YouTube Refuses to Honor DMCA Counter-Notices

  • PDF
  • Print
  • E-mail

Last October, YouTube announced some much needed reforms to its Content ID copyright dispute process. Bowing to growing public pressure, YouTube ended the practice of allowing copyright claimants to unilaterally deny disputes, leaving users with no further recourse to have non-infringing videos restored.

YouTube established a new “appeals” process, which once again gave users whose videos are blocked by Content ID recourse to the DMCA counter-notice process if the copyright owner insists on rejecting their dispute. At the end of the process, the user’s video would be restored unless the copyright claimant actually filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to keep it offline. No longer.

YouTube refuses to honor counter-notices for “contractual reasons”

For months I have been trying to discover why many users have been receiving responses to DMCA counter-notices stating, It appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor this counter-notification.I even got in touch with a YouTube product manager who promised to look into the situation for me, though he has not yet provided me with any answers. While I initially suspected some kind of technical glitch, it now appears that something far more nefarious is going on.

I have recently discovered evidence that YouTube has contracts with certain copyright holders (including Universal Music Group – UMG) to refuse to honor DMCA counter-notices sent in response to their copyright takedowns—essentially giving them the power to take down any video they wish, even if it does not infringe their copyright in any way.

It is interesting to note that a little over a year ago when UMG infamously took down the “Megaupload Song” video with a completely bogus copyright claim, UMG claimed it had unspecified “contractual rights” to do so even if it did not infringe its copyrights. At the time however, YouTube explicitly denied having a contract with UMG that gave them the right to take down videos on which they had no legitimate copyright claim, stating, Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists…

It appears things have changed. Consider the following:

Last week I was contacted by a YouTube user named John (YouTube username: WernerVonWallenrod), who mainly posts reviews of old vinyl records. He uploaded a roughly 7 minute video reviewing an old Eric B. & Rakim record from the 1980s, 90% of which consists of him standing in his kitchen talking about the record. The video includes a couple clips of him playing short (<1 minute) segments of the record while filming the record player.

Because the video uses only short, low-quality segments of a few songs on the record for purposes of critical commentary and review, the video almost certainly qualifies as a textbook example of fair use. Nevertheless, UMG had the video taken down with a DMCA notice. Believing his video to be fair use, John sent a properly filed DMCA counter-notice in response. A few days later, he received this email from YouTube (emphasis added):

Hi there,

Thank you for your counter-notification. The complainant has reaffirmed the information in its DMCA notification. YouTube has a contractual obligation to this specific copyright owner that prevents us from reinstating videos in such circumstances. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor this counter-notification.

You may learn more about this here:

http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=3045545

We unfortunately are unable to assist further in this matter. You may wish to contact the complainant directly at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 Regards,

 Linda

The YouTube Team

This message is extremely disturbing for multiple reasons. It appears that YouTube is saying it essentially has a contract with UMG to ignore DMCA counter-notices sent against its copyright claims, so that even if the copyright takedown has no legal basis, YouTube must nevertheless refuse to restore the video if UMG “reaffirms” the information in its DMCA notice. The help page referenced in the email providers further details (emphasis added):

Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations

YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.

In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

YouTube will inform you if this is the case for one of your videos, and will provide you with contact information for the complainant whenever possible so you can discuss the matter directly.

So the user is stuck. Their video could be fair use, in the public domain, or contain no UMG content whatsoever, but as long as UMG “reaffirms” their takedown notice (which based on previous experience I’m guessing they will always do), YouTube will refuse to restore the video. YouTube and UMG (and possibly other copyright holders) have made a contractual end-run around the DMCA notice and counter-notice process, giving certain preferred copyright holders a free pass to take down any video on YouTube they wish with impunity, having been guaranteed that their takedowns will be immune from counter-notices.

