How Rumblefish Ended Up Claiming Copyright On A Song Uploaded By The Band Who Actually Held The Copyright

from the overclaiming dept

A few years back, we wrote about the company Rumblefish claiming copyright on public domain works on YouTube and getting them taken down. Recently, the company got a lot of attention for claiming copyright on someone's video because it had some birds chirping in the background, and a very mistaken Rumblefish process not only believed it owned the birdsongs, but then an employee doubled down and refused to back down when challenged on this. The company did eventually admit a big mistake after this received a ton of publicity -- but many of us were still worried about the process that allowed Rumblefish to make such a bogus claim in the first place.

Here's a story of another Rumblefish takedown -- but the details suggest one of the reasons why these things may be happening. John Boydston, from the band Daddy A Go Go, recently contacted us after he discovered that Rumblefish was claiming copyright on a video he had put up on YouTube, for an original song called I Wanna Be An Action Figure. The song was written by Boydston and he holds the sole copyright. It was released on a CD back in 2002. The video was produced (by Boydston again) just last year and posted to YouTube last October. Even so, Boydston received a notice from YouTube saying that music in that video "may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish." Boydston filed a dispute over this -- but was told that it would take a month to hear back -- and in the meantime ads might appear next to his videos with the proceeds going to Rumblefish.

Thankfully, the process didn't take that long. Within a day of filing the dispute claim, YouTube sent Boydston an email telling him that "rumblefish has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video." So, at the very least, that's an improvement over the birdsong situation.

So, what happened? Boydston searched around for a while to actually find a contact at Rumblefish and had a short email exchange where he was told that the "system is working the way it should." It turns out that Boydston signed the band up with CDBaby to be his online distributor. They offer his music off of the CD Baby site, but also distribute it to tons of other properties, like iTunes, Amazon and various streaming services. And... it turns out, mixed in with a long list of music stores and streaming sites, is Rumblefish. The company is supposed to help potentially license the song to others, with a cut of the proceeds going back to Boydston (I assume after Rumblefish and CDBaby take their cut). So part of that is that Rumblefish automatically registers all such music with YouTube's ContentID, and sets it to "monetize." That, of course, leads to the silly result that any time an indie artist who uses CD Baby puts their own work up on YouTube, Rumblefish may end up claiming the work as its own (though, in theory, some of the proceeds would eventually get back to the author). Unfortunately, this is not clearly explained at all.

CDBaby does let its musicians opt-out of each individual service, and having gone through this whole experience, Boyston has decided to uncheck Rumblefish, and no longer allow them to claim his own music on YouTube.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Great job reporting on this hard-hitting case of copyright not working perfectly. Job well done, Mike. Keep on whining! And keep on bitching! We all know you will...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    trish, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    hm

    person above spends all day sitting in front of his pc waiting for you to post to get his troll on, methinks...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    Re: hm

    Who has that kind of time?

    I think s/he is paid to read techdirt when not filing patent lawsuits or flinging money at congress-critters.

    Remember when the SOPA thing got hot and all the trolls went away from like 1.5 days? That's why.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:56pm

    Re: #1

    Good job on being non-plussed when a company can (and does) censors another person's work, and puts the impetus on the copyright owner to have to prove that he/she actually is the owner of said copyright (i.e., guilty until proven innocent).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

    Re:

    Trolling around at the speed of sound.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:19pm

    I guess at least the dispute got resolved. The info is worth knowing for any independent artists looking to promote their work on youtube and/or cdbaby (despite what other commenters might say...)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Re:

    "Keep on whining! And keep on bitching! We all know you will..." Says the ac while whining and bitching.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Re:

    Flagged in record time. LOL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    As this gets more coverage I expect to see more artists unchecking the Rumblefish box.
    It sounds like an amazingly convoluted system that doesn't benefit the artists 1 bit.

    I think Boydston should find out how much ad revenue was generated during the process, and wait for his check from Rumblefish. They collected money on his behalf, so they should be paying him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

    Re:

    Twat did you say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    WTF is Rumblefish anyway? Bunch of scam artists, seems to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:40pm

    Re:

    Funny. You do nothing but mock Mike at every opportunity. That can be seen a bitching, moaning and whining, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Sounds like a lot of middlemen, sadly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Re: hm

    person above spends all day sitting in front of his pc waiting for you to post to get his troll on, methinks...
    Must go through a lot of keyboards.... pound that F5

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    DanZee (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

    Lost Money

    I'm sure Rumblefish will issue him a financial statement that he will be due for royalties when the song breaks even in 45 years!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: hm

    RSS?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's what Mike doesn't want to talk about here. As more and more bit players come into the game, and as more and more of them write interesting and original terms of service and contracts, more and more artist will be scammed.

