October 16, 2021

18 thoughts on “YouTube’s content ID system brings humbug to the holidays

  1. This has been going on for years. You think you have it bad? Just try uploading anything with classical music and watch the feeding frenzy of competing automated copyright claims begin. Appeals go to the claimant, and even if you have rock-solid evidence that (a) it’s not their performance and (b) you bought a license to use it, the appeal is almost always denied. And if the appeal succeeds, the next claimant pops up and monetizes your video, and you’re right back to where you started.

  2. Fraudulent claims should carry a financial penalty for damages. That would reduce them right away.

  3. I was wondering if it is possible to give those false claimants some of their money back. Can anybody make a claim against anybody? And what is the charge for such a clam? Is it free?

  4. I’ve had the same thing happen to me, except it for playing Chopin’s Fantaisie Impromptu on the piano. It was composed in 1834, Chopin died in 1849, and the piece was published posthumously by Fontana in 1855. Yet after posting a video on Youtube of me personally playing this piece on piano, I got no less than 5 notices of “matched third party content” from Warner Chappell, AdRev Publishing, and others. Basically they claimed the right to monetize my video, despite them having nothing to do with it (since the video was of me playing on the piano), and the piece has long entered into public domain. I highly doubt my playing is of a quality that’s similar to any recording artist. I disputed all of the claims and they were all eventually removed, although it’s a good thing I wasn’t actually trying to monetize the videos myself anyway, but I didn’t want ads on it whose revenue would just go to somebody else.

    I get that companies are out to make a profit, but it’s a huge travesty that Youtube implemented this third party content thing that lets music corporations take over user’s content and profit off of them, even if the corporations have nothing to do with the user’s work. Keep in mind that Youtube profits from this because the music corporations pay Youtube to automatically try to match every upload to samples of what they claim is their copyright. And the music corporations in turn profit by the monetization, and by essentially decreasing competition (i.e. content that’s not theirs that people may be more interested in) by increasing other people’s workload, since disputing the matches is done individually and manually, but matching the content is automated — so it’s more of a hassle for users to upload their own content.

    If there were a video hosting alternative to Youtube that’s free, I’d be all for it. I would like to upload more samples of me playing the piano, but it’s a hassle to have to deal with the disputes every time.

  5. Even more silly is…didn’t anyone at YouTube even realize that they OFFER a free version of Silent Night through there Audio Library for free use by anyone both on and off YouTube? You can search for “silent night” here and see the 2 versions they offer: http://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary

  6. Oh, wow. I’m genuinely curious if anybody got a fraudulent content ID claim for using the Audio Library’s versions of “Silent Night”, Phantom. That would be hilarious. Frustrating, yes, but also so ridiculous that anybody would HAVE to laugh.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: