Universal Music Group Hijacked My Music on YouTube

1392021_10152404241116868_2977866275313456360_n

…a recent Facebook post by composer/musician Bjorn Lynne.

quotation-marks

Can I just state publicly that I hate Universal Music Group (UMG).

For the second time now, they have hijacked my music and claimed ownership of it in all YouTube videos that include my music, thereby monetizing my music.

UMG, or somebody who produces content for them, have apparently picked up my music track “Kingdom of the Persians” as stock music / library music and used it as background music for an audio book.  They have then released the audio-book on CD (fair enough, if they have paid the license fee), but they have also put the audio-book into YouTube’s Content-ID system, which creates a digital audio “fingerprint” of the music, and then proceeds to sniff out any YouTube videos that contain this audio, for the YouTube system to then send a “Copyright notice” to the Youtube video uploader, telling him that his video “contains music owned by UMG”, and then put advertising on the video, for which money is paid to UMG.

One thing would have been to have done this unwittingly, by mistake. But I have “disputed” the claim on YouTube, written an explanation and told them about the origins of this music — then waited the FULL 30 DAYS that the claimant has to process the dispute, only to be told that UMG have reviewed the dispute and UPHELD their claim!

The only reasonable thing to do here, for me, would be to hire a top lawyer to go after them legally. But realistically, it’s like $350 per hour for a lawyer and a 3 hour minimum for a case, so I’m looking at over $1,000 just to get something started. I feel powerless and I’m left to watch my music being raped by a media giant, who sits behind closed curtains, ignores the rightful owner of the music and just goes “Nah, we’ll take it anyway”.

Screw you, Universal Music Group!

This is the second time they’re doing this with my music as well. They did the same thing also with my other track, “Mystical Pyramids” 🙁

quotation-marks2

58 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    One thing that the majors love doing is to license a “hit” indie song for a soundtrack, then claim it on all contentID. It is absolute horseshit.

    Reply
  2. Darren Davis

    You should send an email or letter to Monte Lipman (sic) at Universal Music

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      We should send emails to Lucian Grange to wake up.
      His British friends, under his watch, have hijacked whole music industry and they are near the cliff.

      Reply
  3. Sarah

    Holy crap. It’s unbelievable that they’re able to do that – AND that you have no realistic recourse.

    Does this sort of thing happen often?

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    “They have then released the audio-book on CD (fair enough, if they have paid the license fee), but they have also put the audio-book into YouTube’s Content-ID system”

    Well, this obviously depends on what they bought when they paid that license fee.

    When I buy a sample, I expect to integrate it in my music and monetize/claim the songs it’s used in.

    Reply
    • Sarah

      We can’t be sure without seeing the actual license terms, but this sounds very different from what you do.

      As described, this sounds like they licensed the song for use in a specific work. On the basis of that limited license, they’re claiming ownership of all other uses of that song through ContentID – which is probably well outside the scope of their license. If so, then the problem isn’t that they’re monetizing their licensed uses of it, it’s that they’re also forcibly monetizing all of the other uses as well.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “We can’t be sure without seeing the actual license terms”

        That’s pretty much what I said, isn’t it? 🙂

        I just wanted to point to out that there are many variables at play here, and things can and will get messy (as in mutual take-downs, etc.) really fast.

        Yes, they probably licensed the song for use in a specific work. But what are they supposed to do when they upload that work to YouTube? They obviously want to monetize their property.

        So again, it depends on what they bought when they paid that fee…

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          …also, I once wanted to use a clip from a public domain movie in a music video, but that’s the same mess — everybody’s claiming the rights…

          Reply
          • Sarah

            “A public domain movie”…. Why’d you have so much trouble using a clip from something in the public domain? Were they disputing whether it was actually in the public domain?

          • Anonymous

            “Why’d you have so much trouble using a clip from something in the public domain?”

            That’s quite a long story.

