RCA/Sony putting down the hammer

[1015elvis]

Apparently, RCA / Sony is putting down the hammer for any of my videos that have a song from the Elvis on Tour concerts. Blocked How Great Thou Art, Are You Lonesome Tonight and An American Trilogy although that version was from January. So I'm currently disputing them, even thought I don't own them, just to see where it goes.

[pmp]

Apparently, RCA / Sony is putting down the hammer for any of my videos that have a song from the Elvis on Tour concerts. Blocked How Great Thou Art, Are You Lonesome Tonight and An American Trilogy although that version was from January. So I'm currently disputing them, even thought I don't own them, just to see where it goes.

Why would you dispute them? They own the rights, fair and square.

[1015elvis]

Like I said, to see where it goes. I make no money from this, it's up to them to say, nah, it's ours. Plus I don't like things getting blocked and other elvis fans not being able to see my videos. The only one I shouldn't have done was the one above. I'm fighting the American Trilogy one because it's not the version that was sited. Two of the videos are compliations from other stuff. I rather them just take the money then too outright block it. Mock me if you will

[kieranjames]

Like I said, to see where it goes. I make no money from this, it's up to them to say, nah, it's ours. Plus I don't like things getting blocked and other elvis fans not being able to see my videos. The only one I shouldn't have done was the one above. I'm fighting the American Trilogy one because it's not the version that was sited. Two of the videos are compliations from other stuff. I rather them just take the money then too outright block it. Mock me if you will

It's worth disputing. In my experience, YouTube usually relent and allow the video to go live if you tell them it is for educational purposes only and is not monetised by you. Of course YouTube will add adverts anyway and monetise it for themselves.

[kieranjames]

Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but if the copyright holder asks for something to be removed then why would YouTube have any say and be able to overturn the request?

I think in a lot of cases it's not the copyright holder asking for something to be removed, but rather youtube's algorithms identifying a source (which can happen even before the video goes live). In which case the decision is reversible. If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld. This is what I think happens from my experience anyway.

[pmp]

Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but if the copyright holder asks for something to be removed then why would YouTube have any say and be able to overturn the request?

I think in a lot of cases it's not the copyright holder asking for something to be removed, but rather youtube's algorithms identifying a source (which can happen even before the video goes live). In which case the decision is reversible. If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld. This is what I think happens from my experience anyway.

That will only happen at the moment you upload the video and a check is done. After that, it is copyright holders claiming what is theirs. On the one hand you want the outtakes released, and on the other hand you want to give them away for free.

[kieranjames]

Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but if the copyright holder asks for something to be removed then why would YouTube have any say and be able to overturn the request?

I think in a lot of cases it's not the copyright holder asking for something to be removed, but rather youtube's algorithms identifying a source (which can happen even before the video goes live). In which case the decision is reversible. If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld. This is what I think happens from my experience anyway.

That will only happen at the moment you upload the video and a check is done. After that, it is copyright holders claiming what is theirs. On the one hand you want the outtakes released, and on the other hand you want to give them away for free.

What are you talking about? I'm not giving away any outtakes for free. I'm just giving my experience of the Youtube copyright system.
Must you pick a fight with everyone?

[pmp]

Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but if the copyright holder asks for something to be removed then why would YouTube have any say and be able to overturn the request?

I think in a lot of cases it's not the copyright holder asking for something to be removed, but rather youtube's algorithms identifying a source (which can happen even before the video goes live). In which case the decision is reversible. If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld. This is what I think happens from my experience anyway.

That will only happen at the moment you upload the video and a check is done. After that, it is copyright holders claiming what is theirs. On the one hand you want the outtakes released, and on the other hand you want to give them away for free.

What are you talking about? I'm not giving away any outtakes for free. I'm just giving my experience of the Youtube copyright system.
Must you pick a fight with everyone?

I mistook you for the opening poster.

But nobody is picking a fight.

Sony has an EOT set coming out in a few months, and so they don't want the audio available for free on YouTube. It's perfectly natural that a copyright holder wants to protect its interests. And, again, the algorithm mostly comes into play when the video is first uploaded, so this is more likely a direct intervention from the copyright holders.

Anyone challenging that is basically saying that it's a mistake and that THEY have the right to post the videos - which isn't true, and it's likely to end up at some point with the account holder being chucked off YouTube for making false statements with regards to copyright claims. Whether money is being made from the video or not is utterly immaterial, and such a video isn't for educational purposes.

[kieranjames]

It's perfectly natural that a copyright holder wants to protect its interests. And, again, the algorithm mostly comes into play when the video is first uploaded, so this is more likely a direct intervention from the copyright holders.

