Lestat Umarov Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Alright. To start off one of my videos recently got disabled because it has a part of the song BYOB by system of a Down in it after WMG flagged it. Obviously someone reported it, but I'm not too concerned about this atm. Another video I put up has the entire song Never Gonna Give You Up by Rick Astley, and even says in the info that it contains content from that channel. What I'm asking is why the fuck a 20 second clip causes my video to be disabled and then a full song on another gets it endorsed. Is there any way to dispute this? And if so how? And how is using a song classified as fair use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygna Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) I think it's a general rule not to have full songs on youtube.com videos. Thing is, I think that due to the sheer mass of videos they recieve minutely, it's hard to weed out every video created that has broken a rule. I have had a video up, which has the full length song for Electric Six - I'm the Bomb for quite some time now and nothing has happened yet. I'm assuming It'll probabaly be there until (if) a youtube moderator finds it. Edited April 2, 2009 by Intus Infinity Removed youtube.com video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribena Homewood Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Youtube has now banned songs with their official music videos, maybe one of the reasons.Also, if the creator's music is copyright, it can be flagged by anyone, and Youtube'll see if it is copyright or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestat Umarov Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think it's a general rule not to have full songs on youtube.com videos. Thing is, I think that due to the sheer mass of videos they recieve minutely, it's hard to weed out every video created that has broken a rule. I have had a video up, which has the full length song for Electric Six - I'm the Bomb for quite some time now and nothing has happened yet. I'm assuming It'll probabaly be there until (if) a youtube moderator finds it.So does that mean it's fair use to have small portions of songs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Iredell Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Fair use, as it was in the good old days only applies to the free market. Such a thing has existed for sometime now until people realize that these public forums of all medium are actually under the direct control of a profiting body, such as a corporation. In practice, usage of any copyrighted item is allowed, so long as the origins are credited, and that no profit is being made on any such item (such as freely watched youtube videos). This of course means very little when the corporation in control of the modicum of distribution is told by the copyright holder that any and all uses of their material is to be removed without question. This would be the direct reason for there being videos taken down of more popular or commonly heard pieces, yet everything else remains of some alternate genre that uses it all as free marketing.Alternatively, as was mentioned, youtube will remove anything that undermines any of their first party development; such as official music videos they are being paid to host, for the sake of the record companies' market departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestat Umarov Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 So pretty much it was fair use but the corporation have stake in youtube to the point where it doesn't mean shit? and is there any ways I can dispute this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Iredell Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Yes, hosting the stuff sort of makes them all-powerful within it. Currently, all people do nowadays is simply name the video something ambiguous so it is never found, other than the rare reply, or linked to friends. Quite a bit of anime has been posted as well in three part segments with no proper titles.Dispute? AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!! Think of it as the 'one sheriff town' who can easily be above the law because he is the only law presiding. It doesn't matter even matter if it was an accident that he ran over your foot and punctured his tire, you're still going to prison for vandalism. It doesn't matter if that other house burned to the ground and you know who did it, it wasn't his house and that is all that matters. XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl Kiranov Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Simply providing such material for free doesn't make it "fair use". There is some judgment involved and it's actually quite complicated, but let me assure you that merging a song and some video clips and throwing it up on Youtube doesn't qualify. It's not a grand conspiracy but it's very easily misunderstood and this is why lawyers make the big bucks.In short: you may use parts (not all) of an item under copyright for non-profit *educational* purposes or for certain forms of review. You may also use part of an item under copyright to create something new, provided that the new work is NOT simply derivative. For example if a snowmeow copyrights his image and you create a parody drawing of him, that's fair use of his image to create something entirely new. If you make an anime music video and use a song that's under copyright, that's not fair use, whether it's provided free or not. If you rip a texture out of a game and apply it to a gun you create in SL, that's not fair use either. If it goes to court there will be a hard lesson.Keep in mind that judgment on borderline stuff almost always leans toward the copyright holder, so some stuff you might assume is okay will actually not be okay. It's not really about money or corporate pull... copyright law exists to protect creators and discourage reuse, so when in doubt the creator wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Iredell Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Well no, there is still plenty of corporate pull one way or the other. Marketing and advertising sponsorship takes precedent over users 'rights' in their domain. It didn't take record companies long to figure out they could get their latest stupid music out there by applying it to the 'most watched' internet site available, and has long since been standard affair that the 'copyright holders' therein only wish to control what media does get out and whether or not it profits them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
