Pokémon Reorchestrated YouTube channel taken down: Third copyright strike resulted in...

Dreams of electric Bulbasaur
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
8,365
Reaction score
77
Pokémon Reorchestrated YouTube channel taken down: Third copyright strike resulted in account ...

The YouTube channel for the fan-based Pokémon music project Pokémon Reorchestrated was terminated on Feb. 16, 2016 due to a series of takedown notices issued directly by The Pokémon Company International.

Continue reading...
 
Jacen the Robot Floatzel
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
323
This is most likely the result of Youtube's infamous Content ID system acting crazy again, since TPCi is usually hands-off on fan-works and remixes most of the time unless there was a given reason for it other than simply "copyright infringement". Lately a lot of videos and channels on Youtube have been getting taken down in the past year due to Youtube's copyright system being entirely automated, and a lot of people are not happy with it.

So my guess is that it's likely that which was the cause of the takedown.
 
Thesaurus rex
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
6,669
Reaction score
2,391
Well, the legality of it isn't in question - you couldn't claim fair use for Pokémon Reorchestrated, and the licence doesn't cover Youtube uploads. The issue as I see it in this case is either that Youtube treats accusation on the same level of proof, or that TCPi has been unnecessarily obtuse in dealing with the situation.

When it comes to fanworks, a bit of give and take goes a long way
 
Jacen the Robot Floatzel
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
323
Well, the legality of it isn't in question - you couldn't claim fair use for Pokémon Reorchestrated, and the licence doesn't cover Youtube uploads. The issue as I see it in this case is either that Youtube treats accusation on the same level of proof, or that TCPi has been unnecessarily obtuse in dealing with the situation.

When it comes to fanworks, a bit of give and take goes a long way
Well, he did give credit to TPCi for the original songs and wasn't intending them to fully replace the original compositions from the games. Plus it should be noted that the music wasn't taken down on the other sites, only on Youtube. If TPCi did have direct involvement in this takedown, not only would the music be taken down on Youtube, but on iTunes and all other sites they have been up to. Plus if we go by that logic, then virtually every Pokemon remix on the internet would be taken down, which would actually harm the Pokemon IP as a whole and cause TPCi to loose a lot of their customers regardless of what copyright violations were being made.

However, doing further research, the Pokemon Symphony albums were published by Joypad and a portion of the proceeds for the album actually do go to TPCi, so virtually no copyright violations are. Plus after I watched YourMovieSucks' video on Youtube's Content ID system and it's flaws, it's clear that the videos were taken down because of the tags on the videos allowed the system to activate and take the videos down. So narrowing things down, the most likely culprit in this situation is indeed Youtube's broken copyright system.
 
Elite Bulbapedian
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
35
This is most likely the result of Youtube's infamous Content ID system acting crazy again, since TPCi is usually hands-off on fan-works and remixes most of the time unless there was a given reason for it other than simply "copyright infringement". Lately a lot of videos and channels on Youtube have been getting taken down in the past year due to Youtube's copyright system being entirely automated, and a lot of people are not happy with it.

So my guess is that it's likely that which was the cause of the takedown.
This is not Content ID. Content ID can only issue monotization claims. In this case, he was issued takedown notices, which must be done manually (in the video he put up on his YouTube channel after getting 2 strikes, he even mentioned that the notices were specified to him to be manual).
 
East Unova Resident
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
428
Reaction score
42
Elsewhere, I've seen fans saying things about Skotein like he was a music pirate who was illegally profiting off of GameFreak's hard work.

Its really discouraging to see fans just defame other fans without looking into the details, everything Skotien was as legitimate as possible and done in good faith. He apparently licensed the music and TPC was even making money in the end.

To the best of my knowledge, this seeminlgy came down to a dispute over not-especially-obvious details in the language contained in the licenses Skotein purchased, which differentiated between the different types of channels he was authorized to distribute the music on.

I hope the persons at TPC who pulled the trigger on these takedowns weren't aware of Skotein's licenses (assuming they exist as he's said they do) and just assumed they were targeting someone who was using their music completely illegitimately.

But I'd have to assume that whoever was involved either, knew about the licenses, but acted unilaterally regardless of them. In that case, while they may not be technically wrong for acting on the takedowns, TPC should have better handled the situation with what was essentially a paying customer of theirs who was directly putting money in their pockets via royalties.

That is to say, even if there was a dispute over the specifics of the licenses, TPC could have handled this better than annihilating Skotein's YouTube channel without warning or any attempt at communication.

