Well, if the uploader's using copyrighted recordings rather than a midi or performing the pieces themself or using a more liberally licensed recording, it is understandable. Bach's pieces may be free but musicians' performances of them aren't.
Youtube is _filled_ with classical musicians getting shafted by this, from amateur ensembles to semi-pros and even some professional groups getting silenced or defunded by these algos. The trouble is that Bach played well sounds like...well, Bach. If you're not "the first owner" of the copyright (and a big music company), you tend to get screwed financially (and the big companies do a LOT of screwing). YT's algorithms are designed to detect "I took this whole TV show up a tone in pitch and put a fake pair of curtains on the front to evade content ID". The Bach will sound "the same" to a copyright algorithm.
I only listen to classical music, and I've noticed that where YT used to once be a great source of legally-free brilliant performances (often with scores!) it's been going downhill and I've slowly been redirected to copyrighted Big Media recordings of old classics (which usually I do not prefer).
My mom got bitten by this. After my dad died, she uploaded a video of him playing his violin with a baby on his lap. The music is in public domain, and it was demonstrably an original recording of a (sorry, dad) rank amateur. It got blocked so fast that my adult cousin, the baby in the video, couldn't watch it. This isn't understandable, it's ridiculous overreach.
I once got a copyright claim for a classic song (copyright expired) that I played with Timidity++ (both software and voice is free). YouTube is somehow good at detecting a similar-sounding tune that isn't the exact copy of the original. It's such a discouraging experience.
I am not sure of the example that this video pointed out in particular, but most others seem to have "Public Domain Compositions" of many sorts as the "music in the video" tagged by YouTube.
While I agree that it lacks some context, it seems like smaller mislabeled clips were the source of this "violation" rather than the usage of whole copyrighted clips.
It's kind of nonsensical that performances based on a public domain piece of art can be copyrighted. That would be the similar to making the Linux kernel proprietary again just because you change the way the code is formatted.
Also, let's not even pretend it's impossible to imitate someone's way of playing while still doing your own interpretation. How would algos know?!?
azalemeth|4 years ago
I only listen to classical music, and I've noticed that where YT used to once be a great source of legally-free brilliant performances (often with scores!) it's been going downhill and I've slowly been redirected to copyrighted Big Media recordings of old classics (which usually I do not prefer).
someguydave|4 years ago
klyrs|4 years ago
Minor49er|4 years ago
euske|4 years ago
cunidev|4 years ago
While I agree that it lacks some context, it seems like smaller mislabeled clips were the source of this "violation" rather than the usage of whole copyrighted clips.
ekianjo|4 years ago
It's kind of nonsensical that performances based on a public domain piece of art can be copyrighted. That would be the similar to making the Linux kernel proprietary again just because you change the way the code is formatted.
Also, let's not even pretend it's impossible to imitate someone's way of playing while still doing your own interpretation. How would algos know?!?
LocalH|4 years ago