That's just something saying someone says they own the song. Doesn't say they'll take the video down, etc. If you click "acknowledge" that means you say it is their song. Again, doesn't mean something will be taken down. If you click dispute then you argue nobody owns the tic of a metronome. :)

I have one recording of my mom's dulcimer group performing a few Christmas tunes. The claimant had some really weird name like 'acme game and sports co.'. I did a dispute, explaining that the song in question had fallen out of copyright and into public domain, the performance was our own rather than using someone else's copyrighted performance, and that i did not believe the entity by that name had any copyright interest in this music at all since they appeared to be a very new company with no ties to the music, recording, publishing, or distribution industry. I stated my belief that they were, in fact, lying.

Youtube promptly removed the claim without further question or discussion.

I've heard that there are some rogues out there who upload a whole bunch of song snippets just hoping for Youtube's match engine to find hits on, and blanket every hit with a copyright claim in the hopes that at least a few will cave in and expect to have to pay money without checking the validity. Apparently Youtube highly disapproves of this practice and are grateful to have it pointed out to them.

Youtube didn't seem the least bit interested when I pointed out the metronome-extorters to them. They sent me a note saying it wasn't their place to intervene. The next time I emailed the company I mentioned my BMI and ASCAP memberships. The claim was withdrawn after a couple of months.

FYI, the songs in question are:

1) "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood -- "song recording administered by INgrooves".

2) "Singin' in the Rain" by Gene Kelley -- "song recording administered by IODA".

Google search results for both of these companies include apparent legitimate websites that make them look like music distribution companies. But the search results also include links to complaints about illegitimate claims against youtube posters. These may be some of the outfits cited by Chienworks as rogues out to try scare posters into complying with their demands. But I can't be sure -- their websites look pretty convincing.

Now that youtube's match software has flagged these two videos, I suspect they will notify INgroooves and IODA, and they will take whatever action they deem appropriate. So I may be hearing from them soon.

For what it's worth, I didn't monetize these videos. I just uploaded them in case someone would enjoy watching them. I don't suppose that matters for copyright issues.

When your video matches third party content, the third party gets to decide what happens to your video - they can ask that nothing happens, they can have your video pulled, or they can monetize it.

If they monetize it, people will see ads when your video is played.

If they have it pulled, your account can have a negative mark against it. Too many copyright violations and your account can be suspended.

In my experience, deleting the videos is sufficient, and I doubt you will hear from anyone.

I got the notice for music I have a license for. Most times it is a third party advertising site that claims the music by another title. I have a few videos where I acknowledge the content is used . I have never heard another word either way. A couple do have the Video can't be viewed in some countries message.

I would not worry about it. I had something similar happen when I shot a banquet. There was a honor guard that presented the Colors and a recording of the national anthem was playing. YT complained about the music and I got the "Matched 3rd party content" thing. I acknowledged it and the only result was that there is a pop-up add that shows up when the video is played. Not a big deal IMO. As was mentioned, the copyright holder has the option what to do when this happens. If the copyright holder has a real problem they won't let YT make it available.

So, leave it up and don't worry about it. If it was serious YT would give you a "strike". Since they didn't you are good to go, as long as you are ok with the adds showing up.

Regards,
Jerry

A nice addition to the DCMA is that if you file and pursue a fake copyright claim (like claiming a PD song, for example) YOU can be forced to pay a fine/give the $ you made to the proper party. :)

In 1991, I put together a video using a Bon Jovi song. I recently posted it to YouTube.

Quickly their software recognized the song, I acknowledged it. They seemed happy with that, there is now an icon selling the song, but my video is still there, no worries.

My situation might be different than yours, it was very obvious I was using someone else's material.

You'll find a dearth of music on my youtube channel for this very reason. My rationale is: "If I ain't makin' money on it, it ain't worth the hassle to me."

In spite of my general feeling on the subject, in one of my more belligerent moods, I recently posted a 32 minute video



with music from a CD called Pure Funk, Volume 2. The tracks were identified immediately and I acknowledged that the content was owned by someone else. I always intended viewing of the video to be limited as the subject matter has limited appeal to the uninitiated. (Hint: the real hilarity starts at about 15:45)

My general feelings on the subject are:

1) I don't care if someone wants to link to a site where others can buy the CD. A practice that appears to be fairly common these days. I bought it, I'd reccommend it.

2) I really don't mind if I have to repost the video without the music, though the sound of a 750 kVA UPS and associated equipment is annoying to hear for any length of time. See how long you want to listen to this gem.



3) It's likely that someone has a copyright for the sound of a 750 kVA Liebert UPS running at 23% load at 76 degrees F and 27 relative humidity on the west coast of the US within 100 feet of a major urban street. I'm waiting for that notice to come in on one of my other videos.

