Posting recorded sequences without getting copyright issues

[XmasinVancouver]

There's no confusion that copyright is copyright. But I've posted numerous recorded sequences of my show, and I've seen countless others post the sequences recorded without issue. Including Trans siberian orchestra. I tried to upload a sequence video of the nutrocker to facebook, and was promptly advised that the audio would be muted in most countries because of copyright by warner bros. It's not uploading the file of the song for download, it's not for profit or commercial use, It's literally a screen recording of my sequence being played back of the track I legally own. So I'm trying to figure out what the deal is here. Why can so many people post exactly the same thing without anything, including me, but suddenly it's a copyright strike? What about all those "lyric videos" that are just the songs with the lyrics on the screen? etc...They do give you the right to appeal, but does anyone know if there is anything with my use that would qualify?

[MikeKrebs]

I have never "fought with" facebook. But, you tube just wanted to monetize my video which was fine by me. Also, posting with the explicit comment for education and demonstration seems to work for some people.

[DrNeutron]

This is why many people have moved to Vimeo.

[XmasinVancouver]

It was instant. The second it posted, it said audio was muted in some countries due to a copyright claim by warner brothers. Clearly some automatic detection. So how do I get around this? Should I appeal it under any specific grounds? I know YouTube often does the same thing. The issue with using another host, is also that the point was to post it to the public light show Facebook group, "light it up like Griswold"

Sent from my SM-N960W using Tapatalk

[Stormyblade]

I nosed around YouTube for an explanation for this a year or so ago when I first posted a video...you can appeal and not much else. I even asked a couple people about it and was told that even if you don't name your video after the song title, somehow their software detects the song that is embedded and flags it as copyright if it's recognized.

I'd love to see someone post and see a tip or workaround for this. I don't really care about clicks and such, but I also am not trying to rip off anyone's work and don't appreciate that YouTube thinks I am doing just that.

[Bwinter]

This is why many people have moved to Vimeo.

I specifically moved away from Vimeo, because I had this problem (my entire account was shut down because of strikes due to this).

[XmasinVancouver]

I specifically moved away from Vimeo, because I had this problem (my entire account was shut down because of strikes due to this).

From posting sequences? I believe It. People that youtube for a "career" (no offense to anyone but YOU try convincing a teenager that you tube content creator should not be main focus) are deathly afraid of copyright strikes because it can shut them down even if it's a mistake. I've heard of some popular channels firing an employee who got them a strike even if it was a legit accident

Sent from my SM-N960W using Tapatalk

[XmasinVancouver]

I nosed around YouTube for an explanation for this a year or so ago when I first posted a video...you can appeal and not much else. I even asked a couple people about it and was told that even if you don't name your video after the song title, somehow their software detects the song that is embedded and flags it as copyright if it's recognized.

I'd love to see someone post and see a tip or workaround for this. I don't really care about clicks and such, but I also am not trying to rip off anyone's work and don't appreciate that YouTube thinks I am doing just that.

Oh, I can already tell you exactly how to do that or workaround it. But either you have to technically change the way the song sounds a bit, or, you are technically trying to circumvent copyright in which case, even if you were justified in the content originally, the fact that you tricked it can burn you even with good intentions. The easiest and legit way, is you take something like audacity and change the audio pitch just enough that it's not really noticeable to your listening ear, but the automatic system doesn't KNOW what it's listening to. It just sees sound waves and data. By shifting the pitch ever so slightly, it no longer triggers. That is a legit way because you are technically "altering for artistic purposes" rather than reposting the original content

Sent from my SM-N960W using Tapatalk

[mikeh65]

I do voice-overs for my show. Generally an intro to the song and an outro. When I post to Facebook I include them with the video. Two reasons, first, both of them usually give song title and artist credit. I believe these should be included, mainly for copyright credits. Second, they shift the music time, when the bots that looking for songs are looking for a pattern in a time frame. By including the voice-over the music will not match the pattern of the original because of the time frame shift. This is not a work around, I honestly give credit where it is deserved and most of my videos have not been flagged. At least that is what I think.

[Bwinter]

I do voice-overs for my show. Generally an intro to the song and an outro. When I post to Facebook I include them with the video. Two reasons, first, both of them usually give song title and artist credit. I believe these should be included, mainly for copyright credits. Second, they shift the music time, when the bots that looking for songs are looking for a pattern in a time frame. By including the voice-over the music will not match the pattern of the original because of the time frame shift. This is not a work around, I honestly give credit where it is deserved and most of my videos have not been flagged. At least that is what I think.

My videos (on Vimeo) were also time-shifted, yet still got flagged (yet no voice-over). I also think that some of my current YT videos (also timeshifted) are also not available in certain countries.