Dear Stuart and Stephen,
You may recall some years ago Hyperion got into trouble with recording
a piece by Charpentier (or someone similar I recall). The point wasn't
that the work itself was still in copyright (clearly the composer was
long dead) but that even though the band involved had purchased the
parts etc the ruling was that the edition contained (almost by
definition) some new work - however minuscule - which was still in
copyright. Thus, as I understood it, purchasing the parts gave them the
right to play the piece but not to publicly perform it without some
payment to the editor or their agents. It may be that this is the
issue here.
regards
Martyn
__________________________________________________________________
From: Stephen Kenyon <[email protected]>
To: WALSH STUART <[email protected]>
Cc: lutelist Net <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2013, 15:53
Subject: [LUTE] Re: youtube copyright conundrum! Any advice?
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:
>>>
>>> [1]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:
>>>
>>> [2]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.
>>> [3]http://www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
> Antivirus protection is active.
> [5]http://www.avast.com
>
>
--
References
1. http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Untitled-1.jpg
2. http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Untitled-2.jpg
3. http://www.avast.com/
4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. http://www.avast.com/