            Take one of the most common sources, the Prelinger Archives: They are nice people and they offer a lot of outstanding Public Domain movies — but if you need written permission to use the content in commercial videos you’ll have to pay (a lot).

            And you do need such a statement for several purposes, depending on where you’re going to use the videos (and you never know that when you make them). YouTube may accept the default Creative Commons license you get from the archives, but there are lots of conflicting rights to consider and you simply don’t know what happens when somebody sends you the first false “Your video [title] may include content that is owned or administered by this entity” and you don’t have the required written permission. Various TV networks may not accept the CC license in the first place and demand written statements up front.

            If you do pay for a written statement, it will indemnify you against any claims in the territories you want to clear, but in the end it’s cheaper, safer and more fun to make your own content.

        • JTVDigital

          Yes there are many many possibilities that this claim is legitimate and/or simply a mistake.
          Again readers are not given the full picture and it’s a one-way view of things.

          Reply
  5. Tcooke

    I would seek a consultation first w an attorney qualified in this matter.

    Reply
  6. MALAKER

    A wise man once said that the best solution for the people your dealing with is first to prosecute them. If that is to costly or doesn’t work then either persecute them or execute them.

    Reply
  7. nypbbob

    You should have hired the lawyer before you put this situation “out there.”
    For several reasons. Some of which you may not like.

    Reply
        • Shlo

          Libel for what? Stating what they did? Saying his music got raped? Don’t be a fucking pussy. Libel wouldn’t work in this case. You comment so much. What the hell have you accomplished besides trying to compete with Tunecore and a dozen other companies? You have no creative knowledge at all and pretend to be a lawyer with most of your comments on this site

          Reply
          • JTVDigital

            Thanks for the kind words.
            Yes this is what libel is: “: the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone”. What you just did with the tone of your comment, for example.
            UMG just released the claim so there is no debate anymore here I’m afraid, they have recognized it was a mistake and it was sorted out.
            I was initially reacting to the comment of “nypbbob”, it is indeed always better to sort out these things in private (or at least try) before communicating public information that can later harm the complainant. Just a general thing to consider, not specific to this case.
            And when dealing with giant corporations who can afford an army of lawyers, it is always better to be cautious…

          • nypbbob

            That is, in fact, one reason JTV.

            He’s dealing with Universal not some $100 a month internet company.. What would have been wise was to file a lawsuit first, then possibly go public on Facebook being most court records are public record. But apparently Mr. Lynne’s emotion got the best of him. Personally, it appears as if You Tube would be the first in line for any legal action in this matter, not UMG.

            Which is why JTV was correct with his reply.

            To assert UMG has some magic algorithm that could alter the You Tube business model is in fact a reach. One which could be actionable by UMG. Then he mentions the costs he may incur and how it seems he may not be able to afford the legal help he believes he needs. That was mistake #2…

            There’s a right way and a wrong way to do things of this specific nature. And “his way” did not help his cause in my opinion.

        • Sarah

          Okay, yes, technically this could form the basis of a libel suit (which does NOT mean that they would win a libel suit on this). Everything in law though is risk assessment, and cost and benefit analysis. This is pretty low risk, overall.

          Can I just state publicly that I hate Universal Music Group (UMG).
          Why yes, you can; not actionable.

          For the second time now, they have hijacked my music and claimed ownership of it in all YouTube videos that include my music, thereby monetizing my music.

          “Hijacked my music” is kind of touchy but really it’s just being strongly descriptive of the situation; because he qualifies his “hijacking” charge by describing the factual statements that he refers to, this likely isn’t a huge problem. If UMG did claim ownership of the music under ContentID as described, and this is in fact the second time they have performed this action, no problem here.

          Bjorn Lynne:
          UMG, or somebody who produces content for them, have apparently picked up my music track “Kingdom of the Persians” as stock music / library music and used it as background music for an audio book. They have then released the audio-book on CD (fair enough, if they have paid the license fee), but they have also put the audio-book into YouTube’s Content-ID system, which creates a digital audio “fingerprint” of the music, and then proceeds to sniff out any YouTube videos that contain this audio, for the YouTube system to then send a “Copyright notice” to the Youtube video uploader, telling him that his video “contains music owned by UMG”, and then put advertising on the video, for which money is paid to UMG.

