My video with 47M views was stolen on YouTube [video]

Post by Andre607 » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

sireat wrote: post #87

Andre607 wrote: post #73

YouTube's approach to takedowns is, simply put, appalling. I'm not just referring to the automated Content ID system, which has a vast catalog of false identification, but am talking about the manual, human confirmation of takedowns. My 'favourite' (in the sense of most egregious) example of what I am talking about is the case where YouTube's Content ID flagged the sound of birds in someone's garden as being copyrigh…

Similarly, a friend of mine recorded waves crashing at a sea and it got flagged by Content ID. Some music video (by Sony subsidiary) contained a small sample of waves crashing from a completely different sea. I told him to appeal and appeal he did and yes the claim was upheld. I told him to fight on because this first level upheld is what throws people off and what the Content ID abusers are hoping for. On the 2nd ap…

Post by jnbiche » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #74

jnbiche wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of timestamping services out there, both blockchain-based and otherwise. If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims. Also, these services are usually reasonably priced, and sometimes even free, so it would be reasonable to use even if you're making several videos a day.

> If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims. The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.

Post by j-c-hewitt » Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

fenomas wrote: post #79

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can file a counterclaim, though. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate. He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no fr…

From your link: > The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled ... It should not be pursued under any other circumstances. GP's whole point is that counterclaims don't work here, because the content hasn't been removed, just re-monetized.

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #85

aw3c2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure that those are not actual copyright claims in a DMCA sense. Sadly Youtube is using some internal system with these claims. I assume they were pressured into this by the music industry for ease of squeezing money out of it.

Actually the DMCA requires large players to create some kind of automated system to prevent infringement.

Post by jackvalentine » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 12:56 AM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #93

jackvalentine wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a video creator timestamps their video as soon as they create, and before they upload it, it could prove definitively these kinds of fraudulent claims. The immediate issue I see here is timestamping other people’s videos who produced them in the past, or for a different service, or just plain old didn’t know they needed to timestamp their video to protect it.

If you're goal is only to prove that you invented something before some random patent troll did, then that issue doesn't matter so much. At the least, it's very, very strong evidence for a trial. Along with also emailing your lawyer or notary public a copy of the timestamp as soon as you create it, these factors would be virtually unassailable in a court of law.