F*ck AdRev and your fraudulent copyright claim
I made a YouTube video of my daughter back in 2010, and it briefly went viral. To date it has reached 113499 views, 438 likes (6 dislikes) and 86 comments still listed.
Today I received a copyright claim by "AdRev for Rights Holder". It states that they have a copyright claim for the music "Medieval.-16004-RFR - Manuel Kempter".
The music was produced by Manolo Camp (who's real name is Manuel Kempter) and released under a Creative Commons license.
All information/attribution is provided in the video description. Note that the link to his personal website now redirects to his business, but the link to OpSound now only contains two songs, and the original mp3 is no longer present on that site - though is still available elsewhere.
I'm surprised that AdRev say they are acting on behalf of the Rights Holder, since shortly after my video was posted, Manolo Camp himself posted a comment on the video:
Anyway, I will dispute the claim and it will get resolved. In the meantime AdRev will continue making (often fraudulent) claims against many other YouTube etc video producers.
Update: Yes the copyright claim was abandoned within 3 hours of my dispute.
At the end of the YouTube dispute form it specifically says:
Surely when they repeatedly make bogus copyright claims, their "license" to submit claims should be revoked.
This has been going on for long enough - since well before 2013.
Update: I have since been in contact with Manuel Kempter, and he has confirmed that is unaware of the actions of AdRev, and certainly didn't initiate copyright claims.
They specifically market a Self Service CID (Content ID) service aimed at independent musicians, labels and publishers.
Look how easy it is to use:
In fact, anyone could simply create an account, upload some Creative Commons tracks, and claim them as their own. Assuming the tracks are not already recognised by AdRev, they will perform Content ID claims for the tracks.
It's a win-win for AdRev.
If ever someone proves the content copyright claim was fraudulent, all they have to do is terminate the account of that individual. "Oh the shock, we were deceived, how could they do such a thing..."
However while the game is still active, and videos get monetised, then AdRev will happily claim a fee for providing their service. Under no circumstances is AdRev actually punished for facilitating fraudulent claims.
I can imagine websites that host creative Creative Commons, where as soon as a content claim is made, they would simply remove the content. As such the content will eventually disappear from the Internet - when clearly it was the artists intention for it to instead be shared and enjoyed by many people.
There would also be plenty of cases where an artist produces content and does not license it for sharing. However maybe their tracks are used in online content (such as YouTube fan videos) - without the permission of the artist. In this situation AdRev makes it easy for anyone to impersonate the artist and then start claiming a revenue share.
The arms length attitude of YouTube, and the complicit business model of AdRev both directly affect artists. Both companies should be accountable for abuses of the Content ID system.
Today I received a copyright claim by "AdRev for Rights Holder". It states that they have a copyright claim for the music "Medieval.-16004-RFR - Manuel Kempter".
The music was produced by Manolo Camp (who's real name is Manuel Kempter) and released under a Creative Commons license.
All information/attribution is provided in the video description. Note that the link to his personal website now redirects to his business, but the link to OpSound now only contains two songs, and the original mp3 is no longer present on that site - though is still available elsewhere.
I'm surprised that AdRev say they are acting on behalf of the Rights Holder, since shortly after my video was posted, Manolo Camp himself posted a comment on the video:
Update: Yes the copyright claim was abandoned within 3 hours of my dispute.
At the end of the YouTube dispute form it specifically says:
Disputes will be submitted to the copyright holders listed above.
YouTube does not review copyright disputes.What a fat lot of good that is. When is YouTube going to stop AdRev using their service to threaten producers and steal revenue?
Surely when they repeatedly make bogus copyright claims, their "license" to submit claims should be revoked.
This has been going on for long enough - since well before 2013.
Update: I have since been in contact with Manuel Kempter, and he has confirmed that is unaware of the actions of AdRev, and certainly didn't initiate copyright claims.
How complicit are AdRev?
AdRev markets themselves to anyone and everyone that wants to prevent copyright infringement. They are happy to do business with the movie studios, record labels, and also individual artists.They specifically market a Self Service CID (Content ID) service aimed at independent musicians, labels and publishers.
Look how easy it is to use:
 |
| AdRev - Self Service CID - product marketing. |
In fact, anyone could simply create an account, upload some Creative Commons tracks, and claim them as their own. Assuming the tracks are not already recognised by AdRev, they will perform Content ID claims for the tracks.
It's a win-win for AdRev.
 |
| The AdRev Business model - AdRev always wins. |
If ever someone proves the content copyright claim was fraudulent, all they have to do is terminate the account of that individual. "Oh the shock, we were deceived, how could they do such a thing..."
However while the game is still active, and videos get monetised, then AdRev will happily claim a fee for providing their service. Under no circumstances is AdRev actually punished for facilitating fraudulent claims.
What's the impact for open, shared or public domain content
In theory, any cases where Creative Commons content is claimed as copyright, then the claim would be disputed. However I'm sure there's plenty of cases where videos are removed due to the scaremongering, or alternatively the video is monetised - perhaps because the "do nothing" option is chosen.I can imagine websites that host creative Creative Commons, where as soon as a content claim is made, they would simply remove the content. As such the content will eventually disappear from the Internet - when clearly it was the artists intention for it to instead be shared and enjoyed by many people.
There would also be plenty of cases where an artist produces content and does not license it for sharing. However maybe their tracks are used in online content (such as YouTube fan videos) - without the permission of the artist. In this situation AdRev makes it easy for anyone to impersonate the artist and then start claiming a revenue share.
The arms length attitude of YouTube, and the complicit business model of AdRev both directly affect artists. Both companies should be accountable for abuses of the Content ID system.
Comments