          No real problem here. He even nicely qualifies with “or somebody who produces content for them” and “apparently.”

          One thing would have been to have done this unwittingly, by mistake. But I have “disputed” the claim on YouTube, written an explanation and told them about the origins of this music — then waited the FULL 30 DAYS that the claimant has to process the dispute, only to be told that UMG have reviewed the dispute and UPHELD their claim!

          The first sentence implies they’ve done this intentionally, which would probably be defamatory if it is not true. The rest explains the factual basis for that first statement. The “UMG have reviewed the dispute and UPHELD their claim” part is key; it doesn’t matter what process they use in the background (I get that much of it is automated), they’re responsible for their actions. If they said “we’ve reviewed this and we uphold our claim,” then they didn’t uphold it by mistake, it was an intentional action (even if it was based on a flawed automated process).

          The only reasonable thing to do here, for me, would be to hire a top lawyer to go after them legally. But realistically, it’s like $350 per hour for a lawyer and a 3 hour minimum for a case, so I’m looking at over $1,000 just to get something started. I feel powerless and I’m left to watch my music being raped by a media giant, who sits behind closed curtains, ignores the rightful owner of the music and just goes “Nah, we’ll take it anyway”.

          Not actionable mostly. The first part about the lawyer is true. The “I feel” statement is obviously self-expression and not a statement of fact (or, if “music being raped by a media giant” is a statement of fact, I guess I just learned something new and very disturbing). 🙂

          The last line is descriptive, expressive commentary of the facts (as presented here, and I’m trusting they’re accurate) – to paraphrase: “I’m the rightful owner and explained why, then UMG waited the full 30 days to say ‘no, it really is ours’ even though that it false, and YouTube simply accepted that false statement by UMG.”

          Screw you, Universal Music Group!

          Not actionable.

          This is the second time they’re doing this with my music as well. They did the same thing also with my other track, “Mystical Pyramids” 🙁

          If this is factually correct, not actionable.

          Conclusion: possible basis for libel suit but not a strong one; publishing this is very low risk, especially in light of UMG’s PR considerations and likely immaterial damages (if any). Of course, give this to a dozen different attorneys and you could reasonably get a dozen different takes on it; this is one of the less black-and-white areas of law.

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            (or, if “music being raped by a media giant” is a statement of fact, I guess I just learned something new and very disturbing).

            Yes sweetheart, music is constantly being raped by media giants, that is a statement of fact, you can etch it in stone and sign my name to it, i have no concerns of saying such a truth…

            Maybe im not speaking English but rather a language based upon English… Maybe rape in my language actually means something else… Is that so wrong? The law society speaks in a language it tells me i cant understand but yet that which is constantly used everywhere and enforced upon me where im always bullied or tricked into understanding it, why cant i come up with my own language? Would that make it libelous then? Who knows, all i do know is that as the individual, i have little worth and value to anything or anyone and certainly no power or leverage anywhere, but it is what it is…

            The long list of historical cases should be more then enough for any reasonably intelligent person to understand the likelihood these things are still ongoing, it is also important to understand the nature of these businesses and the constant lying and fronting and frauding people do in order to be famous and live a certain life, which ultimately screws it up for a lot of us…

            Of course, with the times we live in, as a voice of reason and man of balance, i’m only hard on them for what they have done specifically to me, because it’s a mess out there and they have many reasons to be extremely upset and frustrated and each situation might be very different indeed where they may have a lot of justification for certain actions, so as far as i go when i say something about them or anyone else, its only in specifics to the current fiasco and controversy i am personally dealing with, we bang our heads into each others heads all the time, captains trying to tell other captains what to do and how to do it when neither are on each others ships, makes it a recipe for emergencies…

