Problems over content protected by the laws of Copyright have become a huge headache for those who post videos in Youtube. So much so that has come to cases as unusual as the youtuber Paul Davids. This had to face a claim on copyright by a song that he had composed himself.
It all happened when Davids, who usually plays the guitar on his channel, posted a video with a fragment of a song that another youtuber covered. YouTube's automatic infringement tracker alerted Paul Davids that he was using the song he himself had composed without permission.
Paul Davids had to appeal and get in touch with the person who had covered his song to prevent YouTube from sanctioning him. For something like this can lead to the demonetization of the video in question or even be eliminated. The thing ended well, but it talks about the problem that assaults some video creators. And not only because of the system that automatically tracks copyright infringements.
There are genuine professionals hunting and capturing material that may have been plagiarized. It's what YouTube calls manual claims. The problem with this practice is that the person denounced must initiate an appeal process that may not be easy. Especially since to date it was enough to report a video completely, without specifying the part where the infraction was occurring.
Which made it very complicated for the author in question to know exactly what infraction he was committing. YouTube has decided to curb, at least in part, these indiscriminate claims. Now those who denounce the use of copyrighted material will have to point out exactly the part of the video in which that fragment is found.
How to know when illegitimate use of copyright is made?
Not everyone is an expert on the material that can and can not be legitimately used in videos. YouTube points to four cases on this web in which he reports on the use that can be made of audiovisual material. And in which cases it would be legitimate to use certain images or sound material.
Many youtubers to save problems use material with Creative Commons content. But YouTube also warns about this kind of material. Well, if you publish a video labeled Creative Commons on YouTube using copyrighted material, whoever uses it should verify on their own that those images are really covered by that kind of license.
If the material published with that kind of license actually hides part of your footage material protected by copyright laws, it will be our responsibility. Needless to say, discovering this can sometimes be tremendously complex, at least for someone who is not a professional.
We must bear in mind that no matter how much the tools for filming and mounting videos have been democratized, producing an audiovisual production and disseminating it continues to be a complex matter when there is not an audiovisual production company and a legal department.
Therefore, to avoid this kind of problems, it is best to resort to material created entirely by us. And for issues such as music or resort to the sound library of YouTube, which is quite broad, or buy a license of sound or audiovisual material likely to be disseminated. What is completely inadvisable is downloading a video from YouTube or any other site and using fragments of it indiscriminately.
It is completely inadvisable to download a YouTube video or any other site and use fragments of it indiscriminately