I post my videos and vlogs to multiple websites - YouTube, LiveVideo, and iFilm. I do this to get as much exposure as possible - and because I don't like to leave an audience behind. I mean, I'm not one to leave old viewers behind just because my own personal preferences change. Now, originally, I had started uploading my videos to iFilm - as I had some odd nostalgia for them from my old viewing habits in 1999.
Well, no more.
My most recent vlog entry was rejected. Why on earth was it rejected do you ask? Because, and I'm not joking here, "Copyrighted Music." Here's the e-mail they sent me:
Your video "Vlog #24 - Bowling!" has not met IFILM's standards for User Video.
Common reasons for rejection of video uploads include:
i. incompatible file format
ii. copyright infringement
iii. pornographic or obscene video
I'll give you a moment to pick your collective jaws up off the floor. Now, for those of you who watched my last Vlog (#24 - Bowling!) will notice that the only music in the entire video is by To Slay Zombie Newton. You know, Vomit Hat Steve, Wurm and Keanu's band? You know, the guys who said "Go ahead and use our music in your vlogs whenever you want!" So, somehow iFilm magically decided, without consulting anyone nor being asked by anyone, that I was illegally using music in that vlog.
This is the reply I shot back to iFilm:
I uploaded a video of mine ("Vlog #24 - Bowling!") under my Traegorn username.
The video was rejected for "Copyrighted Music."
I find that incredible, as the music in the video is written and performed by some good friends of mine who have given me permission to use their music in my videos. Please explain to me by what standard this was rejected, and how on earth I'm supposed to upload videos with music that I've gotten legitimate permission to use?
Unless I get an apology and they reinstate the video - screw iFilm. I'm not wasting time on their site, their crappy uploader, and terrible interface. I think what's frustrating is that there is ZERO mechanism to claim that your music is legitimate. I mean, on the uploader form, I clicked that I agreed that I had the legal right to distribute the content in the video. I told them outright that nothing in the video violated the law - but they still didn't believe me. It's not like they were contacted by anyone - TSZN isn't exactly represented by a major music label here. It's just the band - who know I use the music - and me. No one else.
So, screw iFilm. I'll stick to YouTube and LiveVideo - both sites which have better interfaces, actual communities, and policies that don't treat me like a criminal when I'm actually following the law.
So yeah - I got my demanded apology, and they restored my video. So, I take back any mean things I said about them - as they actually did right in the end. While I'll never know what exactly they thought was playing in the video, the fact that they were willing to actually listen to an e-mail and do right means a lot in my book.
I guess I will stick to iFilm after all... *grins*
Hey, this is meep. I just wanted to state that while I do agree that a ten-year-old's testimony seems unusual, the case made by the plaitiff's in the case you listed at the bottom of the page does suggest that she may, indeed, be useful to the case. I'm not sure on their facts as I hardly believe it would take years to download 1288 songs, but I think they actually have a good case in this instance. I know I'm backing the punks, but from a strictly legal standpoint I have to agree with the plaintiffs.
That said I'd fight any attempt to make my daughter testify, too.