Anyone challenging that is basically saying that it's a mistake and that THEY have the right to post the videos - which isn't true, and it's likely to end up at some point with the account holder being chucked off YouTube for making false statements with regards to copyright claims. Whether money is being made from the video or not is utterly immaterial, and such a video isn't for educational purposes.

So then you only watch youtube videos from official sources?
You're a little bit of a hypocrite aren't you?

Volumes 3 & 4. The fourth one includes the four songs recorded by The City Surfers, a short-lived surf group featuring Frank Gari, Roger McGuinn and Bobby!

[pmp]

It's perfectly natural that a copyright holder wants to protect its interests. And, again, the algorithm mostly comes into play when the video is first uploaded, so this is more likely a direct intervention from the copyright holders.

Anyone challenging that is basically saying that it's a mistake and that THEY have the right to post the videos - which isn't true, and it's likely to end up at some point with the account holder being chucked off YouTube for making false statements with regards to copyright claims. Whether money is being made from the video or not is utterly immaterial, and such a video isn't for educational purposes.

So then you only watch youtube videos from official sources?
You're a little bit of a hypocrite aren't you?

Volumes 3 & 4. The fourth one includes the four songs recorded by The City Surfers, a short-lived surf group featuring Frank Gari, Roger McGuinn and Bobby!

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

[kieranjames]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

[pmp]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

I'm not sure what bootlegged CDs with music still in copyright you think I have uploaded to YouTube, and i am not sure why you think I am a champion of copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly on this forum supported the SHORTER copyright that we enjoyed in Europe until it was changed a decade ago, and repeatedly condemned the 95 years of copyright in the USA. I have also argued for a "use it or lose it" copyright law, where copyright on recordings over a certain age is kept only if the music is available to buy or stream officially.

So you really need to do your homework before making accusations.

BUT you cannot blame a copyright holder for removing a video from YT, which is my point here, and which you seem utterly unable to comprehend. It's their right to do that, and you or the OP telling YT it's for educational purposes, or otherwise trying to make out you have the rights to post it is simply likely to get your account locked. There are millions of videos on YT breaking copyright, and, in most cases, the owners don't care - often because they see it's an advert for their own products. But that doesn't mean we should be shocked or dismayed or upset about a copyright claim.

[kieranjames]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

I'm not sure what bootlegged discs with music still in copyright I have uploaded to YouTube, and i am not sure why you think I am a champion of copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly on this forum supported the SHORTER copyright that we enjoyed in Europe until it was changed a decade ago, and repeatedly condemned the 95 years of copyright in the USA.

BUT you cannot blame a copyright holder for removing a video from YT, which is my point here, and which you seem utterly unable to comprehend. It's their right to do that, and you or the OP telling YT it's for educational purposes, or otherwise trying to make out you have the rights to post it is simply likely to get your account locked. There are millions of videos on YT breaking copyright, and, in most cases, the owners don't care - often because they see it's an advert for their own products. But that doesn't mean we should be shocked or dismayed or upset about a copyright claim.

I don't blame a copyright holder for removing copyrighted material and never said as such.
In fact I said "If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld."
My comment about you being a hypocritical "champion of copyright" comes from your whining about "giving it away for free" while uploading bootlegs on your own YouTube channel 'The Vault'.
Let's face it, when EOT is officially released, there's going to be a tonne of clips from the EOT movie synched to the remixed audio. They may get copyright strikes, they may not. It's not up to you or me. If they appeal against a strike and YouTube finds in their favour then so be it.

[pmp]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

I'm not sure what bootlegged discs with music still in copyright I have uploaded to YouTube, and i am not sure why you think I am a champion of copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly on this forum supported the SHORTER copyright that we enjoyed in Europe until it was changed a decade ago, and repeatedly condemned the 95 years of copyright in the USA.

BUT you cannot blame a copyright holder for removing a video from YT, which is my point here, and which you seem utterly unable to comprehend. It's their right to do that, and you or the OP telling YT it's for educational purposes, or otherwise trying to make out you have the rights to post it is simply likely to get your account locked. There are millions of videos on YT breaking copyright, and, in most cases, the owners don't care - often because they see it's an advert for their own products. But that doesn't mean we should be shocked or dismayed or upset about a copyright claim.

I don't blame a copyright holder for removing copyrighted material and never said as such.
In fact I said "If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld."
My comment about you being a hypocritical "champion of copyright" comes from your whining about "giving it away for free" while uploading bootlegs on your own YouTube channel 'The Vault'.
Let's face it, when EOT is officially released, there's going to be a tonne of clips from the EOT movie synched to the remixed audio. They may get copyright strikes, they may not. It's not up to you or me. If they appeal against a strike and YouTube finds in their favour then so be it.

