I've had contentID match some CRAPPY SOUND EFFECTS I'VE MADE to apparently...the Ready Player One soundtrack, which probably says a lot about that movie 🙄

I also once had a MDK video (which was just a straight up recording of the 1996 self-running demo) somehow match its VIDEO CONTENTS to a car video in a car enthusiast's channel...

You assume YouTube wants accuracy
I see no evidence of that.

Ripping off a bunch of nobodies, so business, copywriter holders and architects get the money instead keeps those entities happy, which makes YouTube happy .

Why do you think they are inaccurate? All it would take is for someone else to have a similar video or simply frames similar to other content and there would be a match of same/similar content between two users which is probably why you got the notices. The fact that it is game footage, and something as popular as DOOM... it's highly unlikely that you are the only person to upload unique (not even similar) DOOM frames to anyone else.

Indicating something as a false positive would not be in the scope of a user to say. The nn's would be completely skewed and pretty useless if every user could say this isn't correct (even if it was). If it is a false positive, it would become "training data" for the models, and in which case would require a "human" moderator to visually confirm if it is a false positive or not... ergo every video flagged as false positive would have to be manually checked and confirmed.... which we can pretty much assume youtube/google do not have the "human" resources to do. Or perhaps would even bother doing if they did have the resources.

A false positive indicates an identification error. Options for "original recording" or "public domain" are more data classification, not data matching.

i.e There is a match with other content, but youtube does not know if the content itself is public domain or copyrighted... you can probably say it's public domain and sleep well at night.

As for what game recordings would come under... I would have thought it would be well within the realms of "fair use", but I don't know so don't quote me on that. You can tell youtube about "fair use" though.

Image Recognition gets better with larger populations, and given the masses of data their models can learn from (all uploaded content, and probably more since it is google!) I highly doubt it would be getting things that wrong in our day and age... could be wrong though, only they know 😀.

/2cents

spiroyster wrote:

Why do you think they are inaccurate?

I mean, it's not hard to find something inaccurate when one of the following occurs:

A: The supposed "claimed content" doesn't remotely match anything in the claimed video whatsoever, even if one were to compare the video to the claimed content. (if even possible)

B: The supposed "claimed content" doesn't even exist, yet for some reason is in the system. This has happened to me before, I got a ContentID match on a FastTracker 2 song, and upon trying to search the content claim further, I found no evidence of the supposed copyrighted content the claim said my video matched.

Yup, the matching content is some Baby CD -- where I hope they don't play the Doom soundtrack! -- and three other totally unrelated music titles. It's definitely a false positive. 😀

Teach your baby Duke3d, early learning of vintage gaming for a better future

You never know ... there are those lullaby versions CDs of NIN, Nirvana, Metallica, etc... You could some day be hearing some dulcet tones and think.. hey, that kinda reminds me of Grab Bag. Wait a second... that IS Grab Bag! 😁 That kind of thing happened to me once as I was walking through a convention hall at a local swanky hotel. I stopped dead in my tracks because it just occurred to me that the instrumental Muzak playing on the background music / paging system was the theme from Zelda.

Back to the point though, I find it highly irresponsible of a content host to have such an impenetrable partition between its user base and the penalties it enforces upon its users. There is frequently no practical recourse for improper claims, and there needs to be consequences to that kind of behavior. I figure it's only a matter of time before someone gets fed up and starts a class-action lawsuit.