Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Youtube Copyright Notice, Chopin

I've gotten a couple YouTube copyright notices on Chopin pieces, saying I'm playing pieces owned by a third party. It seems ridiculous that someone could prevent me from uploading a recording of me playing Chopin, after more than 100 years.

Does anyone have experience with this? Did they mistakenly match my performance to a recording they manage, or is uploading an original recording not allowed?

Here's a screenshot of the message.

Screenshot

Thanks,

-Scott

Don't worry. File a dispute and it will go away.

Youtube does automatic content matching so there's no way to avoid these notices.

I have those notices in most of my piano videos. I just ignore them as they don't have any impact on the video at all.

One more good reason to compose music: You get youtube off your back!

Sorry for not adding anything useful, but everything's already been said...

I uploaded solfeggietto a while back and got the same message. I clicked "acknowledge" and nothing happened. I took the video down later, but for reasons unrelated to the copyright notice. However since there are multiple publishers of these songs and even copyright-void publications of the same songs, "dispute" might be a better option. These messages might crop up in case you happen to make money from ads on your videos, or if you in some other way attempt to get money from the video. But who owns this song, really? Anyhow I don't know what it all means but I can see from your screenshot there is a button you can click to get more information.

I wish it were so. Change "will" to "might" and I agree. But in the meantime there is a claim, and any monetization goes away.

I have had some rights holders (EMI, for instance) behave like a bulldog until I found a way to get inside the company. I took one dispute to Norman Lebrecht, who happily blasted away at EMI on his blog. One of his posters knew a lawyer at EMI, and that was the way I got them off my back. Really a pain in the parts.

It's a form of harassment. Most people won't fight back. I did. And it's a big problem in classical music, where the likelihood that someone is truly overdubbing is low in comparison to the use of copyrighted pop music. The EMI lawyer admitted that and thought that they should just leave classical stuff alone. But no, the system persists.

The "learn more" link send me here . There isn't anything specific to my video.

The original page says Kobalt Music Group owns the copyright. I think they must have matched a portion of my recording to a recording that they manage.

All is further complicated by many "public domain" pieces having copyrighted "arrangements."

I received one of those notices for a Chopin video I uploaded for my mother. It consisted of my performance (yikes!) and my photographs. I replied telling them the copyright was long expired and it was my performance. Never heard back and the video is still available.

Scott,

Just fill out the dispute form. If the playing is completely yours, check the box that says there is no 3rd party content and that you own it all. Electronically sign the form, and then wait.

Apparently this is a large problem, both for amateurs and professionals. Something has to go to give, because there are several profesional artists out there who have lost the ability to have their performances on youtube, sometimes for several months at a time, while a dispute is worked out.

There appear to be both internal "matching" algorithms within youtube, as well as external labels/entities who are trolling youtube for matches themselves. The conflict, at least according to one artist, is that some of the less scrupulous entities are seeking out "matches" and then after the takedown notice is issued, and the video is no longer accessible, they helpfully suggest an artist sign with them in some way in order (along with payment) to avoid "problems like these" in the future. In other words, they will simply pass over this artist for any future "content matching."

If that's truly the case, then something is terribly wrong.

I have not uploaded anything to youtube that would be recognizable, not to mention the fact that I am an amateur anyway. Not that it seems to matter. Everybody seems to be getting caught up in the trawl net that is content matching. Anyway, I only have a few "complete" pieces, and they're all on soundcloud.

That would be called a protection racket.

It does feel rather mafia-like.

I wonder if RICO applies.

Well...I think it might, SnowSnow; it goes hand in hand with an alleged and erroneous infringement upon the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act of 1988. All it requires is for someone to know the Copyright Protection act to recognise such claims are false and there's nothing they've done illegally...um...of course, to try and receive reparation would, naturally, be an incredibly long and litigious affair; the likes of which most aspiring artists simply don't have the resources with which to cope...I *think*
Xxx

I agree with that most people won't fight back, because most people are way too complacent listening tons of free music on youtube, i.e. they are "takers." Until they become "givers" they won't even notice the problem until it's too late.

Is it too late right now for classical music? I would say yes. But fortunately Chopin's work is all in public domain so nobody really has any legal ground in taking down any Chopin videos. Will this change in the future? Yes and the record industry/government is doing everything they can to tighten copyright laws.

I have filed many disputes over my youtube videos. I curse at them every time.

All my videos (public/private) are still intact. This is just a "carpet bombing" strategy enforced by record labels.

Man, Chopin's lawyers can be pit bulls!

Technically, it's not Chopin's lawyer. It's some other entity holding some performance copy-right of some pianists' lawyer.

I bet Chopin wouldn't mind performing his music during his time.

Alan,

The music isn't being challenged because of public domain issues. The "content ID" system that YouTube uses "matches" someone's home playing of a Chopin piece to an existing recording by famous pianist so-and-so. Then so-and-so's representative (EMI, Orchard, Harry Fox) slaps a complaint on the video without even looking at it. That complaint permits the "rights holder" to place advertisements in the video, or to pull it down, and the EMI's of the world don't have to prove their case at all.

The YouTube content ID system is exceedingly crude. Various rights holders have claimed that my son's videos have been stolen from Samson Francois, Steven Hough, and even Daniel Barenboim. Totally ridiculous claims if anyone had bothered to listen to the clearly non-professional playing and recording. But the "rights holder" has no interest in actually being fair. That would cost real employee time, and hence real money. They just throw their muddy claims and presume that most people will just not contest them. That way they can pull down whatever they want, or dump advertisements in thousands of videos that they don't really own.

I just got ornery and fought back. It took me weeks to get satisfaction, all without any compensation from these "rights holders."

Here's an example of fighting back:

EMI and Barenboim

This Just In: EMI Apologizes

There is no reason why the posting public should be judged guilty of copyright violation without a process that requires the "rights holder" companies to show cause beyond the demonstrably inaccurate (that's an overly polite way of saying totally bull****) computer matching systems.

If I may note something:

I was browsing through some pop songs and of course the uploaders had NOTHING to do with the copyright holders. BUT they were earning money, cause every single video had an ad preview (which is annoying as heck in youtube)...

In that case, and this IS the majority of issues, youtube is very right to do that matching thing and stopping all those people from earning out of nothing!