YouTube Copyright Claims on Amiga PD Demo Video

I've uploaded a video to YouTube today as part of my channel and it's been flagged up as being partially blocked due to a copyright claim by 'Crowley Media'. I did think I should have no issues at all as the video is a few PD demo highlights, although it seems to be the Hardwired demo that has caused the copyright flag.

I'm pretty new to the YouTube game and just wondered if this is a blip perhaps and if I dispute it, it will be easy enough to resolve given the content is pretty much public domain by nature(!) or are there people/organisations who somehow lay claim legitimately to some old content such as PD Demos?

Here's my video - [ Show youtube player ] - It's apparently blocked in the following countries:-

Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Canada, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Guyana, Mexico, United States, Uruguay, Peru, Brazil, French Guiana, Argentina

A curious selection!

Should I just let it go, I don't want to dispute it and start racking up copyright strikes, but just feels slightly unfair on this occasion!

[lordofchaos]

Sounds like YouTube being over zealous with it's algorithms, does seem quite odd. Perhaps the Hardwired demo contains a copyrighted image?

It wasn't unusual for people to rip art from copyrighted stuff back then and plonk them into demos..

EDIT: As you're using this footage for the purposes of highlighting the demo scene (and not passing it off as your work), I'd dispute it with "fair use" terms.

[roondar]

The YouTube content ID system compares against a known list of music (and maybe video). It's not perfect so maybe it incorrectly flagged the video. It's also possible that the Hardwired demo features copyrighted music (for instance a sample that is clearly from some song).

Disputing it should not be a problem, as long as you're honest in the text accompanying the dispute and crucially don't re-upload videos or some such while the dispute runs. Do note however that such disputes will be handled by the alleged copyright holder and they will have to agree to drop the flag. If they don't, your dispute will be unsuccessful.

Should your dispute be unsuccessful, the easy thing is to remove the video. Problems only start if you persist after that stage.

Fighting an unsuccessful dispute you consider to be unfair/unjust is an actual legal procedure and I'd highly recommend against that unless you first speak with a lawyer about it to get proper advice.

Thanks, both of you, a sensible outlook! I'm cautious about even raising a dispute in case I end up with an unnecessary strike!

[a4k-oerx]

Originally Posted by howtoretro

..although it seems to be the Hardwired demo that has caused ...

Would be interesting if these videos of the same demo are blocked as well.

Edit: Ok, seems to be the case when looking at the snippets in search results at google for "Crowley Media" amiga

Edit 2: That company appears to have a quite diversified portfolio if you look at more general search results at google for "This video contains content from Crowley Media"

[britelite]

Originally Posted by howtoretro

I did think I should have no issues at all as the video is a few PD demo highlights

Just to be clear here, demos are NOT Public Domain, the authors still retain all copyrights.

Demos are kind of a grey area relying on good faith, as they don't even contain any explicit license for how they should be distributed. Which, if we're getting really nitpicky about it, actually means no-one is allowed distribute them in any form.

[spiff]

Originally Posted by britelite

Just to be clear here, demos are NOT Public Domain, the authors still retain all copyrights.

That's a really interesting, i figured public domain had a strong legal standing as un-revokable.. but apparently you can revoke your "public" license anytime you want?!

[britelite]

Originally Posted by spiff

That's a really interesting, i figured public domain had a strong legal standing as un-revokable..

The thing is, they were never public domain to begin with, as in most countries you have to explicitly put your works in the public domain (which demo authors most certainly didn't).

[spiff]

Originally Posted by britelite

The thing is, they were never public domain to begin with, as in most countries you have to explicitly put your works in the public domain (which demo authors most certainly didn't).

Didn't argue that, I was just surprised that public domain could be revoked even after you put your work into it.
*edit* In the sense that any PD software (or demo) could be revoked today, if you are the author.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by spiff

Didn't argue that, I was just surprised that public domain could be revoked even after you put your work into it.

But no public domain status has been revoked here, as the works were never public domain to begin with.

EDIT:

*edit* In the sense that any PD software (or demo) could be revoked today, if you are the author.

Author or not, public domain status can't be revoked. BUT, as I said, most demos have never been public domain, so no status to revoke.

[Minuous]

Wouldn't that make many of the Fish disks etc. illegal then, if that were really the case?

[Foebane]

Demos are certainly NOT public domain, many of them carry copyright notices, for one thing. Distribution rights seem to vary from demo to demo, however.

YouTube, as it is, is clamping down on copyright violations, and things will only get 1000% worse for content creators as Article 13 comes into force (yes, it passed). It's a shame as Fair Use is a perfectly valid reason to use copyrighted material, and yet AFAIK Article 13 has gone against this principle in favour of memes and parodies, ironically.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Wouldn't that make many of the Fish disks etc. illegal then, if that were really the case?

Just because something may be distributed freely doesn't make it public domain.

[Minuous]

I agree with that, but not the contention that if there is no "explicit license" then "no-one is allowed to distribute them in any form".

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I agree with that, but not the contention that if there is no "explicit license" then "no-one is allowed to distribute them in any form".

You agreeing with it doesn't really matter, according to copyright law in most countries you're not allowed to distribute copyrighted content without explicit permission (although most grant you the right to make personal copies).

[Minuous]

How would anyone even know if it was copyrighted content in that case, if there is no copyright notice and, in some cases, no known author?

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by Minuous

How would anyone even know if it was copyrighted content in that case, if there is no copyright notice and, in some cases, no known author?

I have ContentID on YouTube and can help the op with this case, but only if he posted the original text claim and a screenshot from the claim. The copyright claim can be automatic, manual, over visual, audio, or both - audiovisual content.

If there is no known author, it doesn't mean that the content is copyright free. Also there is no need for copyright notice to have copyright over a creation.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Minuous

How would anyone even know if it was copyrighted content in that case, if there is no copyright notice and, in some cases, no known author?

It's copyrighted unless the author has explicitly waived the copyright (or the copyright has expired).

[Phantasm]

if its freely distributable how is distributing the original disks or an ADF file of it any different from distributing a capture/recording of it?


Its still copyrighted to the author(s) and there is no disputing that, but a recording in youtube is just another way of distributing it.

To be fair I imagine there was a whole lot of disassembling and ripping off of other peoples routines going on and that is much more of a copyright issue but nobody bothers about that.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Its still copyrighted to the author(s) and there is no disputing that, but a recording in youtube is just another way of distributing it.

Depends on how you look at it. In video form demos are not distributed in it's original form (which usually is a binary executable or disk image) anymore, so a video could be seen as derivative work, which is not allowed without permission of the author. This is actually quite problematic for demos in a legal sense, as most demos don't state how you're allowed to distribute or use them.