As for judgment on the actual issue, I think ContentID bends over backward to big content to forestall more heavy handed moves, at the expense of bad mistakes like this one.
It looks like it's profitable for BFM to claim or create lots of media clips so they get paid for these ads, in the interim period before the creator appeals. To fix it the incentives would have to change.
Here's a prior example where BFM erroneously claimed a license to a classical performance, which messed with ContentID.
I'd be interested to hear (both from Youtube and from people caught by ContentID) about how hard it is to fix these problems.
I also want to know what happens to the ad revenue - do Youtube just keep it; or do they still pay it to the original company; or do they attempt to claw it back at some point; or do they pay it to the real creator of the work?
http://bfmdigital.com/
As for judgment on the actual issue, I think ContentID bends over backward to big content to forestall more heavy handed moves, at the expense of bad mistakes like this one.
It looks like it's profitable for BFM to claim or create lots of media clips so they get paid for these ads, in the interim period before the creator appeals. To fix it the incentives would have to change.
Here's a prior example where BFM erroneously claimed a license to a classical performance, which messed with ContentID.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/VdWWVV...
Youtube should punish BFM's mistake.