I repeat (for the third or fourth time) there no bootlegs on that channel in which the music is still in copyright. I'm not sure why you find that difficult to comprehend. Music on bootlegs go out of copyright, too, eventually. Any unreleased music over fifty years old is out of copyright in Europe. Therefore the officially-unreleased music on the Darin and Sinatra videos is out of copyright and has been for several years.

And I never whined about anything, I was merely pointing out why the video was removed.

You really are insufferable..

[kieranjames]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

I'm not sure what bootlegged discs with music still in copyright I have uploaded to YouTube, and i am not sure why you think I am a champion of copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly on this forum supported the SHORTER copyright that we enjoyed in Europe until it was changed a decade ago, and repeatedly condemned the 95 years of copyright in the USA.

BUT you cannot blame a copyright holder for removing a video from YT, which is my point here, and which you seem utterly unable to comprehend. It's their right to do that, and you or the OP telling YT it's for educational purposes, or otherwise trying to make out you have the rights to post it is simply likely to get your account locked. There are millions of videos on YT breaking copyright, and, in most cases, the owners don't care - often because they see it's an advert for their own products. But that doesn't mean we should be shocked or dismayed or upset about a copyright claim.

I don't blame a copyright holder for removing copyrighted material and never said as such.
In fact I said "If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld."
My comment about you being a hypocritical "champion of copyright" comes from your whining about "giving it away for free" while uploading bootlegs on your own YouTube channel 'The Vault'.
Let's face it, when EOT is officially released, there's going to be a tonne of clips from the EOT movie synched to the remixed audio. They may get copyright strikes, they may not. It's not up to you or me. If they appeal against a strike and YouTube finds in their favour then so be it.

I repeat (for the third or fourth time) there no bootlegs on that channel in which the music is still in copyright. I'm not sure why you find that difficult to comprehend. Music on bootlegs go out of copyright, too, eventually. Any unreleased music over fifty years old is out of copyright in Europe. Therefore the officially-unreleased music on the Darin and Sinatra videos is out of copyright and has been for several years.

And I never whined about anything, I was merely pointing out why the video was removed.

You really are insufferable..

You have an Elvis song from 1973 on your channel, don't you?
What about the other late 70's material on your channel?

[pmp]

You seem to be extremely angry for no apparent reason. I am simply giving you the reason why Sony are knocking your videos on the head, and that we have to accept such actions as and when they happen.

It has happened on my account, too, but I don't counter claim, saying I have the right to post something I don't. And all unreleased tracks on the videos you pick up on are out of copyright in my country anyway - plus there is no impending official release of the material.

Again you get it all wrong.
1 I'm not angry
2 I've never had a video 'knocked on the head' by Sony.
In fact unlike you, I've never uploaded an Elvis video to YouTube (apart from a short private video demonstrating colour grading).
You upload bootlegs to YouTube and at the same time pretend to be a champion of copyright.
I think you just enjoy being waspish.

I'm not sure what bootlegged discs with music still in copyright I have uploaded to YouTube, and i am not sure why you think I am a champion of copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have repeatedly on this forum supported the SHORTER copyright that we enjoyed in Europe until it was changed a decade ago, and repeatedly condemned the 95 years of copyright in the USA.

BUT you cannot blame a copyright holder for removing a video from YT, which is my point here, and which you seem utterly unable to comprehend. It's their right to do that, and you or the OP telling YT it's for educational purposes, or otherwise trying to make out you have the rights to post it is simply likely to get your account locked. There are millions of videos on YT breaking copyright, and, in most cases, the owners don't care - often because they see it's an advert for their own products. But that doesn't mean we should be shocked or dismayed or upset about a copyright claim.

I don't blame a copyright holder for removing copyrighted material and never said as such.
In fact I said "If the copyright holder themselves requests it, then the block is upheld."
My comment about you being a hypocritical "champion of copyright" comes from your whining about "giving it away for free" while uploading bootlegs on your own YouTube channel 'The Vault'.
Let's face it, when EOT is officially released, there's going to be a tonne of clips from the EOT movie synched to the remixed audio. They may get copyright strikes, they may not. It's not up to you or me. If they appeal against a strike and YouTube finds in their favour then so be it.

I repeat (for the third or fourth time) there no bootlegs on that channel in which the music is still in copyright. I'm not sure why you find that difficult to comprehend. Music on bootlegs go out of copyright, too, eventually. Any unreleased music over fifty years old is out of copyright in Europe. Therefore the officially-unreleased music on the Darin and Sinatra videos is out of copyright and has been for several years.