Thanks everyone. Based on the responses, and assuming the companies cited are legit, it sounds like the worst that can happen is either the video will be removed, the audio muted, or ads will show up when people play the videos. I was concerned that I could be sued for copyright infringement and have to pay an exorbitant amount of money - or threatened with a suit if I don't pay whatever they ask.

Of course, if these claims f ownership are actually from scam companies, then such threats may still occur and could be a bother (or costly) to dispute. I just deleted the two videos to minimize the potential for problems, even though I think I read on youtube that deleting them doesn't avoid the copyright violation. It at least minimizes the number of views, so if they want money, it should be harder for them to justify very much money if there were only a couple views before I deleted them.

I would think if you are concerned about liability, deleting them is better than no deleting them. It may not remove liability, but it stops it from getting worse as well as demonstrates good faith on your part.

You could always say that, in view of the festive season, you are prepared not to charge for helping publicise their music.

Here's another approach -- Give Credit Where Credit is Due.

When I produced this video, I knew the recording would be recognized immediately. It is a highly acclaimed and familiar recording of Perlman directing the Four Season by Vivaldi. Although the score is public domain, the session is not by any stretch of the imagination.

I gave full and appropriate credit for the music at the end, and guess what? EMI never challenged the usage nor even acknowledged the match! Now that . . . is remarkable.



Now here's quite a different example: I never thought about the tune coming over the radio being a problem, but the video can't be shown in Germany as a result of my carelessness. (Watch the red lights to see the point of the video).



And finally, here's the infamous metronome video, which was initially claimed by German extortionists, and for which Youtube refused to act on the obvious. It took a veiled threat of a licensure filing with BMI to get the idiots to back off.

Youtube: big PITA.

I DO give credit where credit is due! ALWAYS. But they flagged me for a public domain classical recording that I MADE MYSELF with my own midi instruments. They pulled if from MONITIZATION, and then sent me a thing saying this person or company flagged it: " " That's right: a BLANK SPACE!

I basically asked them WTH and they said they needed proof about my recording. REALLY? WTH! I didn't copyright MY recording, I pressed record and dropped it on my video. Do they want to come visit me and watch me hit PLAY on my recording or SEE the midi notation?
Dumb bots or very stupid humans running that crap now.

Meanwhile, a quick lookup and I found 10 other videos that ARE using copyrighted recording of that song on their videos ILLEGALLY. But I am singled out. Nice.

>>I would think if you are concerned about liability, deleting them is better than no deleting them. It may not remove liability, but it stops it from getting worse as well as demonstrates good faith on your part.<<

That's my hope.

I also had uploaded another multi-minute video that consisted of many 5 to 10 second clips edited together that were shot on the Vegas Strip of various hotels, casinos, and other sights. If anyone here has been on the Vegas Strip in recent years, you know that the hotels/casinos almost all have copyrighted music blasting loudly over outdoor speakers. (I assume they pay the royalties). Shooting with a camcorder, you can't help but pick up the sound. My impression is that as long as the song plays for less than 30 seconds in a youtube video, there is no copyright problem.

I base this 30-second limit on some guitar tutorials on youtube where the instructor plays a little of the original artist's version of the song, and then teaches how to play it. They stop playing the original song just short of 30 seconds and say that they can't play any more of it without copyright problems. I've seen this with more than one youtube instructor.

I don't know if they are right, but if so, then the 5-10 seconds of a particular song in each of the short clips in this video should be OK (I hope). (It wasn't flagged by youtube's content matching software.) The difference between this video and the two that I asked about in my OP is that the two Bellagio Fountain videos each had an entire song playing from beginning to end.

musicvid10, I already deleted the Fountain videos so can't give credit. For the other video I just discussed, I can't give credit because none of the music they play along the Vegas Strip these days is familiar to me. I don't know the song names or artists (showing my age here).

I always chuckle to myself, sometimes out loud, when I see YouTube posters dangle text below their videos with words to the effect of "no copyright infringement intended, and I'm giving boat loads of credit to the actual content owner, whoever that might be in case I don't know it." Terribly misinformed. Intent has nothing to do with copyright infringement liability.

The quoted passage really is a frank admission: I'm posting stuff I shouldn't, I acknowledge that I'm not the owner, I may even know who the owner is, I don't mean ill, but I have no idea if that makes a difference, and in any event I'm infringing the content owner's IP rights. ('Cause if I did know better I wouldn't be s-t-u-p-i-d enough to broadcast my admission to the world.)

Just don't say anything. Better, don't post copyrighted content without a license.

Rant over.

Sincerely,
IP attorney