    Anyone who thinks record labels are a scam are going to look back in a few years and wish we were back in those days. It will probably be some time after they realize that the Russian Mafia has the rights to every song in existence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    SarahC, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What Mike advocates isn't bit players. He believes that artists should eliminate the middleman altogether--that artists should self-publish and self-promote as much as possible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He believes that artists should eliminate the middleman altogether


    Odd you should say that, since he has said many times that believes that middlemen perform a useful role and should not be eliminated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When the middlemen are enablers, they offer value. Such middlemen include Amazon, Google, Facebook etc. It is when they become gatekeepers that the middlemen are the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Mark C. Petersen, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:47pm

    re: CD Baby

    Mike wrote:

    "And... it turns out, mixed in with a long list of music stores and streaming sites, is Rumblefish."

    I don't think it's that sinister, Mike.

    I checked my artist account on CD Baby (artist name Geodesium). Turns out you actually have to make an effort to opt IN for the Rumblefish sync license deal; it doesn't happen automatically without you knowing about it, so that you have to opt-out after the fact to undo the damage. It's separate from the digital distribution CD Baby does, that gets an artist's music to iTunes, Amazon and such.

    So while it doesn't negate the dumbness of the takedown situation, Boydston must have made the effort to sign up for the Rumblefish "service". And got less than he paid for. CD Baby offers this Rumblefish/YouTube thing to artists for free. If they do successfully wangle a music sync license with someone, they split the proceeds with the artist 50/50, it says.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    this comment should be required reading to access the site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    apauld (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    You would seem a lot smarter and less childish if you only just would post the word "first" on all of Mike's articles. Though posting "first" is stupid and extremely childish, it would be an improvement from where you are now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Kevin, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:23pm

    To correct some misinformation

    The article above gives the wrong impression about how the deal between CD Baby and Rumblefish works. Artists are not automatically opted in to Rumblefish when they sign up with CD Baby. There is a completely separate section in the sign up process dedicated to explaining the deal with Rumblefish where artists are required to opt-in to participate.

    To read more about it, go here - http://members.cdbaby.com/license-your-music.aspx

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:30pm

    Re: re: CD Baby

    Mark C. Petersen,

    If I may ask, does the 'sync licensing' option explicitly authorize Rumblefish to act on your behalf in pursuit of rights infringement? Such authority would be a separate grant from distribution rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:37pm

    Re: Re: re: CD Baby

    Oops, I've found the answer (I believe) in the CD Baby FAQ:

    You are also granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls (and similar controls) on YouTube and other so-called “User-Generated-Content” Networks,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re:

    It seems from my loose understanding, someone correct me if I go astray, that they offer a "service" of submitting material to ContentID on YoutTube.
    They do the "heavy" lifting of submitting your material for you, then pursuing copyright claims, getting advertising placed, and collecting that money. Remember YouTube is setup that only corporations/companies can hold copyright, so a regular folks type most likely would be dealing with the faceless monolith trying to find out how to put their material into ContentID.
    At some point I am sure some portion of it is supposed to go to the artist, but like with most middlemen I am guessing it is a small fraction of what actually is collected.

    The fact they laid claim to birdsongs was an amazing double failure that highlighted how broken the system is. 1 ContentID somehow decided a real live bird singing was a portion of a song Rumblefish manages. 2 when someone complained a Rumblefish employee said NO, IT TOTALLY IS OUR PROPERTY I CHECKED.

    Other than having to publicly eat crow *giggle* over the birdsong fiasco, no one from Rumblefish or Google seems interested in the issues of copyfraud, perjury, and the laws broken by Rumblefish. The system is broken but no one wants to try and fix it lest they be sued out of existence by the **AA's who demanded ContentID be created for them by Google to stave off another lawsuit, Viacom not withstanding.

    The idea has SOME merit. Small indies do not have the time to figure out how to get stuff into ContentID, so they are left to deal with Rumblefish (and I am sure others) who do this work for them... for a cut. It would make more sense for Google to create a more friendly system so indies could do these things directly, but then 22 bajillion jobs would be lost to piracy somehow.

