YouTube Help Requested

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 12/01/2018 at 13:40 • Filed to: None

0

9

My most popular video, which has been up for over a year, just had a copyright claim filed against it this month. I had AC/DC on the radio (which I do a lot as they’re one of my favorite bands) and I guess whatever production company licenses them has been cracking WAY down on copyright claims because all of my videos that include me listening to AC/DC on the radio (dash cam videos) have now been blocked. I would just go ahead and erase the audio, since Y ouT ube gives the option to erase/replace copyrighted audio to unblock your video. Unfortunately, every time I go to erase the audio, I get a message that says “Sorry, an error occurred. Your video edits could not be saved.” So now I’m stuck with audio I can’t change on a video nobody can see anymore. How do I fix this without deleting/reuploading the video?

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/01/2018 at 13:44

5

Pretty sure your background music is incidental and falls squarely under fair use.

You should look into the Prince Dancing Baby case, as that should give you the legal precident by which to dispute the takedown request.

Whomever is combing videos for AC/DC is abusing the takedown request system by targeting your videos.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/01/2018 at 13:50

1

Here is the case in question.

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

Just Jeepin' > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/01/2018 at 13:53

2

YouTube almost certainly doesn’t care, though. Sm70 doesn’t pose as grave a legal/financial threat as the copyright owner.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Just Jeepin' 12/01/2018 at 13:56

2

So we should just capitulate and let our corporate overlords win without a fight?

Fucking fight back. Throw the law back at them.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/01/2018 at 14:01

1

I filed a claim, we’ll see. The claims get reviewed by the copyright holder, not YouTube.

Chariotoflove > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/01/2018 at 14:13

2

Nothing helpful from me, just expressing solidarity. This is a bullshit abuse of copyright law. 

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/01/2018 at 15:33

2

And that is why this system is broken. Counter claims should be reviewed by non-biased parties.

bhtooefr > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/01/2018 at 16:17

0

Under the DMCA, YouTube is supposed to reinstate within 10-14 days unless the copyright holder files a lawsuit... but YouTube’s process isn’t actually under the DMCA.

facw > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/01/2018 at 18:46

0

Yes, it’s fair use, no it doesn’t matter. If this were a DMCA takedown request, there would be legal process he could follow to get reinstated. However, this is almost certainly not a real copyright takedown notice, but rather a claim made according to the terms of a deal Youtube made with rights holders. Because it’s just an arrangement between two companies, it doesn’t matter whether sm70 could legally use the audio snippet.