• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

First YouTube video experience

Trixter

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,413
Location
Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
I've watched a lot of videos with newspaper or magazine clippings or even short snippets of TV ads and the like, and I'm pretty sure they haven't gone to each one and asked permission first and are probably relying on the fair use defence. Would that be likely?

Absolutely. If you're using reference material to illustrate or expand on a point you're making, that's exactly what the (USA's) Fair Use clause was created to defend. It is in the strongest spirit of the law, and no company would waste their time spending $4000 for their legal department to draft a cease and desist letter for usage like that. Legal doesn't lift a finger unless they think your usage is causing the company financial harm.

People get on trouble on YouTube for using clips of other video or audio that are "active primary consumer product" (music, movies, TV shows, etc. that companies are actively defending). It is very difficult to claim that as Fair Use unless the usage is commentary on the item itself, but YouTube sides on the content creators and has lots of AI and tools to help flag inappropriate usage. YouTube doesn't decide Fair Use -- only a court of law can do that -- but they can, and do, err on the "safe" side which is the original content owner's side.

Bottom line: If you're using an old commercial, or a scanned catalog or manual for a vintage computing subject, you have nothing to worry about.

If you need a case study, I have both scanned manuals and full commercials in my AT&T 6300 Retrospective video, and that's been up for 7 years without a single complaint, flag, strike, takedown, etc.

I do wonder why the people producing it often post their wares with no credit requirement.

Because either they released it to the Public Domain prior to YouTube, or YouTube negotiated a one-time non-exclusive license for the privilege.
 

vwestlife

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
5,206
Location
central NJ
I got a copyright claim for using 15 seconds of grainy VHS-sourced footage of Jack Tramiel talking on a British TV show in 1985. But I was able to successfully dispute it as Fair Use. It was part of my review of the unsuccessful Panasonic JR-200U computer and in the clip, Jack was laughing about how "the Japanese never made it in the computer business".
 

Trixter

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,413
Location
Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
I got a copyright claim for using 15 seconds of grainy VHS-sourced footage of Jack Tramiel talking on a British TV show in 1985. But I was able to successfully dispute it as Fair Use.

I'm willing to bet the claim was manually identified (ie. not a 'bot, but a real person working for the BBC whose job it is to find misuse found it and flagged it). This is atypical, but it does happen.

Sometimes companies reject a Fair Use dispute even if it's clear your usage is correct. While you'd obviously win a court case -- and again, I have to stress that court is the only place actual Fair Use can be determined -- said companies realize the little guy doesn't want to go through the hassle of going to court which is why they outright reject some claims. So in that case, you pull your video down, edit out the "bad" part, and re-upload it again. If you're not making money from your videos and are just doing it For The Cause, then this shouldn't be a big deal.

People who make money off of youtube upload their videos as unlisted and let them soak for a week to see if any automated content ID claims get attached to the video. They then have the opportunity to edit them before they go public.
 

Eudimorphodon

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
5,433
Location
Upper Triassic
It's almost a running joke among certain British YouTube-ers that they're terrified of getting content matched (Ashens and Techmoan have both gone to great lengths to avoid playing more than a few seconds of BBC audio when showing off radios). I can only assume there's a valid reason why they started acting like that.
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
That's kind of funny, in a way, that the owners (taxpayers) of a public broadcaster (BBC) have to fear copyright lawsuits for using material they paid to produce. At least, if BBC is funded the same way CBC is here.
 

vwestlife

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
5,206
Location
central NJ
you pull your video down, edit out the "bad" part, and re-upload it again.
FYI, you can use YouTube's online video editor to cut out and trim parts of a video without needing to re-upload it. It's buggy and doesn't offer frame-perfect editing, but it's good enough to remove a copyright-claimed segment if you'd rather not go through the hassle of the dispute/appeal/counterclaim process... or to edit out something you said that you later learn is incorrect.

And it wasn't the BBC who put the copyright claim on the video. It was from the Channel 4 TV network, which (AFAIK) is not taxpayer-funded in the UK like the BBC is.
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
Did my second attempt at an animation for part of my video about the OSI generating tones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfMVuWestU&feature=youtu.be

It's lame, but I'm proud of it because I achieved it with some trickery - making static images with Photoshop and then using Premiere 'layering' of pictures to give the illusion of animation. For the square wave, I created a long image of a 'square wave' and then used Premiere to slide it in. To keep the end of it from being exposed to the viewer I made a copy of the last inch or so of the right side of the frame, and then put that in priority over the square wave so it moved under it.

I don't know how pro Youtubers like 8bitguy do their animations but I'm guessing similar tricks are employed to save time.

Have to fix the centering.