No recourse for user

In such cases about the only thing the user can do is attempt to contact the copyright claimant using the information provided by YouTube, and attempt to convince them to retract their copyright claim (probably a futile endeavor). In John’s case, he emailed the provided This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it address to inquire about this situation, and interestingly enough, even though the email is on a UMG-owned domain, he received a response not from UMG but from YouTube, stating:

For the reasons explained before, we regretfully cannot honor this counter-notification. However, your account will not be penalized and your strike has been resolved.

YouTube was kind enough to remove the copyright strike on his account, though only after he contacted them, not after they initially refused to restore his video.

YouTube’s liability limited

It should be noted that YouTube has no legal obligation under the DMCA to restore videos upon receiving a counter-notice. The DMCA is only a safe-harbor which sites may follow to be immune from liability, and is not in itself mandatory. In order to be immune from liability for users’ copyright infringement, YouTube must take down videos upon request. Likewise, in order to be immune from liability to the user for taking down the video, YouTube must restore the video within 14 business days of receiving a counter-notice, unless it first receives notice that the copyright holder, “has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.”

Here, YouTube takes down videos upon receipt of a takedown notice, but it is refusing to restore them after receiving a counter-notice, even though no lawsuit has been filed seeking an injunction. This means in theory, YouTube is liable to the user for taking down the video. However, YouTube has been careful to immunize itself against liability for this through its Terms of Service, which state:

If a counter-notice is received by the Copyright Agent, YouTube may send a copy of the counter-notice to the original complaining party informing that person that it may replace the removed Content or cease disabling it in 10 business days. Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the Content provider, member or user, the removed Content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at YouTube's sole discretion.

So even though the law makes YouTube potentially liable for refusing to honor a counter-notice, YouTube’s Terms of Service (which you have to agree to in order to use the site) override this, giving it the right to refuse to restore a video at its sole discretion.

About the only legal remedy the user could possibly pursue would be to sue Universal Music for misrepresentation under section 512(f) of the DMCA, along with seeking a declaratory judgment that the video is not infringing and an injunction against UMG continuing to assert a copyright claim over it. This, of course, is not feasible for the average YouTube user.

Conclusion

While YouTube has no actual legal obligation to restore videos after receiving DMCA counter-notices, YouTube is clearly violating the spirit of the DMCA. The DMCA is quite clear in its intent that the end result of the copyright dispute process on a user-generated content site should be that if the user insists their content is not infringing, it should be kept online unless the copyright holder sues for an injunction to have it taken down. This necessarily requires a court ruling that the material is infringing.

YouTube and UMG have taken the intent of the DMCA and turned it on its head. Now instead of the copyright holder having to sue to keep the material offline, the only way a user can have his video restored is to sue the copyright claimant for a declaration that the video is not infringing and to secure an injunction forcing the copyright claimant to withdraw its copyright claim.

Before posting this article, I sent emails to YouTube’s press contact, Annie Baxter (whom I have corresponded with in the past), and to a YouTube product manager I met at a conference in February, seeking comment on this situation. Neither has sent me any response.

Plenty of questions remain. Is UMG the only entertainment company YouTube has this type of agreement with, or are there others? What are the conditions of these agreements? Does YouTube have any policies or procedures in place to protect users, or has it essentially given these companies a carte blanche to take down any video they wish with impunity?

For now, it is difficult to understate how badly YouTube has screwed over its users here. Instead of standing up for users’ free speech rights, YouTube has sold them out to big entertainment companies, who now have the power to take down any video they wish by bogus assertions of copyright, with absolutely no accountability.

For all Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra, it appears that the depths to which Google is willing to sink to kowtow to the major record labels at the expense of its users’ rights truly knows no bounds.

