A year or so ago, the music service called UMG apparently filed a copyright claim against a video my son put on his page of him playing the third movement of the Pathetique. I think he was twelve or thirteen at the time of the recording. I filed the usual dispute with Youtube, but was ignored. Then Youtube blocked the video in Germany. One wonders why only Germany, but I digress.

Well, a couple of days ago I got fed up and I sent an email to Youtube. Here it is:



Youtube responded with a very form-like note:



Well, I got a bit snippy ....



This actually got a human response ...



A name!! They actually gave me a real person to contact!! So, I immediately shot an email to Mr. Richardson ....



I realize that honey usually works better than vinegar, but I was peeved at this point.

To my astonishment, this is what I received back ...



Their filter actually thought that this kid was Richter, or whatever performance they actually own. You've got to be kidding me. I thanked Mr. Richardson, but had to add this ...



The block on this video has indeed been removed. All is now right.

But how many amateur videos are being challenged by copyright holders because the filters they use are so poor that they confuse a thirteen year old with Richter. The mind boggles.

To somebody who didn't have to wade through this frustrating year-long hassle, it's actually a pretty funny story! But I'm glad to see a victory of the underdog vs. Great Big Media Company.

Great (and frustrating) story! It's pretty amazing, the whole audio filter thing. Not only does it not seem to work well, but it's evident that no one actually checks the videos that fall into their filter. Had they taken the time to watch 10 seconds of the video they would have seen an amateur (though good) pianist in his home playing a work in the public domain.

The internet never fails to amaze

They always flag my videos, but I just dispute them and it clears up in a day or two.

This is hilarious. Way to go!

Power to the people!

Amazing story! Well done!! Perhaps the filter only checks the first 20 or so seconds and that no errors were in that part?

Great story, and a good laugh! Just another example of how dumb computers are (they do exactly what they are programmed to do, and that's only as good as the programmer).

Wow, that has to be an amazingly primitive filter... if they wanted to (which they apparently don't), they surely could tell the difference between the same concert pianist playing it twice on different pianos, with a short clip, much less a different person on a different piano. They must not care, because it's not costing them anything to block too much.

Is there really a lot of copying on youtube, ripping off their classical recordings, that they have to be so vigilant about?

Good for you, though, on your persistence!

My video of Nocturne in C sharp minor on my youtube channel was claimed by:
Entity: Warner Chappell
Content Type: Musical Composition

I filed the usual dispute, but I was denied (the first time that's every happened, mind you) with this result:
"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

These people are not stupid. My playing of the piece is half-decent, but it's damn well not whatever professional recording it's been matched against, and they know that. They know they can monetize these videos somewhat, and the little guy (me, in this case) cannot do anything, so they simply lie and say that they own the content. I wish I had the email address for these guys so I could give them a piece of my mind. I don't think there are any limitations on my video at the moment, but it still peeves me every time I see that "matched third party content" label on my video.

I do understand youtube's position in all of this, but it still annoys me very much.

Wow, that has to be an amazingly primitive filter... if they wanted to (which they apparently don't), they surely could tell the difference between the same concert pianist playing it twice on different pianos, with a short clip, much less a different person on a different piano. They must not care, because it's not costing them anything to block too much.

Is there really a lot of copying on youtube, ripping off their classical recordings, that they have to be so vigilant about?

Good for you, though, on your persistence!

CONGRATS! And well done!

BTW, I have to ask, did that note from Ben really have this typo....


No reason for asking, except for wondering if it gave you an extra smile amidst all the frowns.

Indeed, it did give me an extra chuckle. But typos happen. I think Ben went the extra mile here.

Now, if their filter clamps down again in three days time ..............

Terrific, thanks for sharing that!


The irony is not lost on me...

Two other "firms" have challenged a Mozart sonata movement he put up a few years ago. One is Koch and the other is Believe. Koch backed off, but Believe hasn't bothered to check my protest despite the passage of about a year. Maybe I have to go nuclear on them too.

So...... In order to get Youtube to remove someone's video, all I have to do is claim it is mine?

If you have a qualifying corporation behind you, yes.

Actually, youtube never removed any of these videos. Their little embedded note always said that the video remained available but that viewers might see advertisements in them. The block of the Pathetique video in Germany was the most severe action that has been taken.

How frustrating to have to put up with that nonsense and how satisfying to have it finally resolved. Piano*son is indeed pretty good!