            Believe me, this was all well thought out and very deliberate, no emotional reacting, saying any and all of what i have said over the past little while was just about the last possible step to take, i tried to avoid it, but hey, you make a good plan and then life and reality happen, so you have contingency plans and all these different strategies based on sheer endless possibilities, and the way it worked out, the near last desired option had to be taken…

          • Anonymous

            Ultimately when it comes down to it, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of sheer ridiculousness the human race wastes its time and energy and resources on, all while we essentially know nothing, are still riddled with disease, and are sitting on a spec of dust in the middle of nowhere for a fraction of a millisecond, all the while crazy dangerous things are flying at us and all around us… Our eco system is sitting on a precarious edge, our resources are dwindling, we are on the edge pushed to the limits everywhere, and then we have all this red tape all over the place and constant silly laws making things a nightmare all over the place, all the while crime is about the only way to make any real money…

            Its a head scratcher of an existence and one im not sure id ever want to bring life into, which makes the millisecond we are here difficult as that is one of our core purposes for even existing, so its all a little messed up…

            Im pretty certain that when i get back home ill be firing my travel agent, this is no lovely destination, and while im not adverse to hard work, im adverse to stupid brain dead tire spinning get you nowhere make no money work, which is all its becoming, which is likely why we havent seen any aliens here yet, not only are we a pretty pathetic species, the planet is a mediocre tiny little rock of very little use to an advanced species…

            So anyways, theres that too…

          • Anonymous

            “Ultimately when it comes down to it, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of sheer ridiculousness the human race wastes its time and energy and resources on”

            Please stop your spam.

  8. Jeff

    Most people don’t ever talk about this, but you should be suing YouTube, not UMG. If the wrong party is paid, technically that’s on YouTube, not UMG.

    Reply
  9. yawn

    Jeez… what a surprise… another “great” non-informative pushing a particular agenda article from Nina…

    Reply
  10. Heiko Schmidt

    That’s a very much typical story, unfortunately. YouTube is WildWest, who is larger can claim content from others and will make money with it. But it is getting better:
    If 2 parties claim ownership on music within YouTube and in 99% of all cases it doesn’t make economic sense to enter a litigation risk, the ad money created ends up on YouTubes balance sheet for good. They just hold it back until the “claim is resolved from both parties” and never pay it out.
    So the real winner is ? Google.

    Reply
  11. dhenn

    They “apparently picked up my track”? Sounds like he signed it to a music library and they passed the track on. He has no case what-so-ever if he put the track with a library or placement service and didn’t read the fine print.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    “If they are the people in power and control throughout the world, its no freaking wonder people are flying planes into buildings”

    You really should take your spam somewhere else.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      …and that was directed at a nice piece of spam; not at Nina or Bjorn…

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Spam?

        Stop with yuour cyber bullying and libelous remarks…

        I want justice, deal with it…

        Reply
  13. steveh

    A lot of you especially JTVdigital seem awfully eager to blame the victim here. What is the matter with you people? Why are you so desperate to lick corporate ass?

    On his second blog post announcing that he had won his appeal to youtube, Lynne adds this interesting background information. Read it.

    “I have not had any communication with/from UMG, but what seems to have done the trick is that I used the “appeal” process at YouTube after I was told that my original dispute had been rejected by UMG. Going through the “appeal” at YouTube is a pretty scary process, because YouTube uses some very strong language to warn you that you may face legal action and/or your YouTube account may be shut down. I did it nevertheless, I was that hell bent on getting UMG to stop monetizing my music and claiming ownership of it.

    After a couple of days, I received notification from YouTube that the UMG claim against my video had been released. I think that the “appeal” process is the only thing that UMG takes seriously, because the way it works is that, if they still want to uphold their claim on the music, they have to issue a legal DMCA takedown notice and provide legal argumentation as to why they own the rights to that video/music. Obviously they could not do that, because the music was composed by me, and it was very easy for me to prove that. So it appears that, when they saw the appeal, they released their claim.