 

Comments  

 
+5 #1 Werner von Wallenrod 2013-04-04 16:35
Another thought about this (I'm the youtuber in question here): the way it's handled now potentially penalizes users for filing counter-DMCAs. It certainly did in my case.
Before I filed, I the video was up. It was listed under copyright notices for "matching third party content" and as such, "blocked in some countries." But it was up and I had no strike.
As this post explains, I got a strike after filing the report and the video was taken down. As the blog also says, YT was then good enough to remove the strike; but I'm still in a worse position then I was before I started. My video that was up is now down... just because I filed a legit report.
And there's no way to know which videos we upload may be subject to this contract... so any video I file a (again legit) counter-notice on may further penalize my account. There's no way for us to know what kind of outcome we will get from filing.
 
 
+5 #2 Allen 2013-04-10 17:00
I have this problem with my video at http://bit.ly/A5nblI
I went all the through the DMCA process and YouTube wouldn't honor it, even though it's a very strong case for fair use. I'm a lawyer and I'm thinking of doing more than the "average YouTube user." I'm thinking not just of the claim against UMG you describe, but I also have a legal theory that YouTube's public claims of protecting fair use (e.g. at http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/04/content-id-and-fair-use.html) may give YouTube liability for making false representations under California's Unfair Competition Law. See California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.
 
 
0 #3 Patrick McKay 2013-04-10 17:17
Allen,

I'm excited to hear you say that. I've been consulting with the attorneys at New Media Rights on this and they too mentioned there could possibly be a misrepresentati on action under that CA law. I personally am not familiar with it, but if you think you can bring a claim under that, I'd say go for it. If there's any way I can help, please contact me, and keep me posted.
 
 
0 #4 Trevor 2013-04-11 15:08
Great post Patrick! It's absolutely infuriating that YouTube won't honor the DMCA counter-notice for my videos, that I consider are clearly Fair Use. In my instance, I get emails all the time asking about the missing videos and when they'll be back online. Here's a question... If you remember, I originally filed the Fair Use exemption so that the videos could be played on mobile devices (UMG allowed them on the web). What if another user were to upload my original videos to YouTube? Do I run the risk of collusion with another user and circumventing their Terms of Use in some way? I've already got the 2 strikes on my account because of YouTube's unwarranted blocking, and I can't afford to have my account shutdown, with my hundreds of thousands of views, comments, etc. Alternatively, what if I changed the videos slightly so that it's not an identical video? If it's 99% the same video, with the same music, would that trip YouTube's algorithms, or would it be considered a unique video? I really appreciate your thoughts, as always.
 
 
+1 #5 Patrick McKay 2013-04-11 15:12
I think it would be fine if you uploaded a slightly different copy of the video and just didn't dispute it this time. Uploading it on another user account would also be fine. YouTube lets you have multiple user accounts, so I don't see a problem with that.
 
 
0 #6 Trevor 2013-04-11 15:24
You da man, Patrick! Thank you for the insight.
 
 
+1 #7 Shane Morris 2013-04-22 14:18
I've have a similar issue where I broadcast sporting events and in the course of the broadcast there will invariably be music played in the gym that will come through on the broadcast.

I've had it claimed and I've submitted a counter-notification with UMG. We'll see what the end result will be. At this time I have a strike and cannot upload my videos any more as they are all 90+ minutes in length.

It's quite frustrating that UMG attempts to claim the rights to a 90+ minute video that has less than 90 seconds of music incidental to the actual content of the video.
 
 
0 #8 wesawthat 2013-04-24 15:35
Thanks for such a well written, hard hitting post. Eventually, Google/YouTube will take down some congressman or senator's (or other "VIP") channel and we will get publicity and hearings and/or some law outlawing this type of boorish behavior.
 
 
+3 #9 Snordelhans 2013-04-28 23:19
The time has come for a concerted effort to get the public to stop supporting UMG.
 
 
+1 #10 Tom Sullivan 2013-04-29 03:46
@Snordelhans My thoughts exactly. If UMG are going to behave like this, they should be made to do without our custom and we should do our utmost to persuade others to do the same.
 
 
0 #11 angryinadk 2013-04-29 06:52
Every video posted to youtube should have something added to it to make it "need review" by UMG or others. Even if only a word or words from a song title, the letters UMG, anything to get their attention. keep them so busy they waste a tremendous amount of time.
 
