Probably an algorithm that runs automatically. Recently put a Chopin piece on YouTube and it was auto detected as a modern copyrighted piece. The dispute went through quickly and the claim was removed.
I'm actually surprised "trollbuster" hasn't sniffed out this one lol. Interesting issue, i've never come across.
I love that guy wish he would post more...
This sounds like nonsense to me. I'm not suggesting that what you're telling us didn't happen; I'm merely pointing out the obvious, namely that, at least in accordance with present-day rules, the only possible copyright in a piece by Liszt would be held by Liszt's heirs up to the close of 1956 and the work's publishers which have in any case been so many over the years that no one would know which edition you used without asking you. If you remain uncertain about this, just consider that, were this work under anyone's copyright and its copyright owners refused to permit performence, recordings, broadcasts, &c., we'd never hear it played by anyone. What on earth do the people at Soundcloud think that Lang Lang has to do with this? Yes, a performer has intellectual property rights in his/her own performances, but not in anyone else's!I would submit a formal written complaint if I were you!Best,Alistair
dont take it too heartYoutube also copyrighted my Rach Prelude lol. these corporations man smh
The only further problem here, however, is the the OP's about Soundcloud, not YouTube and if each facility has similar such system errors I'd be pretty amazed.
Me too, somehow he/she is cute and entertaining when they get angry hahaha Sorry for off-topic
I immediately filed my dispute of their claim, and what I said in the explanation was essentially along the lines you just said. I pointed out that Liszt died in 1886, so his works have long been in the public domain. Furthermore, I explained, the work was my own personal performance and had no connection with any performance by Lang Lang, who was born in 1982.You last sentence sums it up well: You have ownership of your own performances of a classical work, but you do not own anyone else's performances.
Thank you for this - but did YouTube provide you with a plausible explanation and an apology and, if so and if it was down to an algorithmic anomaly that was down to human design error, did they also provide assurance that the issue would be looked into and duly rectified?Best,Alistair
Remember that we're talking about Soundcloud here, not YouTube. This just happened yesterday, and I immediately disputed the claim. When I go back now to that page on Soundcloud, it says that the dispute is "currently under review." From reading around, it ought to be resolved one way or the other in 2-3 days; I hope it isn't longer, because it really leaves things up in the air for me.
Sorry, yes, of couse it was; however, it seems as though others are experiencing not dissimilar problems with YouTube and the possibility arises that these errors might have similar origins and causes.
If Soundcloud is indeed reviewing your problem, yoiu should find out in due course what caused it, I guess but I cannot imagine that this, or the YouTube instance cited elsewhere in this thread, can have been isolated accidental incidents.
Good luck!
did YouTube provide you with a plausible explanation and an apology and, if so and if it was down to an algorithmic anomaly that was down to human design error, did they also provide assurance that the issue would be looked into and duly rectified?
In my case, unfortunately no explanation. The issue was resolved within a couple hours. As to the copyrighted piece cited in the claim, the description was strangely ambiguous. No composer or creators name to attach to that copyright claim. Just that it was in the key of ___ and it was copyrighted. From the reports on this thread, it does not look like it is an isolated incident.
YT use an automated content matching algorithm to detect uploads of copyright material. Record companies have the facility to upload their recordings to the library of recordings against which the algorithm scans. It is highly imperfect and generates a large number of false positives in addition to catching genuine copyright infringement. (I doubt YT are particularly concerned about this; it presumably enables them to monetize the video and place ads on it, and I also assume it enables them to allege that they are making an effort, albeit entirely token, to stop DCMA violations.) It would not surprise me if Soundcloud has a similar algorithm and that has caused the issue.
I have even had a notification for breaching copyright on one of my own recordings. I will have to sue myself.
I wonder whether Lang Lang really intended to impose a moratorium, not only on all future recordings of La Campanella, but even of all recordings of it that were made before he became a recording artist? Is he a man of integrity? Would he even care?
I have been mulling this over, and my current thinking is this: If in the end Soundcloud does not respect my ownership of my own performances, I will remove all of my music from Soundcloud.
If listeners want to hear either my own works or my performances of classical works, they can go to my YouTube channel. My performance of La Campanella, for instance, can be made into a score video using the public-domain score, and in fact that was already in my long-range plans before this SC issue came up.EDIT TO ADD: BTW, although I'm not familiar with the Lang Lang recording in question, I'm sure no one with a good ear for classical music could possibly confuse my playing with his. That could be either a bad thing or a good thing, depending on how you look at it.