Sam,

That's exactly what I faced. But by pestering copyright@youtube.com long enough I eventually got a human being to give me that email address within the firm making the erroneous claim.

I am putting D in touch with Occupy Saint Louis.

PDad: I would have stopped at the Richter analogy and lived off the fantasy for a while.
BTW, Did you use your professorial credentials or was that a true 99% vs the 1%??

I didn't use my background at all. If they thought about it for a while they might have inferred something from an "edu" email address, but I'm hard pressed to see why that would have scared anybody. I don't think my "credentials" would have bought me any street cred in this case.

Now, if my signature ended with a J.D., and I brandished a professional affiliation at Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe .......

To tell you the truth, I think I got results for two reasons. The first is simple persistence. This doesn't always work, of course. Some people can bang their proverbial head against the wall for days and come away with nothing to show for their efforts but bruises. I think persistence helped me winkle that email address out of the "Hi there" Youtube team.

The second reason may be the internal amusement factor. I'm guessing the folks at UMG found my exasperated note funny. It seems to have gotten passed around the room a bit, and that may have helped get quick action. Mr. Richardson's email to me showed other internal emails of people who had looked at my message.

The idea of a pissed off dad of a thirteen year old pianist wagging his finger at them must have tickled the collective funny bone in that office.

[for some reason, an image from LOTR just crossed my mind as I was writing this response. I saw a furious Samwise Gamgee, feet planted wide apart and hands on hips, telling off Faramir in front of all his assembled troops. Amusement factor indeed.]

For those who successfully disputed these copyright claims, can you tell me if these successes relate to works by composers who are still alive or other passed away within the last 70 years?

Reason i ask, is I also have a bunch of these notices on my videos. For works by Mozart or Chopin I can see running a successful argument like Piano Dad did. For performance of a work by a 20th century composer (which is likely still under copyright), I'm not so sure.

Any thoughts?

You might have something there. I once had occasion to complain to a cat food company that their cans were hard to open, and I wrote a letter from my cat, including his signature ("Tigger, his paw mark"). Immediate answer, including a shiny new good quality can opener.

And I really enjoyed your story.

Jibbers,

I guess it depends on what exactly is being claimed about the work. If the content holder own a particular recording by artist X, Y, or Z, then they are crawling the web searching for uploaded theft of their recording. That was the issue here, since Beethoven's heirs (or hairs) have no protection!

I'm sure that Fuzzy has had some 20th century stuff nicked by these "rights" organizations, as has my son. And usually a simple counterclaim gets it to go away. Here too the issue is their ownership of specific recordings of the piece in question. Several of my son's recordings of 20th century stuff have been repeatedly claimed by various firms. I repeatedly counterclaim, and just as Fuzzy says, the claims usually go away. His playing of Rach's G minor prelude is a frequent target of these "can't shoot straight" copyright police. It's such a commonly recorded work.

The problem comes when one of these organizations won't release the claim, despite it's absurdity. This may happen because they can't be bothered to use the 3 minutes of labor time to check the validity of their youtube sweeps. They are counting on you knuckling under. That's when you have to get irate to have even a tiny chance of breaking through.

I'm guessing things become more sticky if the holder owns the music itself, and not just some particular recording. Someone with a good understanding of copyright law could chime in here, I'm sure.

I don't know exactly which works are public domain and which are not, so there is always the possibility that you can post something that is indeed owned. But even stuff that is not in the domain gets posted on youtube all the time. Just check out the multiple renditions of the Paganini Variations mentioned above. They don't get pulled down. Perhaps they're flagged. I don't know.

David slays Goliath! Well done. Tell Anthony it's safe to start practicing again.

As I understand copyright law in the USA, it's death + 70 years. There's a pretty good article on Wikipedia that explains much with some context. If you scroll a bit past halfway down to the "duration" section you'll find some especially relevant information. I thought this sentence was particularly relevant.

"In 1998 the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the The Copyright Term Extension Act. This legislation was strongly promoted by corporations which had valuable copyrights which otherwise would have expired, and has been the subject of substantial criticism on this point." Of course, some corporations, means Disney, but would also include the Ravel and Gershwin estates. IIRC this matter will become an issue again in 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Yet I'm not seeing amateur performances pulled down because the composer's estate (or whoever holds the rights) challenges all public playing. I'm only seeing challenges from the rights holders who own a specific musician's performance. These are the stupidly broad filters that seemingly confuse a kid with Horowitz.

that is very cool.. i'd have that letter framed.