I heard that there were plans for some sort of official TPC organized orchestral tour for the 20th anniversary, I'm guessing that one way or another, TPC, or at least some persons at TPC, decided that Skotein's work was "competition" and wanted to target it.

When any casual search for "Pokemon" on Youtube turns up dozens of accounts, many up for close to a decade, that are nothing but 100% illicit unauthorized postings of complete Pokémon game soundtracks, including soundtracks of DS and 3DS games TPC is currently selling albums of on iTunes, its really unfortunate that the only one to seemingly be targeted at this point is someone who has apparently gone through actual monetary expense to pursue soundtrack remixing in a fully legitimate and legal way and is actually putting money directly into TPC's pocket.


They're still disputes over what constitutes fair use, with many large corporations basically maintaining the position that fair use doesn't exist at all, but this particular case transcends that, and based on what has been said publicly so far, is almost more of a customer service dispute between Skotein and TPC.
 
Thesaurus rex
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
6,669
Reaction score
2,391
It's a bad way to interact with a fanbase, especially since Braxton quite clearly demonstrated a willingness to be mindful of copyright. I would argue that a big company with an attendant army of lawyers and advisors is an a better position to communicate over matters of intellectual property than a small one.

Fans tend to assume, or insist, that everything is fair use. Everyone hates copyright law until they have intellectual property to protect. That being said, selectively targeting fans while making no attempt to so much as give an explanation is just pointlessly obtuse and ungracious.
 
Statistical Anomaly
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
775
Reaction score
14
Even if the notification was listed as being filed manually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the folks who file these types of notices (as noted in the videos, this kind of work is often outsourced) have some sort of automation on their end (anyone know if filing a manual claim requires passing one of those "prove you're not a robot" checks?).
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
4,830
Reaction score
371
This is not Content ID. Content ID can only issue monotization claims. In this case, he was issued takedown notices, which must be done manually (in the video he put up on his YouTube channel after getting 2 strikes, he even mentioned that the notices were specified to him to be manual).
I was wondering about that, since it seems like its strange that in a lot of instances people are given copyright strikes as opposed to just content ID claimed and figured it makes more sense for Copyright strikes to be given unfairly to certain Youtubers, in a manual way rather than automatic making the situations with Copyright infinitely worse.

THAT being said, when you are flagged, doesn't the company that automatically has content flagged have the choice to just add a copyright strike, because when you do have content claimed you are told options of what will happen. Ads will play, or you'll receive a copyright strike if the company pursues that option. In that instance it might be automatic issue even if manually. If a representative of a company is notified of content claims, wouldn't they just be able to say without hesitation that it infringes on copyright, and thus you get a strike. Given the stories I've heard, striking a channel is NOT that hard to do and seems to be as easy as clicking a button, which I think is a primary issue that Youtube has, just striking channels without investigation.
 
ALL HAIL THE PIKE QUEEN
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
183
Reaction score
34
Shet. I loved that channel, now i'm sad it's gone forever... :C
 
The Charming Fool
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
719
Reaction score
164
If this is not another case of automatic copyright takedowns being issued without consent then TPCi is just plain despicable. There's tons of Pokemon music on YouTube and they don't take those videos down. You can't pick and choose with copyright law. Besides, the videos in question have been up for years. Why take them down now?
 
Thesaurus rex
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
6,669
Reaction score
2,391
You can't pick and choose with copyright law.
That's true. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is that it can be used as evidence defending an accused breach of copyright in court, which isn't helpful in dealing with Youtube takedowns
 
#1 Wooloo Fan
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
2,369
This is pretty sad to see. Like BP said, this whole thing seems pretty ungracious on TPCi's half, especially when no explanation was given or even offered.
 
Fluffy with 80% more spots!
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,048
Yet YouTube allows reaction YouTubers to take entire videos from the more popular folks, such as PewDiePie, without permission and make money off of their hard work without any consequence. What the hell has been going on with YouTube lately?
 
Thesaurus rex
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
6,669
Reaction score
2,391
I would speculate that reaction videos can be considered to be criticism or review, which certainly is Fair Use
 
Previously known as 'Isamu Akai'
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
1,701
Youtube is crap when it comes to their automated system. It's far too easy for anyone to flag a video and pose as the copyright holders just to get a video or channel removed. I've seen this happen way too many times, and yet Youtube has never improved it. They don't check these reports, they don't check who is reporting them, they don't check on anything.
 
Top