Well if you suspected that the claim wasn't actually in the end from
OUP, I would have thought it was possible to dispute it. Skempton is
indeed very much in copyright, but whether his work is actively
claimed for by the owners is another matter. My video of a piece by
Torroba (guitar) got no claims on it, but one on an arrangement f
Mussorgsky by Segovia (this is getting rather off-lute) did. It's
still rather a mess.
Personally I'd rather they put ads on absolutely everything and gave
the creators a slice.
Tangentially, I suspect pretty well the only time an advertiser gets
any money is when a clumsy or inebriated viewer tries to dismiss an
ad and accidently misses the little cross, inadvertently scoring a
click-through.
In case I didn't relate this the last time this subject came up, when
I first uploaded something that was definitely in copyright, I
thought to test the boundaries, so I first uploaded it with
absolutely no identifying text either in the description, or within
the video itself. Amazingly, the piece was recognised, purely from
the audio in my performance, as claimable. I then did the same but
with a piece of mine, and no claim appeared.
If in the end you feel that you put a lot of effort into the
recording, that it works well, isn't it slightly cutting off your own
nose to delete it, simply in squeamishness at having ads on it? I
don't like them either but suspect that if the owners of YT had not
found a way to make it pay, the site would have closed years ago, as
it ran for many years without turning a penny.
Stephen
On 31 Oct 2013, at 15:38, WALSH STUART wrote:
On 31/10/2013 15:13, Stephen Kenyon wrote:
I've had this on one or two things and many other users have had
utterly and completely spurious claims on things that are
centuries out of copyright - but which may well exist in current
editions of course.
There definitely are a number of scamming organisations
automatedly sweeping up things like yours. You are likely to find
that ads are put over or by your video if you acknowledge the claim.
Personally I would delete the upload and start again, omitting
mention of OUP. And if it happens again try disputing it. I did
this on my Tarrega Capricho video and the claim went away.
Stephen
Thanks - sounds like good advice. But I can't dispute it, given
the youtube options for dispute. Tarrega must be well out of
copyright but Skempton's piece was published in 1994.
Stuart
On 31 Oct 2013, at 15:04, WALSH STUART wrote:
No doubt it's all my fault - but this is a strange case. I
uploaded a video to youtube yesterday and I got a notification:
"Matched third-party content".
That's not the really odd bit though.
The video I uploaded was a modern piece and I've done similar
before and in the description I have written the publication and
the date. But yesterday, perhaps
in a senior moment, I also included the publisher, OUP. As it
was uploading I got a notification that it was taking longer
than normal. I thought something was odd
and deleted the reference to OUP - but, perhaps too late. On the
other hand it's also possible that notification of "Matched
third-party content" is not connected at all to my including
OUP in the description.
If I click on "Matched third-party content" I get this screen:
http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Untitled-1.jpg
So my video 'may include a song owned by a third party' and one
or more music publishing societies may administer the rights. But
the really, really odd thing is that youtube is
very clear at the point in the video in which the 'matched
content' starts...15 seconds in... not from the beginning. But I
am playing from the very start of the video and after 15 seconds
I've got to bar 12. So the first 15 bars of Howard Skempton's
Prelude 5 from Images is not 'matched content' but after 15
seconds, for an unspecified amount of time, it is. I now have two
options:
to dispute or acknowledge this. (And I don't know what
'acknowledge' amounts to)
I contacted Howard Skempton, who seems to be a sporting chap and
doesn't mind me having a crack at his pieces on a lute, and told
him about this. He strongly urged me to dispute the matter.
If I choose to dispute it, I get this screen:
http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Untitled-2.jpg
There are seven options and the first three tell me that they are
not valid and the 'acknowledge' button is inviting me to press
it. Howard Skempton tells me that OUP hold the rights. I
haven't got a licence or permission from OUP (just as hundreds of
thousands of others on youtube who are playing music from books
they have - or haven't - bought).
Fair enough, I reluctantly suppose, OUP are the holders of the
rights of the score and I haven't got specific permission from
OUP (even though the actual composer is fine about it and I
played the piece
and took the photo).
But what does 'acknowledge' mean? And what about the first 15
seconds?
Could this possibly be some sort of scam? If I click
'acknowledge' do adverts start appearing and the minute amount of
money start flowing - or trickling - to some dodgy copyright
corporation?
Stuart
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
