Copyright Aid Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in   Main siteC A Main Site 

The Dreaded YouTube / Warner Chappell question

 
   Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Music Copyright

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Music Copyright
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stevie.a1
New Member
New  Member


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 9:21 am    Post subject: The Dreaded YouTube / Warner Chappell question Reply with quote

I recently recorded some songs on my phone at a live concert and subsequently posted them on YouTube thinking it would be nice to share them with friends and the outside world in general. I was surprised by the result on two of the five videos I posted. (Lyin’ Eyes) and (Hotel California)

The links to the posted videos were given, but when I clicked them to review them the audio track had been Disables by YouTube. These are the emails I received:
Your video, Ultimate Eagles - Lyin' Eyes, may have content that is owned or licensed by Warner Chappell.
No action is required on your part; however, if you're interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

Your video, Ultimate Eagles - Hotel California, may have content that is owned or licensed by Warner Chappell.

No action is required on your part; however, if you're interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

The songs are by the band Eagles and were being performed by a Tribute band Ultimate Eagles. I disputed the items in question asking if they could explain why and that as YouTube vigorously promote “Mobile Sharing” I was very surprised by their response. Within about 30 Minutes they are cleared back with the audio track un-blocked.

I have since found out that this is happening a lot with Warner Chappell. It would seem that they are monitoring certain songs and are instantly blocking them. Which in my mind is some what unfair and must be infringing some sort of freedoms??

I know copyright law is a complete minefield so if there is a chance you could give me your considered opinion, I’d be grateful.

I've noted your requirement ref urls and removed them
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevie.a1
New Member
New  Member


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi BTW. The band and the venure both conform with PRS requirements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1604

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Stevie, As a music lover I'm sure you are aware that record companies generally are being very pro-active in their attempts to stamp out piracy. They employ other companies to constantly examine sites like YouTube and Vimeo for items they think may have infringed their clients copyright. Given that hundreds of thousands of items are posted every day, they naturally use computer technology to search on keywords, such as the titles of songs, and the same programs also automatically issue so-called DMCA take-down notices to the content hosts. YouTube know that they face being sued if they do not act, so tend to take the easy route, possibly again without any human being actually looking at the disputed material. I suspect that the first time a human being becomes truly engaged in the process is when a poster appeals, as you did. Then as it becomes clear that this was not the Eagles themselves, but an authorised use of the lyrics by a tribute band, YouTube realised there was no basis for the Warner Chappell complaint.
Technically speaking Warner Chappell have committed an offence under US law in issuing a takedown notice which makes a false claim, however as far as I am aware the US courts have not so far found any record company (or other complainant) guilty where the take-down notice has been issued by a computer.
On an equally technical legal issue, you may well have infringed the copyright in the performance of the tribute band by publishing your recording! Let's hope they don't complain to YouTube.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevie.a1
New Member
New  Member


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Andy. This is facinating stuff. I think I'm safe from the guys (I hope Smile ) Incidently The Hotel California vid has again been taken down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Music Copyright All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
 

You must be logged in to post  Log inLog in
Want to join in? New members are always welcome  RegisterRegister & join the discussion

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group