later, I get an e-mail message from
friends who live in Thailand telling me how great I looked in my most recent commercial. I sent them a message asking what one it was and they said this time it was ... but the ones
before were just as great and that it's nice to see the family on television so far away.
It was quite a shock to find out that not only some of my commercials but our children's, that were to shown on Canadian or Canadian and US networks only, were been shown internationally
without any royalties. These are the same companies that would hang you out to dry if you infringed on their copyright and they take advantage of the fact that we as artists are unable to
reach as far away as they can and it's not fair. They take full advantage of us and try to sweep it under the carpet as soon as they are caught. But heaven forbid you try this in reverse,
your ship will be sunk in port and there will be no survivors. This is a very contentious issue and there are many pitfalls on both sides of the argument and until you have been taken
advantage of and have received zero in compensation it's hard to see the other side. Just some thoughts from the other side and we are only a small part, a very small part.
MAX! |
|
