YouTube Video Removed for Copyright Infringement

30 Aug

Yesterday I received a lovely notice from YouTube indicating that one of my videos was removed due to copyright infringement. The notice also stated that repeat incidents of copyright infringement would result in deletion of my account and all the videos uploaded to said account.

What was the video? Did I record something from TV and post it? Did I rip a DVD and post it? It was none of these. It is a video of the boyfriend lipsyncing to Prince’s “Kiss”.

The email from YouTube said that they received a third-party notification from The Music Publisher claiming that the material was infringing. My problem with this is that they don’t tell me who notified them that my video was infringing their copyright. The Music Publisher? Not only this but they deleted it within a few hours of me making the video public. According to YouTube copyright holders can

sign up for our Content Verification Program which electronically notifies us, removing any room for error, and significantly increases the speed at which we are able to remove any infringing content.

So this is an anonymous, automated process. Even though I love technology, I really hate anonymous, automated processes especially when they take the place of a human. My question is whether anyone actually watched the video that I posted. My suspicions tell me that my video was flagged on the basis of a text search as my description contained “The BF really seems to like ‘Kiss’ by Prince.” My suspicions are bolstered by the fact that Robert Anton’s YouTube account was deleted because of a video where he sang a short portion of Prince’s “Kiss” acapella.

Another video deleting instance was last month when guitar instructor David Taub of NextLevelGuitar.com had over 100 of his video guitar lessons removed from YouTube because a music company accused him of copyright infringement for an instructional video on how to play a Rolling Stones song. Other video questionable take-downs have ranged from videos of friends at a restaurant to videos that had similar titles to TV shows. Again, it’s obviously an automated process.

YouTube has undoubtedly created this process to deal with the large number of copyright infringement claims that it has to process. This is probably the most efficient way to deal with these requests as not removing infringing material can be costly. I do understand that. YouTube/Google currently is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by Viacom over copyright infringement. I’m sure that other companies are waiting in the wings for their chance to collect from YouTube as well.

But this begs the question of “what is fair use?” If I’m at a party or wedding and a song comes on, should I turn my camera off? Am I infringing on a copyright? What about karaoke? If I film or otherwise record someone singing karaoke am I breaking the law? Is a lipsync video pirated? Are these copyright holders using this automated system to get around what would normally be considered fair use?

I am going to submit a counter notice because I am interested in seeing what will happen. In the meantime, I have posted a version of the video without sound to see if it will be deleted as well.


Of course this video has lost its point without the sound. I wonder if “The Music Publisher” considers mouthing the lyrics to a song copyright infringement.

Be Sociable, Share!

Possibly Related Posts:

  • http://theknightshift.blogspot.com Chris Knight

    Darn, you too?? This happened to me too yesterday. Viacom made YouTube take down a clip from VH1 that I had posted… which VH1 made from a video that I had made to begin with without asking me to use it! Whole story is at http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html and it’s been posted to Slashdot too. I’m just about to make another blog post about what you’re going through :-)

  • http://theknightshift.blogspot.com Chris Knight

    Darn, you too?? This happened to me too yesterday. Viacom made YouTube take down a clip from VH1 that I had posted… which VH1 made from a video that I had made to begin with without asking me to use it! Whole story is at http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html and it’s been posted to Slashdot too. I’m just about to make another blog post about what you’re going through :-)

  • Roque

    I got that song stuck in my head again. Shortly thereafter, I received this in my e-mail.

    “This is a letter from RIAA, you must now pay us 1 quadrillion dollars for constant repetition of that song stuck in you’re head. You know the one.”

    I need to stop Tweeting about songs stuck in my head.

  • Roque

    I got that song stuck in my head again. Shortly thereafter, I received this in my e-mail.

    “This is a letter from RIAA, you must now pay us 1 quadrillion dollars for constant repetition of that song stuck in you’re head. You know the one.”

    I need to stop Tweeting about songs stuck in my head.

  • Ray

    Shorten the clip 60 seconds and you have an instant Lumiere video> :-) .

  • Ray

    Shorten the clip 60 seconds and you have an instant Lumiere video> :-) .

  • http://highwaylass.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-do-i-sue-mgm-for-libel.html Highwaylass

    Dear Kenya,

    Did you get any reponse to your Counter Notice? I ask because I have had a video deleted which consists 100% of content originated by me. I have also submitted a Counter Notice but wondered if they ever got read if you weren’t a multinational…

  • http://highwaylass.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-do-i-sue-mgm-for-libel.html Highwaylass

    Dear Kenya,

    Did you get any reponse to your Counter Notice? I ask because I have had a video deleted which consists 100% of content originated by me. I have also submitted a Counter Notice but wondered if they ever got read if you weren’t a multinational…

  • http://www.robertanton.com Robert Anton

    P.S. I’ll be talking about this issue on Idolradio.com on Sept. 5 at 7 p.m. EST.
    You can see the call-in info on my myspace.com/robertanton comment board and blog.

