Youtube Content Identification

Prodigi · Post by **Prodigi** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:52 am

We know it's been happening for a while, but I was just wondering if anyone has actually had this occur to any videos they have up thus far?

The reason this has sparked my curiosity is that I received an email from youtube today:

Dear YouTube Member:

UMG has claimed some or all audio content in your video Adrenaline Junkie. This claim was made as part of the YouTube Content Identification program.

Your video is still live because UMG has authorized the use of this content on YouTube. As long as UMG has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video's page.

Claim Details:
Copyright owner: UMG
Content claimed: Some or all of the audio content
Policy: Allow this content to remain on YouTube.

* Place advertisements on this video's watch page.

Applies to these locations:
Everywhere

UMG claimed this content as a part of the YouTube Content Identification program. YouTube allows partners to review YouTube videos for content to which they own the rights. Partners may use our automated video / audio matching system to identify their content, or they may manually review videos.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

From what I can gather this basically means UGM has realised I've jacked the audio for one of their artists, but doesn't care as long as they can use the video as a source of statistical information and advertise their junk.

Just curious to see if other record companies are taking the same track.

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:18 am

I've had a friend who has gotten one of those notices, it freaked her out a bit at first but she said she hoped the video holders would take the same route

guy07 · Post by **guy07** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:01 pm

... i'm not sure if this is good or bad ... but as long as they aren't deleting shit.

Kitsuner · Post by **Kitsuner** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:46 pm

guy07 wrote:... i'm not sure if this is good or bad ... but as long as they aren't deleting shit.

STOP FLAGGING OUR BULLSHIT

guy07 · Post by **guy07** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:08 pm

Kitsuner wrote:
guy07 wrote:... i'm not sure if this is good or bad ... but as long as they aren't deleting shit.
STOP FLAGGING OUR BULLSHIT

Onoez! Caps lock!

*runs*

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:23 pm

guy07 wrote:
Kitsuner wrote:
guy07 wrote:... i'm not sure if this is good or bad ... but as long as they aren't deleting shit.
STOP FLAGGING OUR BULLSHIT
Onoez! Caps lock! *runs*

HEY

u just took everything i said and switched it around ass hole

guy07 · Post by **guy07** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:44 pm

Otohiko wrote:
guy07 wrote:
Kitsuner wrote:
guy07 wrote:... i'm not sure if this is good or bad ... but as long as they aren't deleting shit.
STOP FLAGGING OUR BULLSHIT
Onoez! Caps lock! *runs*
HEY

u just took everything i said and switched it around ass hole

?

? I don't get it ... you didn't post anything ?

?

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:46 pm

yer face didnt post anything O:

jasper-isis · Post by **jasper-isis** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:51 pm

I think this is a good thing. In a perfect world, we, as creators of derivative works, would be able to license copyright works (at a reasonable cost) and use them legitimately. This seems like a step in the right direction.

Now, if the copyright owners start imposing costs that negatively impact the amv-making process and/or the community, then this would be a bad thing.

But as it stands right now:
- We get a slight nod of acknowledgment
- They get stats/advertising
- Both sides win!

guy07 · Post by **guy07** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:12 pm

JaddziaDax wrote:yer face didnt post anything O:

Which face? This one?

http://bp3.blogger.com/_jwXEBRvKP40/RcS ... h/eyes.jpg
(The pic won't show when i [img] it for some reason ... but click it, you know you want to.)