    I’m still angry with UMG over their handling of this. First of all, they used non-exclusive stock music (which in this case happened to be composed by me) in a product and then entered that product into Content-ID at YouTube. This is explicitly against YouTube’s Content-ID policy, which clearly states that in order to use Content-ID, you must fully own the content exclusively. Which they didn’t. Admittedly, anybody can make a mistake like that, and I wouldn’t have made a noise about it, if they had then released their claim when I disputed it and explained the situation. But they didn’t. They waited the FULL 30 days that they are allowed in which to respond, and then they upheld their claim. That’s when I got angry.

    I don’t know if UMG ever even looked at the dispute. Quite possibly, it is their policy to always allow the full 30 days to pass, and then uphold their claim, no matter what, knowing full well that the “appeal” process is so scary. In my opinion, this is speculative and legally questionable. Right now, they are probably monetizing hundreds of thousands of videos that contain audio that doesn’t belong to them at all, deliberately and knowingly. It’s the second time they’ve done this exact thing with my music (first, with my track “The Desert Nomads” and then with “Kingdom of the Persians”). And, as one guy commented on this thread, these are the same guys crying so loudly about people copying their music.

    Thanks for all your comments, shares and support in this matter! Much appreciated!”

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “This is explicitly against YouTube’s Content-ID policy, which clearly states that in order to use Content-ID, you must fully own the content exclusively

      Well, that’s almost correct — depending on how you define ‘fully own the content exclusively’.

      It’s for instance not correct when TuneCore says that: “You cannot submit tracks to YouTube for revenue collection that: Contain any audio library samples, sound effects […] any third party content that you do not have exclusively licensed (such as samples you do not have exclusively licensed)”

      This would obviously mean that artists couldn’t use ContentID to monetize songs that contain common non-exclusive sample libraries, sound FX and keyboard sounds. And that wouldn’t make sense.

      But distinct, non-exclusive third-party content such as loops, public domain speeches, etc. can be excluded from your reference file. So you can indeed have all these cleared, but non-exclusive sounds and samples in your songs if you remember to exclude the timestamped parts you don’t own. As long as you don’t use TuneCore for monetizing…

      Reply
    • JTVDigital

      There is no “victim” to blame since there is no victim. The mistake, if any, may be to make some noise about this whereas it’s just a technical error in the way the content is managed. Yes this library track should not have been delivered for Content ID fingerprinting. They finally figured that out and released the claim. End of the story. It happens all the time, major labels manage millions of files and mostly everything is automated, so yes it can generate errors such as this one.

      Reply
      • Enverex

        Of course there’s a victim. The real owner of the content loses their revenue stream from the content whilst a random third party (UMG in this instance) takes that revenue stream for themselves. That’s literally theft, they’re taking your money for themselves.

        Reply
    • esol esek

      You ask why people are so ready to lick corporate ass. I’ve wondered this myself ad nauseum over the last couple of years. What is wrong with generation wants to throw away all their rights?

      Reply
    • Anonymous

      Speaking of Mr. Price, here’s some information from his former company Tunecore that should be of interest to all artists:

      “You cannot submit tracks to YouTube for revenue collection that: Contain any audio library samples, sound effects […] any third party content that you do not have exclusively licensed (such as samples you do not have exclusively licensed)” [I’ll post a link to TuneCore’s site in a separate comment below.]

      So can not monetize your YouTube songs via TuneCore if you use Kontakt, VSL, Logic sound effects, BBC sound effects, EastWest libraries, Zero-G, Symphonic Choirs, IK Samples — or any keyboard produced since the late 1970s…

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Speaking of Mr. Price, here’s some information from his former company Tunecore that should be of interest to all artists:

        “You cannot submit tracks to YouTube for revenue collection that: Contain any audio library samples, sound effects […] any third party content that you do not have exclusively licensed (such as samples you do not have exclusively licensed)” [I’ll post a link to TuneCore’s site in a separate comment below.]

