Posted: 5/27/2012 3:50:24 AM
Thomas Grillo

From: Jackson Mississippi

Joined: 8/13/2006

I've noticed something rather odd going on at youtube lately.

Mere seconds after uploading a video, I noticed it could not be monetized due to "matched third party content".

One of my students recently uploaded a video, and it was nearly instantly flagged, and removed, even after a dispute was filed. The claim was bogus.

After doing some reading on the web, I've learned that youtube is now using a content id system which is apparently being gamed by dishonest content providers looking to cash in on a loop-hole which allows users to upload audio samples, and select options to have matching content flagged, removed, or monetized.

This has happened to other users who did nothing more than record their own conversations in the woods, and sure enough, they got flagged because the sound of the birds in the background matched a third party's content. Someone had uploaded a similar sound sample, and claimed copyright.

A lot of fingers are now pointing toward a few users in particular at youtube. One of the most notorious being, rumblefish.

I've already had three bogus claims applied to one video, and the third just showed up on the radar scope seconds after an older claim was released. It's like playing "Wak-A-Mole". Once one claim gets released, another one pops right up.

All we can do is dispute the bogus claim, but we're at the mercy of an automated content id system which is clearly being gamed to make money off of unsuspecting users.

Yeh, some bozo out there can make money off YOUR work by selecting the monetize option in the content id system.

Clearly, youtube has a major problem, as do we.

Posted: 5/27/2012 10:15:28 AM

From: A Coruña, Spain

Joined: 9/26/2010

Almost all my YT videos are automatically marked as "copyrighted material" in that way. I don't complain because I don't make my own accompaniments (although I take care to only use them if I have the right or permission to do so) so the content of those videos is only partially mine, and I wouldn't want to profit from them anyway. But I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases the claims are bogus, since most of the accompaniments I have used were recorded by amateurs and they have never been sold or used professionally.

In my case, most of the claims are by "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society", I haven't seen rumblefish. 

Posted: 5/27/2012 1:14:22 PM
Thomas Grillo

From: Jackson Mississippi

Joined: 8/13/2006

@AlKhwarizmi: Yeh, I've had Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society, and a couple of others try that. In all cases, the bogus claims were released. However, it can take up to a month for that to happen because the process is automated, and the entities who press these bogus claims don't even monitor the disputes. There's a month long timer running which automatically releases the claim at the end of the dispute period.

Posted: 5/27/2012 4:14:08 PM
Charlie D

From: England

Joined: 2/28/2005

Which pieces in particular are being removed? Is it possible that the background music could have identified as (or mistaken for) a copyrighted recording?

'Rumblefish' is an online corporation which represents many recording labels (including NAXOS) on social media.

Posted: 5/27/2012 4:30:29 PM
Thomas Grillo

From: Jackson Mississippi

Joined: 8/13/2006

@Charlie D: Don't confuse the legit Rumble Fish with the youtuber rumblefish.

I forgot to mention that above. Sorry.

They're going after everything in a video with that bot. Background music, foreground music, sound effects, visuals such as logos, registerred marks, ect.

I had to take down one of my camera jib demos because the logos, and movie titles on a stack of dvds on a shelf were recognized by the content id bot, and it was flagged by several studios. I think that goes way too far.

Posted: 5/27/2012 4:40:36 PM

From: A Coruña, Spain

Joined: 9/26/2010

We'll end up having to post nude videos. The designs of the clothes we wear are probably copyrighted too.

Posted: 5/27/2012 4:50:06 PM
Thomas Grillo

From: Jackson Mississippi

Joined: 8/13/2006

@AlKhwarizmi: Yeh, makes you wonder. Don't it?


Posted: 5/27/2012 5:02:12 PM

From: Canada

Joined: 8/1/2008

I have posted videos that clearly have third party copyrighted material incorporated into them which have not been flagged, and others that are entirely original material (both audio and video) that have been flagged. Go figga.

It has always seemed like nothing more than an excuse to claim the right to advertise on screen. Here is the email I receive regularly from "The YouTube Team":


"Your video XXXXXXXXXXX may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

- The YouTube Team"


Please note the use of the word "may". The email does not claim that the video, whatever it may be, actually DOES contain IODA material. By the way, the IODA is the Independent Online Distribution Alliance and it is an arm of SONY.

SONY and YouTube have been in bed together for some time.


Yes, I imagine there are other parasitic culprits out there such as rumblefish and various collection agencies of one sort or another. No, it ain't a pretty sight!

Posted: 5/27/2012 5:40:07 PM
Thomas Grillo

From: Jackson Mississippi

Joined: 8/13/2006

@coalport: That's just bloody great, that is. Figures.

Posted: 5/28/2012 11:09:57 AM

From: Nashville, TN, USA

Joined: 12/22/2011

@AlKhwarizmi: Your comment about having to post nude videos reminds me of a comic's routine I heard a while back suggesting that everybody should fly naked, since that would cut down on screening times at the airport....There's some things that just SHOULDN'T be seen, and my naked bod is one of them...just sayin'....

You must be logged in to post a reply. Please log in or register for a new account.