Fine as Lang Lang is as a particulr kind of cultural ambassador, I am no apologist for his pianistic manner, but I would not think to credit him with so daft an action as trying to impose such a moratorium as you suggest, given that he is hardly so stupid as to assume that the mere fact and existence of his performance/s and recording/s of this piece confer upon his any rights in the music itself or indeed any rights at all other than in his own performances/ and recording/s; he must also be well aware that, in terms of the most commonly applied copyright term, Liszt has been in the public domain for some six decades. I therefore take leave to doubt that ths problems that you have encountered here has anything to do with action or attempted action on Lang Lang's part.
I would stlil pursue this as you are doing and I'll be curious as to what Souncloud have to say about it and on what grounds it took the action that it sought to take.
I immediately filed my dispute of their claim, and what I said in the explanation was essentially along the lines you just said. I pointed out that Liszt died in 1886, so his works have long been in the public domain. Furthermore, I explained, the work was my own personal performance and had no connection with any performance by Lang Lang, who was born in 1982.
The situation will be that their content matching algorithm (I don't know what they use, but for YT's Content ID, see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 ; also https://www.wired.com/2012/10/youtube-copyright-algorithm/ (you may need to turn off adblocker to view this page) has deemed your performance to be a copy of Lang Lang's, thus refused it. I don't know how the matching algorithm works, but I can only assume it is very crude. It should be easy to demonstrate that your performance and his are completely separate - the best way to do this is probably by visually inspecting a waveform of each track; why their algorithm is not capable of the computational equivalent is beyond me. There will be programming methods available to assign digital fingerprints to waveforms as a function of the amplitudes and intervals between crests and troughs contained therein, but it seems their algorithm is grotesquely simplistic and cannot determine between individual performances of the same piece.
You should be warned that uploading it to YT, even as a score video, may well result in it being similarly questioned, though YT don't outright reject such videos, they tend to monetise them on behalf of the record company who own the allegedly copyright-infringed-upon material.
for youtube, i always got around it by confirming the project upload is for educational non commercial background use only
My performance was far from perfect, and there were a few wrong notes and also some missing notes. A precise algorithm would have to pick up on such differences. (I'm assuming, of course, that Lang Lang's performance would be cleaner than mine, and more particularly that he doesn't happen to hit the same wrong notes and miss the same notes!) I suppose that SC could decide to be really silly and claim that I added the mistakes in with an audio editor. Technically, I think it wouldn't be hard to add wrong notes to a performance, but it would be very hard to create a missing note, since you would have to edit it out without affecting all the notes around it that are sounding or reverberating at the same time. And what kind of motivation could anyone have for doing such a thing?Also, I would assume that there must be thousands of minute differences in timing between Lang Lang's performance and my own, also differences in amplitude since everyone emphasizes notes differently.
I'm delighted to announce that I just found out that the dispute has been resolved in my favor, and my performance of La Campanella has been reinstated by Soundcloud. This has been a sleepless couple of nights for me, which is why I'm posting just after 5AM Arizona time. But now I feel like I can return to life as normal. I plan to create a score video of the performance, and--assuming that I don't run into a similar issue with YouTube--I'll put it on my channel and then post it to the Audition Room. In the meanwhile, if you are curious, this is the track that was initially questioned (complete with my wrong notes, although I think I covered them reasonably well):https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr
So have Soundcloud offered you an explanation (and an apology)?
They offered what appears to be a canned apology--which, I suppose, is better than no apology at all. The email read: Hi lateromantic,Thank you for providing information relating to the removal of your track: Liszt, La Campanella (No. 3 fr https://soundcloud.com/lateromantic/liszt-la-campanella-no-3-fr Good news! We’ve reinstated this track to your account. We're constantly working on making our copyright processes better, but mistakes do sometimes occur. Thank you for your patience as we looked into things, and apologies for any inconvenience caused. Thanks,The SoundCloud team
Yes, it is indeed a canned apology but, if you have any interest in pursuing it on the grounds that this "mistake" seems almost certainly to be down to Sound loud's evidently hopeless automated process/es in the hope that the problem could achieve a general resolution in order to avoid the risk that it might otherwise continue to affect you and others in similar situations, I'd be incliuned to write back to them, point out the nature of the problem and demand an actual detailed explanation and assurance that the origin of the problem will be identified and the problem itself accordingly resolved. You'd be doing them, as well as you and anyone else similarly affected, a favour.
Topic: Should I be flattered, insulted, or just angry? 