1. Under "select action", I would recommend you simply contest the flag, I've found that 99.9% of the time the "owner" (3rd party copyright lawyers) will not bother at all to try to enforce their claim. And those that actually do bother, will review your channel and realize the cost to litigate is higher than the reward if they won their claim. I've made several videos where I had some music (so faint) I couldn't hear it in the background (I had to really crank up the volume to just faintly hear it) and I just contested the claim, never heard anything again. My advice, just contest the claim.

   Reply

2. It's a real shame that the First Sale Doctrine in US copyright law doesn't apply to what you're doing. Nor does the fair use for 'necessary compatibility'. Ideally some entity with deep pockets and patience would file a class action suit to carve out an exception, or lobby Congress to amend the federal code.

   Reply

3. I'm a technical person and you're a technical person, and if I see (or hear) a technical issue with anything, I like to drill down to understand what's happening, and assume you do, too. It's a shame to interpret that as "complaining" about stuff offered for free. If there's a technical problem it's interesting for technical people to discuss. Emotions don't need to enter into it. However, YouTube is not free (commercials, premium, monetization, Patereon solicitations, etc.). Isn't it worthwhile to present excellent content in the highest quality feasible? Isn't it possible for your subscribers to be helpful in this effort?

   Reply

4. I never knew about optical soundtracks. So cool. For a science project in elementary school, I hooked a flashlight to the output of a radio, and a calculator solar cell to the input of an amplifier. Shining the light at the solar cell would transmit the sound to the amp. It sounded perfect, and I thought I was a genius, but then I found out about fiber optics. Lol 😆

   Reply

5. Would it be possible to make a projector that could actually show the optical track on the film on screen as well as visual that views on YouTube could build there own devices and attach to there screens their end to get the audio back out with out the audio being scanned because audio wise it would be visually or would scan lines or brightness make such a thing impossible???

   Reply

6. Is bit chute better?
   Muzak in our Mess age.
   The irony and hypocrisy of YouTube. They have no problem taking money advertising fraudulent and faulty products ,manufactured in a Country that refuses to reconise copyright in yet will haul you up in using a few bars of a popular song. Copyright ,as used in the west is far more a control and monetisation mechanism. Personally I think YouTube will face extinction with present policies.
   Thank s Frantastic Fran.

   Reply

7. Not just that these people are claiming stuff they shouldn't have the rights to claim, the artists were paid for the use of that music. It is just too much work to fight it, and they make money when people let them get away with it. Many times they claim the revenue from ENTIRE videos, which is dangerous if you let them because YOU can lose your copyright because by US copyright law you have to prove that you enforce your rights.

   Reply

8. Fran, consider donating your digitized footage (and potentially your original reels too) to the Internet Archive. They don't get easily intimidated by copyright trolls like Google does, and it would allow people to enjoy the entirety of these films indefinitely into the future. For an example, another Philly legend, Marion Stokes, had her archive of 35 years(!) of recorded over-the-air television donated to the Internet Archive and now all of it is free to view.

   Reply

9. hi Fran, actually, I find that most people find video archive audio backing to be irritating… in fact, you may eventually find that many folks ask that the audio (backing music) be removed without prejudice with or without copyright; it just doesn't add to the video in a meaningful way.
   I find many of your videos quite interesting; thanks for your work on this project, its worth doing BIG time.

   marcus

   Reply

10. I went through the whole process of trying to find the correct publishing company for some Billy Holiday and Tony Bennett that I sewed into my short film noir, Bum Rap. Although I can't remember specifics anymore, there were types of usage categories, etc., and then you had to point out in your plea exact locations in the audio. I did what I could, and never heard back from anyone. I never monetized my channel. It was a compressed period of time waiting for releases, getting contacted by, of all people, the CEO of Village Roadshow, Milt Barlow, who was setting up a YouTube channel called First Rites Films for short film makers and was asking about showing my film overseas. (My little 400 dollar movie) YouTube certainly I.D.' most, but not all of what I used, but never pushed me around. Anyway, it's on my channel, called Bum Rap Andre Hunt, a more recent reupload of it after I touched up the titles and a couple scenes. 11 minutes.

    Reply

11. Trouble is, they involved youtube into that shit! If someone has a copiright claim, he or she must contact the uploader and negotiate. If there is no negotiation, then things go in the court. Youtube or any other media platform has nothing to do with it.
    Besides, when an author passes away, all of his or her work should go public domain. For example, if I die, nobody will inherit my salary. Even, nobody will pay my salary to someone else, even if it is my own child! So, public domain it should be and with no more profit for anyone!!!

    Reply

12. The copyright problem can be tracked back to Sean Parker (whose 42nd birthday is the day this video is released!). He and Sean Fanning started Napster, the first popular file-sharing website. They didn't intend it to be specifically for music swapping, but that's what happened.  

    People realized they didn't have to pay for music anymore so they didn't. (Be honest, have you ever listened to a song repeatedly on YouTube for free that you could pay for, but haven't?)

    Record companies saw their century old business model shrivel up, so they had to resort to new revenue streams. It used to be considered "selling out" to put your song in a commercial, but now cash starved artists had to do it.

    It evolved into a system where a small handful of record producers write commercial-friendly music for the biggest artists and sell it to a handful of Hollywood types to place it in TV shows, movies, and advertisements.

    This is why so much pop music sounds the same these days; it has to be inoffensive to help sell soap or cars or what have you.

    The music publishers have also resorted to internet copyright trolling to replace lost revenue. They reason that perhaps the same instrument that took the money away can return some of it.

    BTW, what ever happened to Sean Parker of Napster fame? He became the first president of a little tech startup called "The Facebook". Dude's worth $2.8 billion today…

    TL;DR Copyright trolls are our fault for not buying albums anymore, LOL!

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.