Rumblefish CEO: Claiming Copyright On Your Incidental Recordings Of Birds Was Merely A Series Of Unfortunate Errors
from the that-just-happen-to-profit-us dept
I'm the CEO of Rumblefish, I guess we're the newest up and coming bird music licensing company - I'm also a copyright, music licensing, entrepreneur guy. Ask me anything.the details aren't leaving many satisfied. The key explanation is basically that it was a "series of unfortunate errors":
Here's what happened. YT ID'd a song in our catalog improperly, it was disputed, one of our content ID reps re-instated the claim mistakenly. The issue was brought to our attention b/c of a post tonight. We reviewed the video, I watched it myself, and it was clearly a mistake. We released the claim on Sunday eve a few hours after our mistake came to our attention. That's what happened.This is, almost certainly, an accurate reflection of the specific events, but hardly touches on the key error. That the Rumblefish rep re-instated the video "mistakenly." Remember, this was a nature video. There was no music. No one who watched the actual video would think that it involved someone taking "bird songs" off of some Rumblefish licensed track and placing it on the video.
We review a substantial amount of claims every day and the number is increasing significantly. It's been rather challenging. We have millions of videos now using our songs as soundtracks and keeping up is getting harder and harder.
Separately, this highlights an ongoing problem that we've discussed concerning YouTube's ContentID program. While it has been a great way to enable copyright holders to make money from content uploaded by others, it also can (and often is) abused to either take down content or to monetize someone else's content.