Wrong Copyright Claimant
- Thread starter O8ride
- Start date
Clint Love
It doesn't say CUNT, dammit!
Yeah. Unless you own the rights, there's no point. You'll just have to republish without the flagged material.
Lurch
Administrator
You can challenge it. There are copyright trolls who try to wrongly claim. Had a guy Streammer try claiming a Josh Woodward track was his, despite Josh's stuff all being 100% free at the time. I challenged it and they backed off.
However, some artists use a third party to check YT. If it's a major artist, it's likely to be their record company or publisher. Possibly a film maker if the music was used in a film (Warner are fuckers for this). If you make and incorrect, or loose a challenge then you face a copyright strike. Search the name of the claimant on YT. I searched my troll and there were plenty of rant vlogs about him.
If it is a troll, I'd report it to YT, if I could find a means to do it... The challenge by the way is entirely between you and the challenger, don't think it's an arbitration service.
However, some artists use a third party to check YT. If it's a major artist, it's likely to be their record company or publisher. Possibly a film maker if the music was used in a film (Warner are fuckers for this). If you make and incorrect, or loose a challenge then you face a copyright strike. Search the name of the claimant on YT. I searched my troll and there were plenty of rant vlogs about him.
If it is a troll, I'd report it to YT, if I could find a means to do it... The challenge by the way is entirely between you and the challenger, don't think it's an arbitration service.
SighBored
@thesighbored
Yes. Fight them. I used some CC 3.0 songs before and was claimed by some other douchebag company/band/whatever. I disputed them all (yes, it was not just one occurrence), right up until the so-called CC 3.0 artist/group scored some deal with some recording company and all their previous works suddenly become copyright.. After that I said to hell with this shit and used YT to remove all that "copyrighted" music. Yes, some of the videos have no audio, but I rather it be that way then them holding rights on my shit.
Bottom line if you know for sure the music you're using is original (by the artist), free to use, or you have the permission from the artist to use it, then dispute their asses. More often it's just some script that supposedly claims you're using their song and makes a claim on it. It's funny how they can claim on it without proof but to dispute, you need to provide proof/reason why you are disputing their claim, and they have like close to a month to respond either to drop the claim or not.
Bottom line if you know for sure the music you're using is original (by the artist), free to use, or you have the permission from the artist to use it, then dispute their asses. More often it's just some script that supposedly claims you're using their song and makes a claim on it. It's funny how they can claim on it without proof but to dispute, you need to provide proof/reason why you are disputing their claim, and they have like close to a month to respond either to drop the claim or not.
O8ride
O8
Cheers guys. Might not have written this very well. My video hasn;t been flagged by someone else, and hasn;t been taken down, it's the internal YT system that just told me that because I had used a copyrighted song, they would monetise. That's normal because I was expecting it because I used copyrighted music.
But when I looked at who they claimed had the rights and would get any proceeds (if any, lol), it came up as Leona Lewis. And I sure didn't use any of her stuff.
I wonder how many times the YT system just gets it wrong
But when I looked at who they claimed had the rights and would get any proceeds (if any, lol), it came up as Leona Lewis. And I sure didn't use any of her stuff.
I wonder how many times the YT system just gets it wrong
Clint Love
It doesn't say CUNT, dammit!
Independent/Self Published artists will often give you permission to use their stuff on a handshake agreement and as long as you can prove it to YouTube, you are fine. Once they get signed to Sony or some major publisher, though, your handshake agreement means dick, because when an artist songwriter gets signed, they are selling their property (the music) to the new label and the real rules apply.
Part of this is because the music is owned by the publisher, not the artist. The artist is just the performer of the piece, so unless they are also the publisher or songwriter, they just get paid for performing basically. The publisher (often the record label or a publishing company) owns the catalog of music. They get 50% of all performance royalties and the writer of the song gets 50% every time the music is played or performed (on the radio, internet, downloaded, or live onstage). Groups like ASCAP and BMI police the various radio stations and venues and keep track of who is playing what and how often and make sure the royalties are being collected. If you wanted to play a cover version of a song live or record it on CD or sell downloads, you would have to get a mechanical license from the publisher or they can legally force you to stop it and sue you for any sales. It's actually pretty simple and I've done it with cover songs I've recorded.
YouTube also polices the videos for copyright violations. Synching a song to a video in any form, legally, requires a synchronization license from the publisher. It's actually not hard to get this and it's not always expensive, but most people on YouTube don't do it or don't know how. Regardless of what text you put in the description about copyright ownership, if you don't have license from the owner, they have the right to have the audio removed.