And I never whined about anything, I was merely pointing out why the video was removed.

You really are insufferable..

You have an Elvis song from 1973 on your channel, don't you?
What about the other late 70's material on your channel?

Jesus. You are hard work. You don't even understand your own posts. There is nothing from BOOTLEGS on my channel that is still in copyright. That was your query, remember?

My comment about you being a hypocritical "champion of copyright" comes from your whining about "giving it away for free" while uploading BOOTLEGS on your own YouTube channel 'The Vault'.

And it wouldn't matter even if there was bootlegs on there because I have not been telling people to avoid putting copyrighted material on there in the first place! I have simply said we just have to accept rights holders taking videos down.

Now, unless you go for a lie down to get rid of that brain fog before posting again, we are done.

[kieranjames]

I'll ignore the waspish pedant and repeat my original advice which is:
if you get a copyright strike from YouTube, it is worth appealing.
'Fair use' is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner.
In my case I successfully appealed many fan made videos I which I created and uploaded (not Elvis).
They have gone on to rack up millions of views and got a nice mention in Mojo magazine as one of the highlights of that year.
One of them influenced the record company to release their own video in the same style as mine to promote a single release. They even used a stripped down mix of the song as I had done. In that particular case my video was removed but I didn't mind as there was now an official version and no need for mine any more. My other videos are still up there and still getting great comments and personal reminiscences every day. I've not made a penny from them, nor would I expect to, but it seems they've made a lot of people quite happy and that's no bad thing.
So yes, it's worth appealing.

[Swedish]

I'll ignore the waspish pedant and repeat my original advice which is:
if you get a copyright strike from YouTube, it is worth appealing.
'Fair use' is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner.
In my case I successfully appealed many fan made videos I which I created and uploaded (not Elvis).
They have gone on to rack up millions of views and got a nice mention in Mojo magazine as one of the highlights of that year.
One of them influenced the record company to release their own video in the same style as mine to promote a single release. They even used a stripped down mix of the song as I had done. In that particular case my video was removed but I didn't mind as there was now an official version and no need for mine any more. My other videos are still up there and still getting great comments and personal reminiscences every day. I've not made a penny from them, nor would I expect to, but it seems they've made a lot of people quite happy and that's no bad thing.
So yes, it's worth appealing.

But how does this work. If a US record company who owns Sinatra or Darin wants to take down the material from YT, will they ever take into account that is copyright free where the uploaded lives or go from the US 95 years? Yes which country's law applies in that case?

[pmp]

I'll ignore the waspish pedant and repeat my original advice which is:
if you get a copyright strike from YouTube, it is worth appealing.
'Fair use' is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner.
In my case I successfully appealed many fan made videos I which I created and uploaded (not Elvis).
They have gone on to rack up millions of views and got a nice mention in Mojo magazine as one of the highlights of that year.
One of them influenced the record company to release their own video in the same style as mine to promote a single release. They even used a stripped down mix of the song as I had done. In that particular case my video was removed but I didn't mind as there was now an official version and no need for mine any more. My other videos are still up there and still getting great comments and personal reminiscences every day. I've not made a penny from them, nor would I expect to, but it seems they've made a lot of people quite happy and that's no bad thing.
So yes, it's worth appealing.

But how does this work. If a US record company who owns Sinatra or Darin wants to take down the material from YT, will they ever take into account that is copyright free where the uploaded lives or go from the US 95 years? Yes which country's law applies in that case?

Normally a copyright claim will see the video in question "partially blocked," making it unavailable in certain parts of the world where the material is in copyright still. If they get that wrong, you are certainly within your rights to challenge that (if you can be bothered), and should win that challenge. But most of it is done automatically when it comes to copyright checks, and strange things get flagged. On my own channel, Trouble from King Creole is muted in Russia, for example, and a couple of silent films I've uploaded with classical music as soundtracks and blocked in Russia and Belarus. This may well have much more to do with companies owning the music not wanting it be available in Russia right now than any serious copyright claim.

But most record companies do not take down videos of one-track videos that are already released anyway, as they now see it as a good free advertisement for their own products - plus they can get an income from advertising revenue if they identify a song they own the copyright for - as happened on the videos of Bobby Darin songs that were mentioned earlier in the thread. But that doesn't mean they HAVE to take that view.

[1015elvis]

So apparently, 2 of the three claims I have submitted have been released as they refused to do anything for the last 30 days. The other one has a few days left on it. And for myself, the songs have already been released through other mediums, I just want people to experience elvis. Is that so much to ask?