 
0 #12 Shane Morris 2013-05-01 06:50
I received a response and as expected...

Currently the strike remains and I am unable to upload long videos. I've sent an email to youTube asking to remedy the strike. We'll see what they say.

"Hi there,

Thank you for your counter-notification. The complainant has reaffirmed
the information in its DMCA notification. YouTube has a contractual
obligation to this specific copyright owner that prevents us from
reinstating videos in such circumstances. Therefore, we regretfully cannot
honor this counter-notification. Your account will not be penalized at
this time.

You may learn more about this here:
http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=3045545

We unfortunately are unable to assist further in this matter. You may wish
to contact the complainant directly at .

Regards,

The YouTube Team"
 
 
0 #13 Asweti 2013-05-06 04:18
Copyright holders shouldnt be allowed to do this :/, sure they own the copyright for theyre material, but still, they do not absolutely need to be like this and refuse everyone to use theyre content, even if its small parts which wont have any negative affect on its originally market.
 
 
0 #14 sergio hernandez 2013-06-01 22:09
so i uploaded two anime video's one Mar 24, 2013 and an other on May 30, 2013
and i got copyright strike for both at the first time it was soul eater theme it said Removed due to a copyright claim by Sony Music Entertainment(J apan) Inc and the same thing on both i just wanted to upload them because i like them both but no warning i thought that under section 107 seven could help but no can some one help me im on my seconed copyright strike thanks for listing
 
 
0 #15 Patrick McKay 2013-06-02 01:25
If it's Sony Music not UMG you should still be okay sending a counter-notice to get your videos restored. As I've written elsewhere on this site, I strongly believe AMVs are fair use.
 
 
0 #16 Fred Boulay 2013-06-08 01:47
thank you very much for this update. I specially want to know about any action taken to try to stop this. Is there any update on how the law may be able to make them stop? I'm no lawyer myself so I've no clue where to start. But it would definitely help if I could point to the law they are infringing upon when I file my disputes.
 
 
0 #17 DavidB 2013-07-19 19:46
I just received an email from youtube which seems to say they have unilaterally denied my counter-notifcation. I seem to be stuck in a no-man's land where the online dispute process is not available and I cannot get any responses via copyright@youtu be.com

"Based on the information you have provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor your request. It has not been forwarded to the original claimant, and we will not be able to restore your video."

Do you have another contact at youtube? I fully believe my video does not infringe and the entity claiming infringement must file suit against me to assert their claims.

The party is Harry Fox, the same group who routinely files takedowns on works clearly in the public domain.
 
 
0 #18 Trevor 2013-07-19 20:02
Yikes David, that's a scary turn of events. I thought it was just UMG that YouTube was in bed with. If they start denying DMCA counter-notices across the board, it's a sad day for fair use claims.
 
 
0 #19 Patrick McKay 2013-07-21 21:52
David, that happens sometimes, and even though I have spoken with a Google employee who promised to look into it for me, I still have never gotten an answer as to what causes that. UMG is the only group I know of with a special deal to outright override DMCA notices, but that other message makes it looks like YouTube unilaterally denies others, for reasons they won't disclose.

All you can really do is keep sending new counter-notices and hope one goes through.
 
 
+1 #20 DavidB 2013-07-22 08:54
Patrick,

Am I able to file counter-notifications by simply emailing them to copyright@youtu be.com? I ask because the web form which I previously used is no longer available. The video in question now shows on my account as "Removed (copyright strike). Counter-notification denied." This line used to contain the link to send the counter-notification.

I'm not positive that my situation is the same as others have experienced with UMG. Doesn't the UMG reply email include language about "due to our contractual obligations" or something similar?

In my case, it seems like either youtube has allowed the entity claiming infringement to make the final judgment, or youtube itself made the final determination. Both of these possibilities seem contrary of DMCA.

