I thought you might like to take a look at the utterly absurd world that I live in as I rebuild and continue to assemble the Archive. My intention is to keep this brief and not turn it into a full blown rant, tempting as it is.
I received a copyright complaint on a post I did on YouTube. This in itself is nothing new and an occupational hazard, however the nature of the complaint was what prompted me to appeal and state my case as to why it was made in error.
The video in question is Tom and Justin's appearance on ZDF Aspekte on the 25th July 2014, where they played an acoustic version of The Phone Book. The details in that sentence are what's important, so make a mental note of them before you read on. It's a great clip of a song that we don't hear that often any more, so I was excited to make it available again. Shortly after I published it a notice appeared to inform me that there was a copyright claim made by the digital rights organisation [Merlin] PIAS. The reason?
That I had used a copy of The Phone Book recorded by Editors for Spotify Madrid in 2013 as part of my video.
The allegation from Merlin is that my post contains music from a year prior to the actual video I shared, and from a completely different recording session. After reading the claim, I thought that I would appeal it because the proof that this was made in error is overwhelming. You only have to take a look at the footage and see that the claim is invalid. They are on German TV in 2014, and it definitely isn't the Spotify Madrid take.
The thing about most copyright claims on YouTube is that if one is levelled against you, all that normally happens is the copyright owner will prevent you from monetising the clip (I don't monetise videos on my channel anyway). Usually they will insert adverts on behalf of the client they're representing and that's the end of it. On occasion they will go so far as to block it in several countries or territories or at its most severe just implement a worldwide block which means absolutely nobody gets to see it. In my case, the punishment was the removal of my right to monetise but no viewing restrictions at all. This is a result that I can live with, but as the claim was completely false I felt that I had to take some kind of action.
So I filed an appeal. I stated that I wasn't looking to rip off the band and that the clip is from 2014, not 2013 and certainly not from Spotify. They had 29 days to reply and they only took 10. My thinking was that they saw what I saw, actually what anyone can see if they view the clip and so didn't need a month to make a decision. When I got the email notification to say the results were in, I eagerly opened my YouTube dashboard to see this (click on the thumbnail for the full view):-
Merlin have decided that the video does in fact use The Phone Book from Spotify Madrid 2013 and so the claim stands. Here's the kicker. If I decide to appeal this and I lose, which judging by the lack in interest in the facts here is a possibility, it will earn me my first copyright strike on the new Archive YouTube profile. That's the first of three steps towards no more streaming videos.
The most worrying part of this situation is that they don't seem to be open to reason. Even when I can present evidence to the contrary of their claim which they can not only listen to but watch as well, it doesn't matter. I positively, certainly used a recording of The Phone Book from Spotify...even if it's abundantly clear that I didn't. The circle of people that are annoyed by what I do keeps getting smaller and closer. Before it was corporations like the BBC or Skynet, but and we're now at the stage where an affiliate acting directly on behalf of Editors' label is at the door. Check back with me in a few months and I guarantee that one of the airports in Justin's travel snaps will be suing me for improper use of an image of their terminal building.
Some days it's difficult to be cheerful.
Some days it's difficult to be cheerful.
drew
