youtube 'copyright infringement'

Subject: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: meself
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 01:07 PM

There were on youtube, for a time, quite a number of amateur video/audio recordings from the 1960s of Cape Breton fiddlers who were or would become prominent in that scene (e.g., Little Mary MacDonald, Alex Francis MacKay). In the past six months or so, many if not most of these have been removed "for numerous copyright violations". This is curious, because all or certainly almost all of the tunes played in any given clip would be "public domain" (trad., Skinner, Gow, etc.). Now, awhile back I posted a clip of a student playing a Skinner tune - and received notice that it had been cited for 'copyright violation' - the copyright apprently belonged to an entity with a name something like "The Misty Lark's Wing Faery Ensemble". I responded with a polite note giving Skinner's vital stats., and insinuating that "The Misty Lark's Wing Faeries" were no more than a bunch of conniving low-life crooks. I heard no more about the matter, and the clip remained active. I'm afraid that others though, in face of the rather stern form-warning from youtube, are either too intimidated to present their case, or simply can't be bothered - and thus we, the public, lose access to wonderful material.

Comments?

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: Leadfingers
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 06:37 PM

There is a VAST difference between copyright of an Arrangement , and copyright of a tune or song !

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 08:55 PM

I do the tech stuff for a women's center in Sacramento. Some kindly volunteer made a slide show of pictures he had taken at the center, and he used a recording of a baroque piece to accompany the slide show. I posted the video, thinking nothing of it. A few months later, I received an e-mail from YouTube telling me the baroque piece was a recording by thus-and-such orchestra, and therefore was prohibited.
Fussy, fussy, fussy....
-Joe-

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 09:40 PM

Frustrating! Some of my favorite videos have been taken off YouTube because of the copyright thing.

The best duel scene, by far, in any movie is the one in the 1940 version of "The Mark of Zorro" between Tyrone Power, a genuinely good fencer, and Basil Rathbone, an excellent fencer. For the duel in the alcalde's study, they sent Fred Cavens, the studio fight director out for a beer and worked the duel out between the two of them. No chasing each other up and down stairs, no swinging on chandeliers, just good, solid swordplay.

Not historically authentic because the setting was in early 1800s California, and they were using a style of saber fencing promulgated by an Italian fencing master in the early 1900s (Hungarian-Italian school)--and the sabers they were using could be obtained out of a recent fencing equipment catalog. And--I think Rathbone was probably using his own person fencing saber. It looked like the guard and knucklebow were made of aluminum, a metal I don't think was available back in early California.

One helluva great duel scene though. They went at it like they really meant business!!

Last time I looked for the video, I got the copyright notice. Damn!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 10:54 PM

Can't find it?

Source been removed?

Still in copyright?

Owned by Disney?

Try a creative search on "chillingeffects.org"

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

better than torrent or pirate...you can thank folks like our kind Esq Bridge.

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 04:01 AM

Posted on a similar thread before. I videoed some friends singing Burns songs, with their consent posted the video, got the copyright warning. Told them Rabbie has been deid for over 250 years, heard no more and the video is still there.

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: GUEST,Chris B
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 04:19 AM

Try uploading to Vimeo - they seem to be more relaxed about this.

Mind you the most copyright violations that keep popping up during genuine Google searches seems to be clips from bl**dy hard-core porn films. Maybe its this multi-billion dollar 'industry' that is driving this draconian move against copyright infringement.

But YouTube and others now have this technology to extract a video clip of music and assign a reference to the original recording. If that recording is then registered for copyright then YouTube seems to issue a warning or more likely simply deletes the said clip.

I see on YouTube that numerous folk have uploaded recordings from 78rpm records as well as cylinders. It would be sad to lose those.

It would also be sad to see the BBC comedy and other OTR programmes deleted. But the BBC is flexing its copyright muscles right now and recently got closed down RadioDwnloader, TheBox.bz, and RadioArchive.cc.

The real problem is that copyright laws are different in every country but being US-centric I expect that YouTube applies whatever draconian law is current in the US. And I understand now that there is legislation being formulated to claim copyright on historic recordings going back 100 years.

This whole issue is worrying because so much is now getting deleted - even from Archive.org - that soon there wont be anything left to listen to. Already its impossible to find historic recordings even of folk music.

Subject: RE: youtube 'copyright infringement'
From: Howard Jones
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 06:30 AM

If you want to do the right thing and get permission to use copyright material it's not easy for something like this. The copyright agencies don't seem to have caught up with current technology.

I was thinking of putting my cover version of something on Soundcloud and enquired with PRS/MCPS if there was an appropriate licence. If I was putting it on a CD this could be done for a very modest cost. All they could offer was a licence which seems to be aimed at someone setting up a music download service, at a quite disproportionate cost. I'm left with the choice of either only putting up public domain and own copyright material or taking a chance. It's hardly surprising that most people do the latter.