    I would like to see more details about disclosures made when people sign up with CDBaby, if they know that is what Rumblefish does for them or if its just a long screen of 100 names that all come prechecked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: re: CD Baby

    "So-Called" User Generated Content networks? What the fuck?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 7:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Someone seems to have a vested interest in record labels. "You think you have it bad? Well... just you wait"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 7:38pm

    Re:

    ...and you guys don't like my idea of making this clown answer 10 or 12 captchas before he can post this drivel?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 8:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Zach, with due respect, the difference between the two is very small, and very hard to determine. As an example, Google's terms on their storage solution is the sort of thing that could give rise at a later date to all sorts of issues regarding ownership or exclusive rights.

    The term "gatekeeper" is very dishonest and misleading as well. Plenty of companies who are "good" are in fact playing gatekeeper games, from Twitter (who appears at times to be engaged in actively blocking things out of their active term list) to various file locker sites (who make their money in questionable ways). They all enable, but they all also have internal politics, they filter, and they adjust. Even Wikipedia, a supposed paragon of truth, is in fact just one man's political agenda these days.

    What you (and Mike) are not seeing is that today's "helper" is tomorrow's monopolistic market controller. The best solutions tend to be where everyone ends up, and those best solutions end up having to do things that turns them into gatekeepers in order to make their clients (end users) happy. There is just too much stuff out there to have a wide open, unfiltered, never checked flood of crap.

    So you can stand there and act like the grass is greener on the other side, but really it's just a clean field building site for the next set of walls and toll booths, courtesy of the "new" business models.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Kevin, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 10:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You are correct in that YouTube does not allow indie artists to submit their music for content ID directly. That is why CD Baby works with Rumblefish. Everyone commenting on this thread seems quick to say this is the same as the bird song debacle but it is not. This happens to every artist with music in the content ID system. Two things you should know about how it works.

    1. YouTube does not know that the owner of the song and the owner of the video are the same. Meaning, just because I upload my own song into my YouTube account does not mean YouTube won't give content ID notice. They don't know 'm the song owner. How would they? Song ownership is not as black and white as video content ownership. The song could be owned by a publisher, label, or just the artist themselves. All they know is someone uploaded a video that triggered the ID.

    2. The content ID message YouTube gives is very threatening sounding and does not adequately represent what is really happening. It makes an ownership claim instead of a representation claim. It's really based on the early days when it was their vehicle to pull label content. I'm hoping they will soften the language in the near future so it better represents all the scenarios that trigger the ID claim.

    CD Baby makes all this very clear to artists. You can read more about this exact scenario right here - http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2012/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-making-money-from-your-music-on-yo utube/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:01am

    Re: Re:

    Biggest problem I can think of for something to punish stupidity/offensiveness, is that it can just as easily be used by trolls to punish legitimate posters.

    And considering their usual level of maturity, do you really think they would have any problem abusing a system put in place originally to handle them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What you (and Mike) are not seeing is that today's "helper" is tomorrow's monopolistic market controller. The best solutions tend to be where everyone ends up, and those best solutions end up having to do things that turns them into gatekeepers in order to make their clients (end users) happy. There is just too much stuff out there to have a wide open, unfiltered, never checked flood of crap.

    I tend to agree. As companies get bigger, and especially when they are publicly traded, they are going to start acting like the companies they once fought. Many of the news stories about the big tech companies these days are about power struggles. And it will become interesting if Apple starts taking over everything. If IP laws are bad, Apple hasn't yet gotten that message.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "if"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:27am

    Re: Re:

    Don't know, I cunt hear him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:29am

    Re: Re: Re: hm

    Or Firefox. Right click, select 'Reload every' and pick an amount of time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 4:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I suspect the artists have more chance of getting their cut from the Russian Mafia than they do from the supposedly helpful record companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: hm

    Opera did it first! :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Tim K (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you're saying new companies will eventually screw you, so why not just stick with the company currently screwing you?? That sounds brilliant. Or if those new companies try and screw you, they'll just lose people to newer companies that are not the monopolistic market controller

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Noneya Bizness, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 9:51am

    "owned or licensed"

    The Youtube content ID warning is pretty clear; it says "may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish." Rumblefish licenses music on behalf of the content owners in order to collect ad revenue from youtube and pass it along to the content owners. Of course Rumblefish and CD Baby take their cut (probably the same percentage that they take on digital sales), but that's what distributors do. If the distributors weren't doing it, there wouldn't be any money coming back to the artist at all, and anybody could be using their music on Youtube. If someone uses your music in a video and it goes viral, you'd get nothing.

