How can a normal YouTube video garner so many copyright claims?

Have a look at a screenshot from my YouTube account, listing the various copyright claims made on a single video of mine.

That’s eight copyright claims, one of which still remains to be released if the music publisher in question, Believe, will do the right thing.

How can a simple video like this, where I went to the beach and filmed various simple scenes, cause YouTube’s copyright ID engine to flag it so many times?

I’m not upset (anymore). I used to get upset. (You can read those posts here and here.) For one thing, it’s not worth getting upset about. For another, YouTube has already taken steps to remedy the process, for which I thank them. Their copyright claim process, which I wrote about almost two years ago, is much improved these days, which makes it easier to file a dispute and to explain my position.

But it is mind-boggling that a simple, average video like this could trigger so many copyright flags. As I explained in past posts, all I did here was to minimally supplement the natural sound of the surf, which got muffled by wind noise in some portions of the video, with an iLife track called “Ocean Surf”. The track is royalty-free, approved by Apple for commercial and/or personal use, and the terms are clearly spelled out in the iLife Service Level Agreement.

I think there are two lessons to be learned here:

  1. YouTube’s copyright ID engine is still trigger-happy. It should be tweaked, and I suggest that this particular video of mine be used as a case study by YouTube engineers. If someone from YouTube/Google is interested, I’m willing to do a Screen Sharing session with them and show them exactly how I edited the video and where the “Ocean Surf” sound loop was used.
  2. Perhaps all these music publishers ought to stop copyrighting beach sounds? Let’s face it, nature sounds, especially ones that are as easy to record as beach sounds, are as public domain as sounds can get. Now if it’s the sound of the rare Brazilian polka-dotted bazooka bird, or some other rara avis, then I can understand the need to copyright it, but going to the beach, turning on the recorder, then calling it a copyrighted sound, is an exaggeration. Are you listening, publishers?

Author: Raoul Pop

Entrepreneur, consultant, filmmaker, photographer and watch collector