SighBored
@thesighbored
Thanks for the explanation, I was mainly referring to CC 3.0 stuff that does not require licensing, to my understanding.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
SighBored
@thesighbored
Yes I understood what you meant, and I say to fight them. It's some automated bot running scripts and making random claims, that is bull-shit. Dispute them and give a strongly toned message in your message. As I said before, it's easy-peasy for them to make a claim but it takes time to dispute (that also depending on their decision IF they want to revoke their claim). If you have the proper information of the song/artist and provide it clearly they have to remove their claim, if they don't, fight them again. Don't get pussy whipped by these a-holes.
Clint Love
It doesn't say CUNT, dammit!
[QE="SighBored, post: 99399, member: 3247"]Thanks for the explanation, I was mainly referring to CC 3.0 stuff that does not require licensing, to my understanding.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about CC 3.0 but I know there are different rules for stuff created for non-profit use, education, and parodies. Audio restoration has some loopholes too.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about CC 3.0 but I know there are different rules for stuff created for non-profit use, education, and parodies. Audio restoration has some loopholes too.
Fobs
Wannabie Member
Youtube has an automated system that does it .. it basically tries to pick up the same wave patterns as the song.. i usually hope that my muffler fucks with it lol .. anyways to reply to it... there should be a "fight back" button somewhere and let them know that they got the wrong song.
O8ride
O8
This is not about fighting back or fighting anyone. I haven't lost out, I don't have a copyright strike, the video has not been removed, and the song should be allocated to someone so they could claim any returns on any advertising.
I merely believe the song has been allocated to the wrong singer - Leona Lewis in this case - instead of the correct male singer (can't even remember who it is, but they're dead now). Maybe Leona Lewis has bought the copyright for the 1971 song, I don't know.
It just seems strange that the copyright is allocated to someone completely different to what I believed it should be.
I merely believe the song has been allocated to the wrong singer - Leona Lewis in this case - instead of the correct male singer (can't even remember who it is, but they're dead now). Maybe Leona Lewis has bought the copyright for the 1971 song, I don't know.
It just seems strange that the copyright is allocated to someone completely different to what I believed it should be.
SighBored
@thesighbored
As mentioned before, those claims are made by bots, not humans, based on some script or something, so they sometimes make random claims which are not correct for the artist/band they are claiming the song to be.
If they make a false claim to a song, and you know it's wrong plus you have proof that you have the permission to use that song, then dispute them.
I've disputed numerous of these false claims before based on the above conditions that I mentioned, the claims always made by big music companies, not some random troll. It did not affect my standing nor copyright strike.
The simplest example I can give is like this:-
1) You download a song that is listed as royalty free by Kevin MacLeod from his website Incompetech.
2) You use that song in your video.
3) You give credit in your video description for the music, as per the requirement of CC 3.0.
4) Suddenly you get a claim on YT by some douchebag music company claiming that song is by one of their artist which is obviously not Kevin.
5) Knowing that you obtained the music and under the right license by the creator, FIGHT the claim.
However, if you got the music from some unknown origin and cannot verify it is royalty free, then to dispute will be difficult, even though the claim it by an artist entirely different than the real singer/band of the song you're using. But that's the problem, they can make the claim without proof, you however, need to prove that they are wrong.
Cheers!
Read more:
http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/licenses/
If they make a false claim to a song, and you know it's wrong plus you have proof that you have the permission to use that song, then dispute them.
I've disputed numerous of these false claims before based on the above conditions that I mentioned, the claims always made by big music companies, not some random troll. It did not affect my standing nor copyright strike.
The simplest example I can give is like this:-
1) You download a song that is listed as royalty free by Kevin MacLeod from his website Incompetech.
2) You use that song in your video.
3) You give credit in your video description for the music, as per the requirement of CC 3.0.
4) Suddenly you get a claim on YT by some douchebag music company claiming that song is by one of their artist which is obviously not Kevin.
5) Knowing that you obtained the music and under the right license by the creator, FIGHT the claim.
However, if you got the music from some unknown origin and cannot verify it is royalty free, then to dispute will be difficult, even though the claim it by an artist entirely different than the real singer/band of the song you're using. But that's the problem, they can make the claim without proof, you however, need to prove that they are wrong.
Cheers!
Read more:
http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/licenses/
TheDutchTexan
Wannabie Member
It is the #1 reason why I try to keep music (unless explicitly royalty free with the ability to use commercially) out of my videos. I don't need copyright strikes to my channel either.
