Wow, I can't believe what came into my inbox. I had a video of myself playing Claire de Lune. It got taken down for copyright violations. By the reanimated soul of Claude Debussy? No, by the APM Orchestra, who had a recording of Claire de Lune (piano) for the soundtrack to the movie Twilight.

I had to laugh....did they think I had taken the piece and then synced my finger movements? It was a video of myself playing it for gosh sakes.

Anyways, I filed a dispute, but I just thought I'd comment on how out of control copy infringement seems to be,

Somebody may have flagged it by accident or a jealous rival. I doubt youtube checked this. It is likely to be automated.

I have heard of this before with videos wrongly being taken down for copyright infringement but I can't remember when and where it was.

Maybe, but my email said it had been claimed by the copyright owner:

Anyways, I filed the dispute and it seems to be temporarily available again. (I think... does this page work )

I agree that it's unlikely it was checked too carefully since it should be obvious they aren't the same....but that's the point, they shouldn't be taking down videos for copyright so easily.

it might be taken off by accident, because your playing video should be legitimate. try to reload it.

Looks like someone working for Atlantic thinks they own the piece because its on their soundtrack for some teenage vampire film.

youtube.com/watch?v=9KVQoslNgtc

Theowne, as a result of your post, I did some pointing and clicking on your Youtube page, where I ran across your video of the Ravel Piano Concerto. I have listened to it several times in the past, and always enjoyed it immensely. So I couldn't resist listening again.

Great piece of music, great performance. I am green with envy.

Ed

All it needs is someone to mention the words copyright infringement and most internet sites will remove it immediatly, without trying to question the allegation and the validity of it.
It is better for all to err on the side of caution.
Even the email stated the word "claimed"
BTW I enjoyed listening to the video after it was reinstated

Now THAT'S a real compliment, Theowne, when somebody thinks your playing is so good it violates their copyrighted professional music!

Do let us know what you hear back from the YouTube people.

Speaking as an (almost) lawyer specializing in intellectual property, I can tell you that such notices get sent out by the hundreds. Most people are so scared of copyright law (rightfully so) that they don't dispute it even when they're in the right. Youtube (and other Internet hosting services) have to take it down immediately to avoid being sued along with you, if there's a lawsuit - the only way they can get immunity is by taking it down. Since these people are being plainly idiotic, you should have no trouble getting your video back up.

This, incidentally, is a frighteningly effective tactic for limiting free speech on the Internet, and should be exposed for what it is.

Beautifully played - hypnotizing - stops one in one's tracks.

Hmm thanks for the info, Larisa. I still haven't heard from Youtube, and the video was reinstated....I wonder if they even bother checking or if it is just a stock warning sent to everyone, and if they dispute it Youtube puts it back? I bet there are a lot of people who will be much more frightened and capitulate...that's kind of sad.

Even worse, I can go to youtube and find the actual recording being disputed quite easily...

P.S. Thanks for the misc. compliments!

Theowne--I don't know about infringing copyright, but I do know that your video list is quite addictive! I just finished watching several Debussy pieces, the Wall-E theme, and a little Ravel. All were beautiful. I really love the tempo of your Clair de Lune; it sets just the right mood.

Thanks,

Nancy

Absolutely beautiful!...as always.

Key Notes

Yeah, you feel like you've been violated, know how you feel...screw em and the high horse they rode in on. Freedom of information FTW!

Wow, that was just hauntingly beautiful....

Well done!!!

Theowne, just be lucky you aren't in New Zealand after Feb 28th. They've got a new copyright law going into effect that has a very controversial provision. ISP's can be *required* to disconnect the internet of someone only *accused* of a copyright violation. No recourse. No waiting until being proven guilty. You're pretty much guilty right when accused by someone. Just thinking about how a power like that could be abused is pretty scary. Any folks here from New Zealand should maybe contact legislators right away if they've not done so already.

Anyone interested about researching this problem can head to http://creativefreedom.org.nz/

I'm an amateur copyright law nerd (not a lawyer) and just wanted to comment on your situtation.

Normally, distributing a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder can be copyright infringement. So because Youtube is (digitally) distributing a copyrighted work (the Clair de Lune recording), they might be liable for copyright infringement.

However, a US law called Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted in 1998, includes a "safe-harbor" provision for Internet service providers.

This safe-harbor provision says that a service provider such as Youtube is not liable for copyright infringement caused by its users, *provided* that Youtube complies with any "takedown notices" issued to it by a copyright holder. The law describes a process where a copyright holder informs Youtube of the address of the infringing material, and Youtube must then remove the material. The user may deliver a counter-notice to Youtube that the material is not infringing, and Youtube may resume distributing it on the user's behalf.

If Youtube follows that procedure, they are not liable for the copyright infringement.

A few more items:

1. The person filing the takedown notice must actually be the copyright holder of the allegedly infringing material. It is a separate offense to file a false takedown notice for something that does not infringe one's copyright, and this may now be a basis for legal action against APM Orchestra by you! As Larisa described, this process of takedown notices is widely abused on the Internet to censor criticism or even fair use of copyrighted materials. There is a website chillingeffects.org that chronicles this phenomenon, and there are various movements to fight back against takedown notice abusers and raise the costs of takedown abuse.

2. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA protects Youtube from liability, but the copyright holder may, of course, sue the user who posted the infringing material directly for copyright infringement. If it is your own performance and recording of a piano piece then presumably you would not be found liable, but even then, being sued sucks.

3. This doesn't apply to Clair de Lune any more, but the composition itself can be copyrighted as well as any particular recording of it. So if you record yourself playing a modern composition, you hold the copyright on the recording, but the author holds the copyright on the composition, and posting it on Youtube may violate the composer's rights. For example, I know that the copyright holders of Happy Birthday To You song have threatened legal action, including against the Girl Scouts, for singing that song without paying for the privelege.

4. Youtube (and therefore Google) is currently defending a billion+ dollar lawsuit from Viacom (owners of Comedy Central TV channel among others) for copyright infringement, and the case promises to test the limits of the safe-harbor provision and define to what lengths a service provider must go in order to avoid liability.

5. I haven't listened to your recording yet but based on the other comments I should certainly do so tomorrow.