I'm left to assume that youtube made the decision by the langage they included in my email that stated "[the counter-notification] has not been forwarded to the original claimant."
 
 
0 #21 Patrick McKay 2013-07-22 11:14
You can try sending a new counter notice by email, though I have my doubts they will accept it. You may just be screwed. Another option wound be to delete the video and re-upload it and start the whole process over again.
 
 
0 #22 DavidB 2013-07-23 20:03
Youtube released my video today:

"In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we've completed processing your counter-notification regarding these video(s):

...

This content has been restored unless you have deleted the video(s). Your account will not be penalized."

Since I was unable to use the web form, I simply sent in an email to copyright@youtu be.com explaining that I felt youtube was not properly following DMCA procedures, and that their actions might be construed as inserting themselves into the determination of infringement, which seems contrary to the intent of DMCA.

Because the replies that youtube sends are so cryptic, I'll never know what they found persuasive. I guess what I learned from this ordeal was to be persistent.

To their credit, I will say that Harry Fox responded to my emails and was willing to work with me, and they stated that they felt their hands were tied by youtube's process as well.
 
 
0 #23 Trevor 2013-07-23 22:12
Great news, David! Congrats and thanks for posting the follow-up to let everyone who's interested know what happened.
 
 
0 #24 Philip B. Gaines 2013-10-10 23:56
Allen, I believe my complaint falls along the same lines.

My counter-notifications (19 of my 55 videos have been flagged) have been rejected by YouTube with similar language.

In my case, the copyright owner is Fox. They have yet to contact me directly.

This is all strange, because I previously sent several counter-notifications that were processed and implemented just fine. After I sent emails to YouTube and Fox regarding some concerns, subsequent counter-notifications were treated differently.
 
 
0 #25 TeenInfonet 2013-10-16 14:53
I beg to differ with some of the assertions made in this article in legal sense. The DNCA law requires any ISP to honor any counter notices under USC 17 Section 512 (g) and outlines the requirements of them under their safe harbor provisions. If the ISP violates these provisions then they are subject to being sued. They have to follow the letter of the law no matter what contracts that they may have. Contracts do not take precedent over the law on the books.

We have already put Youtube on notice about this and if necessary we will file a suit against them on our videos as we are a news reporting agency and we are definitely supposed to have protections against Youtubes illegal copyright system under USC 17 Section 107
 
 
+1 #26 Patrick McKay 2013-10-16 15:01
Sadly there is no actual affirmative requirement in the DMCA to follow either the takedown procedure or the counter-notice procedure. The DMCA is a safe harbor, which means if you follow it you are safe from civil liability on other grounds. If you take down a video, you are safe from liability for copyright infringement, which entails statutory damages of up to $150,000. If you follow the counter-notice procedure, the only liability you are safe from is breach of contract, since baring some contractual relationship, a private website like YouTube has no legal obligation to host your content. YouTube's terms of service, which are the only government contract here, expressly insulate them from an liability for refusing to host a video, even if it is not infringing. They only say they "may" restore the video, not that they will.
 
 
0 #27 Asweti 2013-10-16 15:36
I discovered a strange detail in the norwegian version of the Terms of Use: It does not state anything about the DMCA process, including that YouTube "may" or "may" not accept counter-notices :/. Could this mean it does not count for norwegian users or something :)?
 
 
0 #28 Philip B. Gaines 2013-10-16 17:01
Quoting Patrick McKay:
Sadly there is no actual affirmative requirement in the DMCA to follow either the takedown procedure or the counter-notice procedure. The DMCA is a safe harbor, which means if you follow it you are safe from civil liability on other grounds. If you take down a video, you are safe from liability for copyright infringement, which entails statutory damages of up to $150,000. If you follow the counter-notice procedure, the only liability you are safe from is breach of contract, since baring some contractual relationship, a private website like YouTube has no legal obligation to host your content. YouTube's terms of service, which are the only government contract here, expressly insulate them from an liability for refusing to host a video, even if it is not infringing. They only say they "may" restore the video, not that they will.