        So can not monetize your YouTube songs via TuneCore if you use Kontakt, VSL, Logic sound effects, BBC sound effects, EastWest libraries, Zero-G, Symphonic Choirs, IK Samples — or any keyboard produced since the late 1970s…

        Then we will have to remove pretty much all major label music and all their top superstar celebrities music as well, as the majority of it is produced with all that…

        Music is becoming pointless to even make let alone release, what a constant joke…

        Reply
  14. scorn100

    Most of this thread reflects a general lack of understanding on how the Youtube Content ID works and how it is fed. Many of the false claims are indeed automatic and usually the product of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

    In this case, I think that’s exactly what’s happening. UMG is not intentionally trying to hijack music. It, along with the rest of us, are dealing with a very imperfect work flow chain with regards to the Youtube Content ID system.

    Here’s my guess as to what happened:
    a) The composer wrote a track and licensed it to a music library for exploitation. That library likely retitled it and put it in their catalog. (Not a good library should have obtained exclusive rights which would have precluded the composer from even trying to monetize it on Youtube.)
    b) The company who produced the audiobook licensed this track from the library and paid a fee.
    c) UMG distributed the audiobook to as many digital services likely using InGrooves.
    d) InGrooves automatically delivered it to Youtube’s Content ID system indicating UMG as the “owner”.
    e) When UMG received the claim, it likely went to a department that had no idea that the music originated from a third party music library. So they reasserted their claim because the audiobook appeared to be wholly owned by UMG.
    f) After further research, UMG figured out the mess and released the claim.

    Now, I wonder if the music library has delivered its library to Youtube. If they are a non-exclusive music library, as it sounds, then they are not permitted to do so. Youtube does not allow non-exclusive library music to be included in the Content ID system precisely for conflicts like this. Because the library was not indicated as the “owner”, I strongly suspect that they are non-exclusive library.

    So this entire mess is caused by automatically sending content to Youtube that contains non-exclusive content. I am very glad that the composer resolved the situation. But I hardly would call this a “hijacking”. It is a reflection on how imperfect the Content ID system is and how difficult it can be to resolve honest mistakes (let alone dishonest mistakes).

    Reply
    • Sarah

      It is a reflection on how imperfect the Content ID system is and how difficult it can be to resolve honest mistakes (let alone dishonest mistakes).

      Your guess of what happened is probably fairly accurate.

      Here’s the problem though: those “honest mistakes” cost small businesses (professional artists) serious time and money. This “imperfect system” imposes tremendous external costs on others in order to save the people running it money.

      I understand why someone would take the often reasonable approach of “it’s an imperfect system with honest mistakes” – and I would, too, if not for the fact that those honest mistakes happen regularly, actually harm others, and they aren’t doing anything to improve the “imperfect system” or even compensate the people in fact harmed as a direct result of that imperfect system.

      If you take the imperfect system/honest mistake line here, then that means that YouTube (and UMG, with regard to its automated piece of the system) will never have any incentive to fix that imperfect system – all the costs are pushed onto others, and they get the benefit of not having to invest in improvement.

      Besides, how many times can a specific type of honest mistake be repeated, and still count as an “honest mistake”? If you know there’s a specific recurring problem and don’t take meaningful steps to fix it, shouldn’t you at some point become accountable for it?

      Reply
      • scorn100

        It’s very true that these “honest mistakes” wind up putting money in the wrong hands. My point is that it is hyperbole to say that UMG hijacked anything. That implies intentional wrong doing. As a person that used to represent 300k+ when I ran BFM Digital, I can tell you that the YT Content ID makes a lot of mistakes. It requires consistent and persistent monitoring to minimize the economic effect on those that are affected by these mistakes.

        On the other hand, this imperfect system has made it possible for an average joe to make a lot of new revenue. I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. It just needs to be fixed to minimize all of the false claims without affecting the true claims. Not an easy task.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          Not if Joe Average uses Tunecore to get access to ContentID.