Also tried Dave's 'Pease pudding' program. https://youtu.be/dNwPGOJysrs

For reference, this is the code as it was compiled on asm80:

Code:
0000   A2 2F                     
0002   B5 00                  
0004   85 2D                  
0006   C9 00                  
0008   F0 FE                  
000A   E8                     
000B   B5 00               
000D   85 2E               
000F   E8                     
0010   A5 2E               
0012   C9 00              
0014   F0 10               
0016   AD 00 01         
0019   A4 2E               
001B   88                     
001C   D0 FD          
001E   AD 00 02     
0021   A4 2E           
0023   88                 
0024   D0 FD           
0026   C6 2D           
0028   D0 EC           
002A   4C 02 00      
002D   00          
002E   00           
002F   10           
0030   01       
0031   10       
0032   01       
0033   10       
0034   02       
0035   10       
0036   03       
0037   10       
0038   04       
0039   10       
003A   04       
003B   10       
003C   04       
003D   10       
003E   03        
003F   10        
0040   01                  
0041   10                  
0042   01                  
0043   10                  
0044   02                    
0045   10                    
0046   03                    
0047   10                    
0048   03                    
0049   10                    
004A   03                     
004B   10                     
004C   02                     
004D   10                     
004E   02                     
004F   10                     
0050   01                     
0051   00                     
0052                          END

Okay, Dave warned it would need adjustment. I still consider it a success in that we saw changes in pitch. I thought about trying to fix it for the video I'm doing but I really sliced my fingers good on that thing... the longer programs are murder on your fingers with those god awful switches. I *was* going to try to adjust it, but the speaker wire fell off, and I forgot the rule about connecting the ground wire *first* before connecting the signal wire to the output latch. It scrambled the RAM contents like eggs. :( I've decided to leave my attempt as is - the point was to show people that the thing could generate sound. Thank you Dave for giving me something that did more than a single tone!
 
Last edited:

daver2

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
9,334
Location
UK - Worcester
It didn’t sound like that when I played it on the recorder...

Perhaps a bit more work required on the audio front!

Good quality video though.

Dave
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
Yeah that's not how I remembered it either! I actually borrowed a public domain recording of it to demonstrate the hoped for output, as I had completely forgotten how the tune went.

If the input system on this thing weren't so painful I'd tweak it.. but I have a few cuts to mend. It sounds to me like it got 4 distinct notes off? Definitely had a bit of a vintage sound to it!
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
I don't know what it is but I'm having a very hard time getting this Snowball mic to record consistently. Or maybe it's me. :) It just seems to have a different.. what's the word.. tone? Every time I use it. If I splice two recordings together there is a noticeable difference every time, despite my efforts to duplicate posture, location, etc. I need to correct a few areas early in the video when I didn't know about pop filters (I made my own out of a ring clamp and nylon). But to just get a few nasty pops out means having a roller coaster of pitch/amplitude changes. I'm beginning to wonder if my setup might be at fault - either the microphone having issues itself or the PC.. don't know. Literally have done everything the exact same as far as I can tell.

One other question.. I was looking at the Youtube post video settings yesterday when I posted those snippets, and I see they ask 'this this video for children'? Do they mean is the video explicitly made for kids, or just safe for them? It's not really clear if doing so segregates the video from adults if you say yes.
 

Trixter

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,413
Location
Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
Your environment (room tone) might be the cause of your recordings not being consistent. Ventilation, background noise, etc. If you don't need to be on camera and can record away from your computer, try recording in a clothes closet (seriously, it dampens echo).

The text for "made for kids" is a COPPA regulatory requirement. The text is fairly specific; it asks if the video is targeted primarily to children. Since you're not making children's content, you should answer "no".
 

vwestlife

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
5,206
Location
central NJ
One other question.. I was looking at the Youtube post video settings yesterday when I posted those snippets, and I see they ask 'this this video for children'? Do they mean is the video explicitly made for kids, or just safe for them? It's not really clear if doing so segregates the video from adults if you say yes.
Make sure you go into your channel's advanced settings and choose the option indicating that your channel is NOT made for kids:

COPPA.jpg


Otherwise, if YouTube thinks your channel is made for kids, either across the entire channel or on a per-video basis, your videos will end up with the comments disabled, likes/dislikes disabled, view counter hidden, and the ability to add your videos to a playlist (such as Watch Later or Favorites) disabled. I have noticed this happening on some of Ian Mavrick's videos ("RE1974" on YouTube -- the Australian TRS-80 guy).

Note that choosing the "not made for kids" option does NOT mean that children are not allowed to watch your videos -- it just means that they're not intended to be your channel's PRIMARY audience.
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
Okay, so here is the 'finished' product. It's unlisted for now while I mull it over some more, but feel free to check out and comment. I'm not afraid of correction or criticism.