I'm not a lawyer, but here's 100 hours of legal research for y'all :)

Surely, the complaint against YouTube involves implied contracts, based on their corporate model as a neutral platform and their seemingly neutral notification process. The process is (apparently) a front operation for the content owners to whack-a-mole content that they just don't like (but will possibly stand up in court). I can see no verbage in the TOS that tells me that YouTube will cut short my notification process and accept only the content owner's opinion on the issue.

My complaint is against the content "owner". Apparently, they are using the DMCA process only to identify content they don't like (and can plausibly claim infringement). If the owner does not intend to bring legal action (or at least send a threatening letter), and yet confirms or places notifications--or otherwise tells YouTube that my material is infringing, then they have used the notification process in bad faith.

First amendment paragraph: The content owners are essentially using the statutorily-created notification process to target and suppress free speech. These "alterations" of the notification process seems intended to target users who have a plausible fair use defense. A blatant or willful infringer is certainly also caught in that net, but blatant infringement is defeated with much less hassle; however, it's those pesky honest second users, who think they are legitimately expressing themselves, who will potentially turn an injunction motion into a court battle. The judge will have to think harder (and expensiver) for those cases, so it's easier for the content owner to just use YouTube's software.

As a practical matter, I don't think I can take my content elsewhere. There's no guarantee that will help. If I set up my own website (assuming I can afford it), surely the content owner can do the same shady deal with my ISP.

Someone correct my logic, please; I'm polishing up a cease and desist (pro se) to the content owner. My YouTube project is basically my life's work, and one of us paupers has to break out the lawyer-speak.
 
 
0 #29 Patrick McKay 2013-10-17 00:05
On yes you absolutely have a claim against copyright claimants who do this, since they are liable for abusing the DMCA. I'm just saying it would be very hard to sue YouTube for this, at least under a breach of contract theory. There might be some other theory like false advertising or unfair competition, but I haven't researched those enough to know if there might be a viable claim there.
 
 
0 #30 will 2013-10-25 12:48
Thanks for this. I filed 2 DMCA counter notices and was COMPLETELY ignored. How can they not abide by the laws?
 
 
+1 #31 Bob 2013-10-28 18:08
I have one of these issues (use of copyright music) with UMG also. On YT.
I make "do it yourself" automotive videos (how to change sparkplugs etc.) and occasionally a few seconds of a radio station song will be heard in the background as I am talking about how to do something. No legal training needed to figure out this is fair use. So I figure tthat this UMG company is using a "bot" (robot software) to scan YT videos for snippets of songs and (without review by a human) issueing blanket infringement notices to YT who (again without human review) sends the warning to the YT partner.

That about it? I did round 2 and appealed and am waiting answer on the 2nd round.

If I get a 2nd judgement and a strike what is next? I have no funds to sue UMG for false copyright claim and it's a small matter anyway in regards to my video but I don't care for bully companies.

:)
 
 
0 #32 Johnmusic 2013-11-06 16:08
Thank you all for the above posts/responses. ;-) What is needed here, is for a few people to get together and find a IP lawyer, willing to represent a possible class action against UMG; then, seek an injunction or other like remedy, and get a judge to review UMG behavior. It would seem to me an IP lawyer would do this pro-bono, then try for legal fees on the back end if a favorable remedy is rendered, and UMG permanently restrained. ?
 
 
0 #33 Bob 2013-11-19 20:41
I got a strike (a few seconds of background radio music while I am demonstrating do it yourself automotive repair) UMG bots I figure.

Also another video is claimed by UMG to be infringement. Same scenario. Background radio music playing in my garage while I record.

I know this site does not get a lot of comments on the issue.

I don't want to be banned from YT over this, but it irks me to no end that this UMG company can just ignore the law as it wishes.

What should I do?
 