          (Tunecore doesn’t allow artists to use any kind of sample libraries or sample keyboards. Other services may have similar rules.)

          Reply
        • Sarah

          scorn100:
          I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. It just needs to be fixed to minimize all of the false claims without affecting the true claims. Not an easy task.

          I agree with what you say generally, but my point is that here they currently have no incentive to fix it to minimize false claims – because there’s no cost to them from false claims, and a relatively huge cost to trying to avoid them. The system works fine for YouTube (and UMG, etc), so why on earth would they put resources into improving it for others?

          However, if you start holding them accountable for those recurring problems that cost others money, it changes the incentive structure, and creates a reason why they themselves would actually have an interest in fixing those problems.

          Reply
          • JTVDigital

            Believe it or not but disputed claims and “YouTube conflicts” are taken seriously. Nobody wants a backlog of disputed claims that pile up in the databases and various content management interfaces in place to deal with these. The “cost” for sorting these out is human resources. An automated system is never perfect, Content ID is not perfect, at some point humans have to look at it, but humans too can make mistakes. The main error in that particular case has been to upload some music library content in the systems.

    • JTVDigital

      This is approx what is happening, everything is automated. Which generates errors, it happens everyday, that’s life. Nothing to scream about, especially since it’s been resolved.

      Reply
  15. DNog

    So the appeal process worked. The “system” ended up working. The claim has been taken off. End of story. If this happens to anyone else now you know what to do. Good coverage DMN. Hopefully this becomes useful to others in the future if needed.

    Reply
  16. ozstrich

    Er – the real culprit here (yet again) is Google/YouTube for implementing such a half-arsed system. A system that is overly simple and that (is designed to?) create disputes and hold up the flow of royalties to copyright owners.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “the real culprit here (yet again) is Google”

      That statement would be spot on in 9 out of 10 cases, but not here. Everybody wants the same slice of the same cake — and you can only eat it once. That’s the real problem.

      Reply
  17. Chris H

    Youtube has two main problems.

    1. They pay for shit.
    2. Their “Conflict Resolution” is non-existant. So if you aren’t Universal (i.e. part owner), your “justice” is a bit more on the limited side. If they decide on any matter, that they own something, that’s that.

    A lesser, more winnable fight is the claiming of everything ever by a lot of the digital distributors. If they have the ISRC codes (which half the system is based on), then they lay claims. Let sleeping dogs lie in most cases, so you have to be diligent to protect the farm.

    Reply
  18. chuck r

    We should use crowdfunding to pay for the attorneys to fight this kind of crap.

    Reply
  19. Esol Esek

    WIll someone please just explain to me if posting anything on Youtube is now a totally bad idea? Does Youtube claim the right to license music posted on it? Please be more clear in what you are stating.

    Does using Vevo or Vimeo protect it any more? What are the deals those two have with Youtube?

    Reply
  20. Paul Baton

    I have a similar problem with Universal Music. UMG blocked a recording I made of Bach’s Goldberg Variations, a work in the public domain, a work that took me 3 months of practice. UMG claim a section of my recording, Variation 15, is their recording Andrei Gavrilov. I deputed the claim but it was reinstated unfairly and my video blocked. I posted screenshots on my piano facebook page and a link to your article.

    Reply
  21. Vital

    I won all disputes about live concert recordings of classical music excepting to fukcing cheaters from UMG.

    As was written in article, “But I have “disputed” the claim on YouTube, written an explanation and told them about the origins of this music — then waited the FULL 30 DAYS that the claimant has to process the dispute, only to be told that UMG have reviewed the dispute and UPHELD their claim!”.

    Obviously they did not read my counter-claim message and did not open my video, because first several seconds are more than enough to understand that there are different concerts (different places, date/time, differently sounding instruments with different timings of playing). One recording cannot be received by editing of another recording in any editor.

    Reply
  22. Vital

    I forgot to add.

    In that case they can [false]claim only about particular recording, not about all usage cases of the composition, because last rightholder (family member) died in 2012 year.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *