Jump to content

Youtube vids...


tng5737
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recorded three of my presentations with my camera and uploaded them to Youtube. One was ok, another had a notice saying it contained copyrighted material and the third said it may be blocked in some countries. I have seen other youtube content which contained similar material. Is there a recommended way to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they were: Carol of the Bells, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, and Where are You Christmas. Youtube uses some software written by Google called 'Content Identification Tool'. I think it creates a "fingerprint" of the song as it is being uploaded, then matches it against a database of known signatures. If it finds a match it checks what permissions the real content owner wants to have applied. It is probably not a simple scheme. My guess is that they apply filters and also probably sample specific segments of the content to generate their sigantures. In other words, just adding additional sounds to the piece wouldn't be sufficient to defeat their scheme. To be honest, if the copyright owner doesn't want us to use it then I am ok with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I acknowledge your point about the copyright holder, even though I think it's dumbheaded thinking on their part. Seems to me they can only sell more music when people see/hear their song in a positive and joyous environment such as what we provide.

But there IS such a thing as fair use allowed in copyright laws and many people, including me, feel that what we do falls into that category. Unless you consider bad sequencing, or should I say impaired sequencing skills, to be somehow derogatory with regards to the music, I fail to see how what we do harms the copyright holder in any way. I consider that what I'm doing is interpreting their work and my light display is the medium through which I express that interpretation. And from that perspective I resent boobtube indiscriminately deciding whether my art, or yours, has a right to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand those thoughts and agree that it should be allowed. If you think about it, pretty much everything that has been done digitally in the last few years has been with only one idea in mind - "controll the content". The entertainment industry wants you to pay for each and every use of their content - be it music or movies. It is no accident that television went digital. I have always thought that the best solution is to cut down on copyright length so that any product over three years old automatically goes into public domain. That is plenty of time to make their money off of it and rewards the artist and producers thus encouraging further works. At any rate, I am going off topic here, so I'll stop. The Vimeo works just fine. The whole idea of the vids wasn't to go public anyway. I just wanted some of my distant relatives to see the house! This being my first atempt, I'm rather proud of the outcome of all my planning and hard work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter is on the womens rowing team at UA. We went to the last regatta in Chattanooga in November and I shot some horrible video with my Zi8, which of course recorded the PA announcer and his background jazz music. When I posted on boobtube I got the same warning. This was a huge public event and I simply recorded the it, background and all. While I agree that artist should be paid, there is such thing as advertisment of your goods. Money ruins many things. ASCAP hit me years ago for playing the radio in my store and as hold music on the phone. We paid the fee and they went on their merry way.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had mine blocked. They have now unblocked all of them as I have put forward a copyright challenge. Fair Use makes the burden of proof go on the Plaintiff. Here are the two lines I'm using:

"No harm is made to the market of the copyrighted work. It is of a different form and could in fact help the copyright owner gain further profitable distribution through its chosen means."

"The market for the original work is not substantially diminished by the fair use of the video. To the contrary, the video could increase exposure of the original work and lead to greater profitable distribution by the copyright owner."

After all, a good argument can be made with the top iTunes download lists. For 2010 the top download was Train's "Soul Sister" song that was widely used in every available media without refrain. The result was a huge increase in consumer purchasing of the song. For a copyright owner to prove violation they must prove that the market for their product was severely jeopardized. Seems that data clearly shows that the more play a song has, the more interest there is for consumers to buy the track - free advertising if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...