NM
After escaping the clutches of BBC WW previously I've now had a video of the BBC1 Ballet ident blocked in the UK. I've filed a dispute and hopefully it will get reinstated. Out of interest did you guys raise your disputes under fair use?
LL
I think it's the only option Youtube will let you claim, as everything else leads to a "well, you can't do that" statement.
After escaping the clutches of BBC WW previously I've now had a video of the BBC1 Ballet ident blocked in the UK. I've filed a dispute and hopefully it will get reinstated. Out of interest did you guys raise your disputes under fair use?
I think it's the only option Youtube will let you claim, as everything else leads to a "well, you can't do that" statement.
NM
Thanks. Just had another one - apparently a trail for the series Bedtime is actually My Family S2 E1 
LL
It's all down to Youtube's stupid policy that favours copyright holders over content creators, giving them all the freedom in the world to do what they want with other people's videos even when they have no right to do so. You don't have to look very far to find a case on Youtube to find a content creator be hit with claims and strikes because a copyright holder doesn't like a negative comment during a review or something, even though it's a textbook example of fair use. The content creators are left to fend for themselves. It saddens me that Youtube has gotten so big, otherwise it would've been relatively easy for a better and fairer rival to go up against it.
BE
Had to take down my "BBC1 Continuity 1st January 1987" clip for good. (1st time, Eastenders, 2nd time LOTSW trail) I wasn't going to edit the clip a 3rd time. Would have driven everybody nuts to see it being re-uploaded yet again.
Last edited by benriggers on 7 May 2016 6:45pm
:-(
A former member
All of the above makes me so glad I never chose the YouTube route to host my site's videos. True, I've had a couple of take down requests and a legal notice, but nothing that wasn't easily resolved as it was done on a human one-to-one level, rather than through an automated system.
DO
If YouTube didn't side with the copyright holders, it would have been sued out of existence by now. The site is entirely based on third parties uploading content they don't have the rights to, and Google make a fortune out of advertising to people viewing that content.
It's annoying that there isn't an easier, more friendly, method of managing copyright claims, especially when the copyright claim is secondary to the video purpose (I had an entire 10 hour live broadcast taken down the other week because of less than 30s of a Kanye West song being played in the background - and if you're over 2 hours you can't use YouTube's tools to get rid of the offending material, only re-upload after an edit). But it's the shear scale of copyright violation that goes on that means the automated route is the only realistic option.
[Another annoyance is not being able to find out who actually owns the copyright of a specific material, making it virtually impossible to know if you've managed to whitelist your channel from all the copyright claimants who're registered with the content ID system. There was a good example a couple of years ago where Kevin MacLeod had some of his own compositions taken down from his YouTube channel because another company had registered them as part of their library]
It's all down to Youtube's stupid policy that favours copyright holders over content creators, giving them all the freedom in the world to do what they want with other people's videos even when they have no right to do so. You don't have to look very far to find a case on Youtube to find a content creator be hit with claims and strikes because a copyright holder doesn't like a negative comment during a review or something, even though it's a textbook example of fair use. The content creators are left to fend for themselves. It saddens me that Youtube has gotten so big, otherwise it would've been relatively easy for a better and fairer rival to go up against it.
If YouTube didn't side with the copyright holders, it would have been sued out of existence by now. The site is entirely based on third parties uploading content they don't have the rights to, and Google make a fortune out of advertising to people viewing that content.
It's annoying that there isn't an easier, more friendly, method of managing copyright claims, especially when the copyright claim is secondary to the video purpose (I had an entire 10 hour live broadcast taken down the other week because of less than 30s of a Kanye West song being played in the background - and if you're over 2 hours you can't use YouTube's tools to get rid of the offending material, only re-upload after an edit). But it's the shear scale of copyright violation that goes on that means the automated route is the only realistic option.
[Another annoyance is not being able to find out who actually owns the copyright of a specific material, making it virtually impossible to know if you've managed to whitelist your channel from all the copyright claimants who're registered with the content ID system. There was a good example a couple of years ago where Kevin MacLeod had some of his own compositions taken down from his YouTube channel because another company had registered them as part of their library]
SP
"Entirely" based on third parties is a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of vloggers and others creating original content on YouTube.
DO
But that's not where YouTube made the money that attracted Google. If the copyrighted content went away, I don't think there would be many days pass before it shuts down. Besides, many of the vloggers / gamers, which seems to be the only other money making area, have expressed discontent with YouTube, many for the whole copyright situation.
"Entirely" based on third parties is a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of vloggers and others creating original content on YouTube.
But that's not where YouTube made the money that attracted Google. If the copyrighted content went away, I don't think there would be many days pass before it shuts down. Besides, many of the vloggers / gamers, which seems to be the only other money making area, have expressed discontent with YouTube, many for the whole copyright situation.
AE
Good Point. I accept and acknowledge the claims by doing as the website line says - which is to do nothing. I don't make money from the content that I upload so I'm fine at the Content ID front.
Can I just stress this once again... I've already explained this on Page 1.
I have videos that include footage that sources from BBC Worldwide. I was advised to dispute the claims providing I explain how the footage isn't a full episode or replicates the footage BBC Worldwide shows on YouTube. Every time I do, the claim is "rejected," but the block is removed providing I don't monetise the video, which I don't anyway. This is what appears on my video's information after the claim is "rejected". Notice the video is now available to view.
http://i67.tinypic.com/k36rye.png
http://i66.tinypic.com/dh7sec.png
I'm convinced this is some stupid automated system making numerous errors, especially in the case of pres videos on YouTube. It seems that when you dispute and explain yourself, they lift the ban and simply prevent you from making money from the video.
I'm not saying this is entirely risk-free - this is YouTube's copyright system after all - but if I can get away with using clips from videos BBC Worldwide have actually uploaded on YouTube then I'm sure they'll let you off for some continuity that they don't show. They don't use the godforsaken strike system, these are only copyright claims. In theory, if they do completely reject your claim, the worst that will happen is your video stays blocked. Claims don't affect your channel. Strikes do.
I have videos that include footage that sources from BBC Worldwide. I was advised to dispute the claims providing I explain how the footage isn't a full episode or replicates the footage BBC Worldwide shows on YouTube. Every time I do, the claim is "rejected," but the block is removed providing I don't monetise the video, which I don't anyway. This is what appears on my video's information after the claim is "rejected". Notice the video is now available to view.
http://i67.tinypic.com/k36rye.png
http://i66.tinypic.com/dh7sec.png
I'm convinced this is some stupid automated system making numerous errors, especially in the case of pres videos on YouTube. It seems that when you dispute and explain yourself, they lift the ban and simply prevent you from making money from the video.
I'm not saying this is entirely risk-free - this is YouTube's copyright system after all - but if I can get away with using clips from videos BBC Worldwide have actually uploaded on YouTube then I'm sure they'll let you off for some continuity that they don't show. They don't use the godforsaken strike system, these are only copyright claims. In theory, if they do completely reject your claim, the worst that will happen is your video stays blocked. Claims don't affect your channel. Strikes do.
Good Point. I accept and acknowledge the claims by doing as the website line says - which is to do nothing. I don't make money from the content that I upload so I'm fine at the Content ID front.