Also I had a video that was copied several times and wasn't automatically detected (that's only for high level partners). When I reported the copies for copyright they would generally be taken down in about a half hour.
This seems to be one of the less surprising false-positives of Youtube's copyright detection algorithm. You match millions of hours of copyrighted material vs. noise, seems like you have a multiple testing problem and at least one thing will inadvertently match somewhere in the 10 hours noise video
Wonder what Youtube can do here, except speed up dispute resolution. With datasets of their size, false-positives seem inevitable.
Do copyright-owners just set the system to auto-monetization or -takedown? If so, maybe Youtube should change their policy to require more manual action from copyright owners.
Some kind of perceptual hashing and whatever additional magic YouTube uses to detect copyrighted stuff? Once a video is flagged, it can be added to the perceptual database in a fraction of a second and all future uploads checked against it, YouTube seems to have gotten good at it.
I had someone steal one of my videos on youtube. I reported it for infringement and it was taken down in 30 minutes. I found that pretty impressive.
A month ago one of my videos about a reported and fixed XSS vulnerability was taken down for violating some rules (it didn't say what rules exactly). I submitted an appeal and it was reinstated a few days later.
Several years ago one of my videos that used some public domain footage was taken down for copyright infringement. I appealed it saying the footage was in the public domain and they reinstated my video several days later.
I do not work for Google/Youtube (or BMF), but I have experience with their systems. The short version is that YouTube has an automated tool that scans for duplicates of copyrighted videos that have been uploaded by verified creators. It looks at every upload and compares it against a library of known videos for video and sound issues. When it gets a hit, it automatically classifies the video as containing potentially copyrighted content. Sounds like this got hit by the automated scanner.
Nothing in the notice means that BMF made a claim against this video in particular (in fact, it sounds like it's a private video, so there's no way BMF could review it). It's not a DMCA issue at all -- this is a system that YouTube chose to put in place completely unconnected to any DMCA claim system.
Sounds like this automated scanner result is wrong. I believe there is an appeal process, where a human will look at the video. Also note that the video is not being blocked in the meantime; it's still available.
The bigger problem that comes up is how can YouTube deal with the flood of video copycats (ever notice how every popular video leads to 20 copies of the same thing?) without stifling independent artists whose work gets a false positive in the scan system? It's an interesting challenge to get the right mix of false positives and negatives.
Please post what happens after you try the appeals process -- this could be a simple fix and I'd be curious to know.
It wouldn't be surprising. YouTube looks for video fingerprints of copyrighted data. Repurposing such technology to find copies of known CP videos would be pretty straightforward.
I thought that they already did this automatically? I uploaded a video I took from my old apartment, because I lived behind a club* you could hear music and Youtube automatically detected it on upload. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOANhQ9nQYk and the message I see via my account:
""Hi Friend", musical composition administered by:
EMI Music Publishing. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases, ads may appear next to your video. Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. Learn more about copyright on YouTube.".
I have also uploaded videos from TV shows that have been detected automatically as content owned someone else. This clip from a UK TV show "countdown": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuHREvK74-4
""Countdown-Countdown", audio-visual content administered by:
Channel 4" Your video is blocked in these locations: Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, United Kingdom. Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. Learn more about copyright on YouTube."
Doesn't this satisfy the courts that Youtube is going to great lengths to prevent this?
YouTubes contentID system is quite good at detecting just a couple seconds of sound to determine if something is copyrighted or not. It should be quite easy to match copies of content and just get rid of it straight away, meaning they don't have to see duplicates. I would assume they already do this. Which leads me to believe there's actually that much content being produced, I imagine most of it is not produced in the West though.
And youtube has a sophisticated detection system setup that scans uploads for copyrighted content automatically. I'm thinking with the press this app is getting they are going to be forced to do something similar and block illegal content, or take it offline soon.
YouTube partners can upload a collection of files they claim rights on, and a YouTube bot will check any newly published video against anything in that database.
It's all automated. They don't verify if the claimant actually has the rights, this is left to the "dispute" process.
Sometimes multiple companies upload the same files. Sometimes the algorithm has false positives because the section of audio used is too short.
YouTube itself does no patrolling. It can't have actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement if it wants to be protected by the DMCA; it's by turning a blind eye to it that they gain legal immunity from the infringement. You can be aware it's happening somewhere (even a lot) as long as you're not aware of the specific instances.
The media companies themselves do the patrolling and their actions, through a special dashboard YouTube provides them, result in the widespread takedowns you see. They can do their own flagging and also review potential matches by a ContentID-type system that checks uploads against signatures of files the media companies upload to claim as theirs.
which is why it is sensible practice to download the youtube video in question, the original author could simply delete it anyways and you'd have the same problem.
Maybe youtube could embed something like a signature in the video metadata so that a video file could be inspected for tampering?
YouTube does take lot of effort, to recognize and take action of copyright-infringement and piracy.
They even have some videos explaining what copyright-infringement is?
If a uploader is reported or found uploading any videos which breaks there terms of service for three times, your account is going to be permanently banned.
They do have complex algorithms, which searches for matching video content, once your video is uploaded, some uploaders just get away, by decreasing the screen size or by adding some watermarks or logos ...
Here's the part I find interesting. YouTube's content filtering system would have required UMG to upload a copy of the video (or at least have a copy on hand to generate the fingerprint)...
"YouTube has engineered a filtering system enabling rights holders to upload music and videos they own to a “fingerprinting” database."
Even if UMG isn't guilty of abuse of the DMCA takedown system, might they be guilty of copyright infringement for having made an unauthorized copy of the Megavideo and uploading it as their own? I would really like to know more about how YouTube's fingerprinting system works.
"YouTube does have automated copyright detection though"
And it is complete shit. I uploaded a video of my son playing Fur Elise on the piano and got an automated noticed from Google that I had uploaded a video infringing on some company's work. Completely absurd.
When I googled the company's name, I found countless people complaining of the same thing. One guy had a video in which a siren was going off and they claimed that was copyrighted!
Funny how they can automatically flag copyright for videos now even when x mirrored but they can't identify these videos.
I can't believe there's so much original content for this. Maybe they could share a db of hashes of known bad videos across sites and government agencies.
Also I had a video that was copied several times and wasn't automatically detected (that's only for high level partners). When I reported the copies for copyright they would generally be taken down in about a half hour.
reply