 
0 #34 Patrick McKay 2013-11-25 16:36
Bob - Yes, incidentally captured background music like that would be considered fair use. Unfortunately, since UMG is involved, there is not likely much you can do about it. They are immune to counter-notices, so other than preemptively suing them for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, there is no way to overcome one of their copyright claims.
 
 
0 #35 Bob 2013-11-26 13:43
Update

For the "matched content" notice, YT had demonetized the video. I deleted the video and the "matched content" notice immediately was gone.

I am editing the original (my backup) to remove the radio song in the background.

I will upload the revised video, I lose a few comments and about 2.5 min of DIY because it's a crude edit & I am not techy enough to remove just background sound.

I tried the YT delete a song - beta (available under audio edit) but it did not work for me. It may be because my video was over 15 min. I could not save the "song removed by YT" version as the SAVE was grayed out.

That is where I stand, the strike and my counter notice to the infringement still is under review. I expect UMG will stand on it's claim, so the one strike will sit for 6 months if that's how it works.

I will try the (one way) communication with YT to explain their error or I may just find a brick wall and talk to it instead.

Thanks Patrick.
 
 
0 #36 Bob 2013-11-26 18:59
This false copyright claim (that results in a wrongful "strike" is very insidious, I have discovered that many of the YT features I had (such as longer length of video) have been disabled due to the false claim and strike.

There must be ten's of thousands if not millions of these false claims (fair use defense). There is no "help" to be had from Google/Youtube and the forums are very little help.

Frustrating beyond belief.

Bob
 
 
0 #37 Patrick McKay 2013-11-26 20:17
For the video with a strike, you have the option to still send a counter-notice. What will most likely happen (what happened to me when I tried this) is you'll wait the 10 days, and you'll get a message from YouTube saying your counter-notice was successful and the video will be restored. Less than 24 hours later you'll get a message saying:

Thank you for your counter-notification. The complainant has reaffirmed the information in its DMCA notification. YouTube has a contractual obligation to this specific copyright owner that prevents us from reinstating videos in such circumstances. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor this counter-notification. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

The video will be disabled again and the strike will re-appear on your account at that point. However I have found that if you then email copyright@youtu be.com and ask them to remove the strike, they will.

If you want the strike cleared from your account, that might be the best way to go about doing it. Since you already have a strike, you really have nothing to lose by at least trying a counter-notice.
 
 
0 #38 Bob 2013-11-27 13:59
Following up & posting what I am learning. This is not directly "on point" to the issue of copyright but I'll put it out there.

I had 2 videos "under review" and 2 that were "monitoring for possible review". So these are not monetized while they sit in "limbo" for weeks/months/or longer. Emails (feedback link) with screen shots go unanswered (of course).

All I did was delete the 4 videos and upload them a second time. This requires that you saved them on your computer.

I put in minimal video description, tags, title info.

I don't know if that is part of getting past the screening or not, but I do think YT scans those areas for "forbidden words" or such.

You WILL lose your view count and any enhancements, annotations, etc that you did to the original.

3 are up now, monetized, & working on the 4th. Did not require any editing or other work (on my saved copy) prior to the 2nd upload try.

This is independent to the background radio songs copyright issue.

My guess is the YT software that scans new videos is always "under construction" or has a bad day every so often.

Try it.

Regards,

Bob
 
 
0 #39 Philip B. 2013-11-27 18:00
I created my own counter-notice, and they were processed normally.

After my (YT web form) counter-notices were rejected (and the counter-notification web form was disabled), I created my own counter-notice email with only the required info (i.e. no video titles or anything that would tip off a human). Badda Bing--two weeks later
 
 
0 #40 Bob 2013-11-27 20:01
Hi Philip,

Would you consider sharing your counter notice by posting it here?

I have a feeling I'll be tripping the Google/YT/UMG wire again.

Thanks for your consideration.

:)
 

Due to excessive spam, comments have been disabled for the time being. I hope to upgrade the site soon with a new comment system that can filter out spam.