    That being said, I work at a distributor and I can tell you that the Youtube content ID for music doesn't pay out much until you begin getting into the high 5-figure range in video views. Even then it's on the order of a few hundred bucks only once you start getting into six-figure youtube views. But something is better than nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "if"?

    Right now IP laws seem to be working well for Apple, so that company runs counter to the idea that IP laws are a plague. Not only is the company making tons of money, consumers seem very happy to support it.

    I'm just pointing this out because sometimes I think the examples against IP laws don't make the argument very well. So Apple is a hugely successful company using IP laws to its advantage. Just a good example of big companies being big companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Mark C. Petersen, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: re: CD Baby

    I see you found an answer. Which is good, because the answer I would have provided is "I don't know", because I have not signed up for the CD Baby/Rumblefish deal.

    Actually, I wasn't even aware of the deal until this thread. On the CD Baby site, I looked it over, and on the face of it, I thought, seems like a good deal -- costs me nothing, and if a miracle occurs and someone wants to license my music through Rumblefish, I might get *some* fractions of cents (like I do from Spotify), which is better than *no* fractions of cents.

    But then I myself have already uploaded videos with my own music, and I might find myself in the exact same situation as Boydston if the snooperbot found my work and auto-generated a takedown. So until Rumblefish fixes their dumbness, I think I'll pass.

    Now, there's a "chilling effect" for ya!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Kevin, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: re: CD Baby

    Mark,

    Your thinking on content ID is actually backwards. If you sign up through CD Baby, you WANT to see Rumblefish making a claim next to your video. That means the musical content is being monetized. It does matter if you uploaded it or one of your fans. YouTube doesn't know your YouTube channel has anything to do with the ownership of the songs and it doesn't matter. In fact, you as an artist should be uploading as many videos as possible using your music so Rumblefish can collect rev share money on your behalf. That notice only means your songs are being monetized. YouTube does not let artists monetize their songs directly, so if it's not Rumblefish, you'd have to use someone else and they would be making a claim on the songs you upload.

    No one is claiming ownership of your music, they are just administering on your behalf. I know this article was positioned as a conspiracy theory, but that is just not the case. Please read this for all the info on how it works - http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2012/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-making-money-from-your-music-on-yo utube/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll toss this out. The author includes lawyers and patent trolls as people he can do without, but he gives other reasons why Big Tech isn't working together.

    On the other hand, I'm not sure I want them to. As they battle, perhaps they can keep each other in check so that they don't get even stronger.

    "Silicon Valley’s war for the mobile web | VentureBeat: "In my fantasy world, Google and Facebook and Mozilla and Yahoo and all the brilliant men and women who make those companies up would be able to sit down at the ultimate round table and hash out a mobile web that was good for everyone — great for developers, great for users, great for manufacturers. Everyone would win.

    "But in my fantasy world, there are no lawyers, no patent trolls, no limited streams of income, and definitely no online advertising. In the imperfect world, where lawyers and advertising rule the day, the round table is broken, and the deafening din of talk about the mobile web remains fraught with discord."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I meant to say "she." The author is a woman.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In the fantasy world, there is apparently nothing called "competition", and nobody trying to be better than the next guy at something.

    The ideas are somewhere between used up hippie and worn out socialism. Both have really nothing to do with commerce or progress, they are both against it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Mark C. Petersen, Apr 27th, 2012 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: re: CD Baby

    Kevin,

    Understood about third-party licensing and ownership. (I did not know that YouTube doesn't let artists monetize their songs directly, which could account for the fact I've never gotten an answer to that very question every time I asked on YouTube.)

    But in this case (if the original post is to be believed), Boydston had uploaded his own music video, and Rumblefish issued a takedown.

    If I signed up for the Rumblefish deal, I could find myself in the same situation with my own uploaded videos, and might not be so lucky with an appeal.

    Now, it could be possible that Mike got the details even more wrong than as posted. Maybe the Rumblefish deal worked as advertised, and a takedown wasn't issued, just the Rumblefish licensing notice appeared, and Boydston freaked. More information is needed for an informed opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2012 @ 7:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You consider lawyers and patent trolls "competition"?