  • http://www.robertanton.com Robert Anton

    P.S. I’ll be talking about this issue on Idolradio.com on Sept. 5 at 7 p.m. EST.
    You can see the call-in info on my myspace.com/robertanton comment board and blog.

  • daf

    this bast*rds removed the trailer of the my own movie which i have fully rights too saying it was copyright in fragment claimed by EROS WORLDWIE LLC, “I am like what the f*ck” who are they? this seriously pissed me off,

  • daf

    this bast*rds removed the trailer of the my own movie which i have fully rights too saying it was copyright in fragment claimed by EROS WORLDWIE LLC, “I am like what the f*ck” who are they? this seriously pissed me off,

  • http://serenitylife.vox.com Jennifer

    So, there was no music in the background and just lip syncing “Kiss” by Prince?

    My only take on this is just alluding to the fact that it was Prince song implies that maybe their was music in the background and the computer notification made an error by realizing what you were doing should not have constituted a copyright infringement. However, this goes into another discussion into freedom of speech.

    Shouldn’t you be allowed to discuss an artist’s work, lip syncing, playing around without the fear of having your youtube account taken down?!

    I can understand if you had music in the background even if it was a short bit because the main issue with using youtube is that once you place a video on youtube that it is for “commercial use” meaning that anyone can take the video and possibly copy it and sell it for a profit.

    This is where the artist loses out, the publishing company, etc.

    However, the courts have to decide what is “fair use” because now I am not to sure of a legal definition that is right when it comes to cases that are developing right before out eyes.

    Thanks for sharing your story! Adds to my understanding of all the confusion we are in.

    Do that counter suit and keep us informed!

  • http://serenitylife.vox.com Jennifer

    So, there was no music in the background and just lip syncing “Kiss” by Prince?

    My only take on this is just alluding to the fact that it was Prince song implies that maybe their was music in the background and the computer notification made an error by realizing what you were doing should not have constituted a copyright infringement. However, this goes into another discussion into freedom of speech.

    Shouldn’t you be allowed to discuss an artist’s work, lip syncing, playing around without the fear of having your youtube account taken down?!

    I can understand if you had music in the background even if it was a short bit because the main issue with using youtube is that once you place a video on youtube that it is for “commercial use” meaning that anyone can take the video and possibly copy it and sell it for a profit.

    This is where the artist loses out, the publishing company, etc.

    However, the courts have to decide what is “fair use” because now I am not to sure of a legal definition that is right when it comes to cases that are developing right before out eyes.

    Thanks for sharing your story! Adds to my understanding of all the confusion we are in.

    Do that counter suit and keep us informed!

  • kenya

    Jennifer, the video did contain music. I just posted the one with no sound to see what would happen. My original video remains down.

    The dilemma for me in this is that YouTube rolled out advertising after this video was removed (and I don’t participate in that). So in theory no one was making money. I could submit the counter notice and get the video back up but then I would be putting myself at risk of being sued. While I’m obviously not making money off the video defending myself against the corporate machine would be costly.

    The ridiculous thing is that many of the videos that were removed from YouTube were acapella and karaoke videos. Some were people talking with music in the background. Does that mean that if I want to post such a video that I need to start making up my own songs? And if I start shooting a video and music happens to be on in the background, do I need to tell them to turn the music off? Because that is utterly ridiculous.

    I do think that fair use needs to be defined more especially in how it relates to home videos and fans. I’m not a bootlegger and should not be treated as such.

  • kenya

    Jennifer, the video did contain music. I just posted the one with no sound to see what would happen. My original video remains down.

    The dilemma for me in this is that YouTube rolled out advertising after this video was removed (and I don’t participate in that). So in theory no one was making money. I could submit the counter notice and get the video back up but then I would be putting myself at risk of being sued. While I’m obviously not making money off the video defending myself against the corporate machine would be costly.

    The ridiculous thing is that many of the videos that were removed from YouTube were acapella and karaoke videos. Some were people talking with music in the background. Does that mean that if I want to post such a video that I need to start making up my own songs? And if I start shooting a video and music happens to be on in the background, do I need to tell them to turn the music off? Because that is utterly ridiculous.

    I do think that fair use needs to be defined more especially in how it relates to home videos and fans. I’m not a bootlegger and should not be treated as such.

  • http://www.vibesnscribes.com Fresh

    That is madness. I agree with you 100% . THe thing is…there needs to be clear cut definitions of what is legal and illegal in an age where technology clearly makes the ability to distribute material, digitally, never as before…good post!

  • http://www.vibesnscribes.com Fresh

    That is madness. I agree with you 100% . THe thing is…there needs to be clear cut definitions of what is legal and illegal in an age where technology clearly makes the ability to distribute material, digitally, never as before…good post!