I always found Youtube to be particularly useful as a collector - you get to see a machine actually operate, see what's normal/abnormal, and decide if it's something you really want. I'm not looking to make a career out of this as I already have one - just fill in the blanks, provide some (hopefully) useful information to both collectors and non-collectors alike (especially younger people who are totally unaware of this stuff) and show what it is and how it works.

This was supposed to be a 6 or 7 minute quick 'tour' video but morphed into something more as I learned more about video editing and animation. It became almost as much about the creation process as the actual subject matter. I very much welcome any corrections to the historical subject, OSI, as the information I researched (for weeks) was at times very confusing and even contradictory from source to source.

Because I am trying to keep it accessible to a wide audience, I don't get *too* technical. I'm not an electronics engineer; my own understandings of things are not always 100% so there may be some errors to correct.

Anyway, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vww6XbDc2pY&feature=youtu.be

Probably the next video will tackled my TV Typewriter project, when I have better lighting.
 

Trixter

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,413
Location
Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
That is one of the very best first efforts I've ever seen! Clear and informative with a light brush of humor. It looked like you used a camera with dual pixel autofocus, as your overhead shots have good focus when the subject depth changes. Audio quality was also very good during your narration.

If all of your videos are roughly this level of quality, presentation, and information, you'll definitely find a large audience (if that's what you're after). Great work!
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
Thanks muchly for that! It means a lot. I've always been a bit camera shy so sticking myself in there wasn't easy.

The camera for about 90% of the video was my Samsung Note 10+. The cam I used at the very beginning and in a few cuts was my Note 8, which had a smashed camera lens shield and had developed spots (which you can see if you look closely). I am amazed at the difference in quality between the two even though they have the same MP rating. With better lighting, I think the 10+ could do an even better job than it did.

I think really my main beef with this video is the audio. I started recording with my cam phone and then ponied up for a Blue Snowball, which I then rerecorded the narration with. It's pretty awesome, but getting consistent tone proved to be really difficult for some reason. I think a key mistake was not fully scripting it out and reading it all in one sitting. But I kept coming up with new things to add or fix, and that required cutting and pasting new audio in, and unfortunately despite my best efforts to replicate conditions, I couldn't get it 100% consistent. To make matters worse, I had not been schooled about pop filters and found some really nasty pops throughout. Which, having constructed a pop filter from a ring clamp and nylon hose, I went after the worst of.

It'll be interesting to see if I can apply what I've learned to the next project. I'm probably going to tackle my TVT project next, which is a bigger subject and will require a lot of narration and careful editing.
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
So last night when I went to bed the video seemed to have settled at 121 views after 3 days. Then early this am my phone started buzzing with youtube alerts, and the view count hit 433?!

Is that just the youtube algorithm doing its thing??
 

vwestlife

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
5,206
Location
central NJ
So last night when I went to bed the video seemed to have settled at 121 views after 3 days. Then early this am my phone started buzzing with youtube alerts, and the view count hit 433?!

Is that just the youtube algorithm doing its thing??

Probably. The platform is full of videos which get very few views, so it considers them to just be background noise, not worth promoting to anyone or even keeping an accurate view count on. But there's a threshold (it used to be 300 views, not sure what it is now) above which YouTube does consider your video to be a legitimate effort that is worth suggesting to viewers and keeping an accurate view count on it.

Just one slight suggestion from me: Make the background music quieter next time. I found it to be a bit distracting, but maybe I'm just unusually sensitive to it because I see a lot of highly popular videos with music that nearly drowns out the speaker's voice and no one seems to complain about it!
 

falter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,864
Location
Vancouver, BC
Probably. The platform is full of videos which get very few views, so it considers them to just be background noise, not worth promoting to anyone or even keeping an accurate view count on. But there's a threshold (it used to be 300 views, not sure what it is now) above which YouTube does consider your video to be a legitimate effort that is worth suggesting to viewers and keeping an accurate view count on it.

Just one slight suggestion from me: Make the background music quieter next time. I found it to be a bit distracting, but maybe I'm just unusually sensitive to it because I see a lot of highly popular videos with music that nearly drowns out the speaker's voice and no one seems to complain about it!

I agree. I had a hard time.with getting volume right. I'm very self conscious, so when I was recording and prepping the video, I kept the volume down to keep my wife and kids from hearing it and razzing me. :) But when I did the first play at normal volume it sounded too loud, so I dialed back. Then it was too quiet. I'm not really sure how you get the optimum given that everyone listens at different volumes. There must be a technique.
 
Top