    That says a lot more about you than you think but sadly nothing we don't already know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    felix, May 11th, 2012 @ 9:12am

    "I did not know that YouTube doesn't let artists monetize their songs directly"

    Not exactly true. Once your videos have a certain amount of plays (5k?) you can monetize your own videos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Matt Webster, Jun 29th, 2012 @ 1:45am

    Still happening

    I got the same message from youtube regarding a video about my dog. I bought the background music from audionetwork.com, then was informed by youtube that I "may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish".

    I replied that music was in the public domain, and 3 days later was told that copyright was released. Well done youtube.

    My Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKyaKdH08VE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bb1grIU5KU

    Their video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlxAxXA1CpE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Stickman (profile), Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 2:13pm

    This JUST happened to me

    My video is entirely original footage and music.

    Here's my email from them:

    Your video "The Day (With You / Without You) by Chinese Goblin Factory", may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

    This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.
    --------------
    So basically, Rumblefish gets the income from those ads now.

    Of course I disputed it. The dispute page warns that "fraudulent copyright claim may result in your account being terminated". So... when does Rumblefish get terminated?

    Anyway, here's my responses:

    -----------------
    Please see this link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/00115218642/how-rumblefish-ended-up-claiming-copyright-son g-uploaded-band-who-actually-held-copyright.shtml This is EXACTLY what's happening here. I granted THEM the right to sell my music, not to own it. Their automated process just grabbed it. In fact, if any income IS generated to Rumblefish due to this fraudulent claim, it should be redirected to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Max Martin, Aug 30th, 2012 @ 5:00pm

    Rumblefish and YouTube

    The same thing has happened twice with my spouse's music when I've used it in home videos - really irritating! I've sent a complaint to both Rumblefish and Youtube.

    It's invasive enough to want to find a different way to post and share videos, like from my own website.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Greg Hinaman, Terror Technologies Extreme Events f, Sep 12th, 2012 @ 9:06am

    CD Baby illegal copyright warning

    I won a Haunted House, one of my actors is a rapper, CD Baby claims they own the rights? How?

    The video was filmed on my property that I own, my friend owns the rights to the song, it has my actors in the video, so how the hell can CD Baby claim they own the rights to it> WTF?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Chris Gavin, Oct 6th, 2012 @ 1:12pm

    Rumblefish at it again!

    Today I've just had a copyright notice served on my Youtube film here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7JrPk5veiw&feature=g-upl
    Yes, the film uses a music track, a song called 'Threepenny Waltz.'
    The thing is I DID purchase a music license for this track by paying for it from a site called Stockmusicsite.com back on January 05th 2011.
    I have paid handsomely to clear this track for all commercial use, yet Rumblefish claim they are now entitled to claim all ad revenue from my film!
    The FAQ on their website claims they are entitled to do this, but I think this totally over-rides the agreement I previously signed and paid for. I did not 'STEAL' this music, I licenced it on a 'buyout' basis for my production. Rumblefish is obviously running a scam here and the shame is that Google/Youtube have partnered up with them. I'm all for artists rights, and I see why I should pay the artist/distributor for music I use in my films. I don't see why I should pay some third party who comes along 18 months later and claims the ad revenue rights to MY FILM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Frank Hirschi, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 5:50pm

    the same thing just happened to me

    I just put a song up that I own all the copyrights on and they (you tube)sent me a note stating that some one else owns the copyright. I did the cdbaby thing last year with it and they this year must have made a deal with this company as I did not agree to this and I am fighting it. as I own the fricken copyrights... I hate it when companies try to do a end run on you .. I went to cdbaby today looking to find out what was up and when I went to the page called sync.. at the bottem it had a check here to agree that was not checked .. so I never agreed to any terms on this "sync" crap ... I for one will not stand for this out of any one I do business with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Deotriese, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 2:43am

    I just had to deal with a copyright claim by them on one of my songs on Youtube - I was aware that it was probably through CD Baby, but at no point in the fine print does it state that you are giving copyright away to any extent. I have other songs on youtube which are copyrighted to CD Baby, and I ignored these as I deal directly with CD Baby and know this is my personal copyright, just administrated by them, but on no planet am I allowing a third party to hold copyright on ANY of my singles.

    I put in a dispute immediately, and received this back today.


    "Dear Deotriese,

    rumblefish has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, ""Fly" by Deotriese". For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page

    Sincerely,
    - The YouTube Team"

    So, thankfully the Youtube dispute process does seem to work (:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    The ripper, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

    why can't cdbaby give artists the option to link and verify their youtube account to cdbaby so that music that appears in the respective artist's cdbaby account can be posted on the verified youtube account of the artist without any copyright claims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Ragnar, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 3:54pm

    Rumblefish Did the same to me

    Hi!
    Well it looks like Rumblefish is in the biz of trying to do this because they did the same to me! I might just leave them, Now I am getting ads on a couple of my videos on youtube... I did not request any ads, does this mean Rumblefish is collecting on my plays? I inquired with youtube why this is happening, awaiting response. I haven't done a thorough dispute, but after reading this I think its time.
    my music vids are
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w73DfBUcQM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY1_kfwThXM
    https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-4_drsQfJU

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Soul Sanctuary, Feb 18th, 2013 @ 8:53am

    Copyright

    Not sure why this is that much of an issue? It's quite obvious to avoid the Rumblefish section of CD baby, it's actually separate from the rest of the distribution, and I will say although it takes months to get your cut unlike having a direct Google Adsense account. It does actually pay more because Google provide a big company like Rumblefish with better quality ads than your average YouTube account. Thus even though they are taking a cut, you still end up with a bigger paycheck than doing it on your own. My first royalty payment from them was just over $2, but that was from only 88 plays which fell into the very start of my contract with the company. Having originally used Adsense myself I know that that is a much higher rate of pay then I ever got from having my own account. So I can only assume rumble fish are getting a much higher average cost-per-click. I have 10's of thousands of plays on YouTube that are monetised since I signed up to Rumblefish on my own account alone, not including many plays, from users that have uploaded my music to their own videos, and although I haven't gotten my next payment yet, I'm expecting it to be for a lot of money, far more than I would of gotten from my own adsense account.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Soul Sanctuary, Feb 18th, 2013 @ 8:58am

    Re:

    Not 100% what you're trying to do here, but if you're going in the direction I think you are, you are forgetting that Rumblefish helps artists claim royalties on works that have been uploaded without their permission to YouTube by other users. So restricting the Licencing to one account would kind of defeat the purpose of the service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Soul Sanctuary, Feb 18th, 2013 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thank you Kevin for actually knowing what you're talking about haha. It's nice to see someone who actually has information before posting scare stories like the main article here. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Alan, Mar 28th, 2013 @ 5:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Soul Sanctuary is correct. Rumblefish is a totally separate opt in that is not just bundled in with the other digital distribution options. Within the Rumblefish option there are two further options: you can opt to have them look for film and tv placements or just to do microsync (content id for youtube). You would really have to not be paying attention to opt into this without knowing it. That said, it would be helpful when you opt in if they'd explain the snafu that happens when you try to monetize your own content on youtube, just so it doesn't take you by surprise, which happened to me as well.
    In terms of Rumblefish, since their library is massive and there is no quality control, I doubt many tv and film music supervisors are looking for content there, but the microsync service is very useful. Yes, it's a bit of a hassle when you upload your own material as there's a little back and forth with youtube, but if you're in the position I've recently been in, where dozens of people have been uploading my songs without my permission, it's extremely helpful. All those videos are not only monetized, but link to itunes, amazon and googleplay, which has actually led to sales. My activity is very recent so I haven't seen a statement yet. Sounds like it may be awhile from what Soul Sanctuary is saying. But there's definitely no way I could track all the unauthorized uses on my own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    gseattle, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:07pm

    youtube/rumblefish bait-n-switch

    When I posted my video, Youtube presented "Chicken Music" as royalty-free as background audio, heavily promoted.
    I was being very careful to make sure I wouldn't run into royalty issues in choosing music, and accepted that one since they said it was free for that purpose.
    Then once they had hooked me into choosing the supposedly royalty-free "Chicken Music":
    a. Youtube placed a link to that song on iTunes so Rumblefish could profit off of my video right away.
    b. When the 1000 hits had been reached and I went to initiate monetization there was a note saying I was violating copyright (and therefore could not monetize). Notice youtube didn't even have the human decency to alert me via an email.

    That's a pretty dern good gig for youtube when you get to profit off of everyone else's original hard work and treat them like dirt as if they don't matter, and bait-and-switch them into violating copyright and blame it on the user and make money on them all along the way, never accepting any responsibility and denying any attempts to communicate.

    What was that about not being evil? Google and Youtube are becoming evil.

    Part of the problem is that in removing that audio youtube also removed part of the professional voice-over I paid for.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NRGcycle/videos
    So now I get to have to fix that.
    What a horrible experience.
    We need competitors to youtube, do it right, put them out of business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This