Got a copyright claim on a CC-BY song [resolved]

[Sabrina]

I'm so confused. When I went song-hunting I specifically looked for CC BY songs because I thought I'd be free to monetize the videos if I wished, but now my newest video got claimed.

* The song has a Creative Commons CC-BY license on SoundCloud
* CC-BY means free for commercial use as long as credit is given

The YouTube help page says:

You can monetize royalty-free or Creative Commons content if the license agreement grants you rights to use it commercially.

... but also:

In addition to the license terms, you may also need to check the artists individual terms before using their content commercially.

The artist's website says:

Use these beats as backing music for your videos on Youtube as long as you state that The Passion HiFi is the copyright holder and the content ID is linked to the same beat on the iTunes store.

... and his SoundCloud profile says:

Use these beats as backing music for your videos on Youtube but in some cases due to the Youtube content ID system, you may not be able to monetize the video that uses this beat.

Whut? So I can monetize it but I can't monetize it.

 

[RedFox]

Dispute it and show that you have permission to use it.

 

[Sabrina]

Dispute it and show that you have permission to use it.

Thanks for responding, but do I really have permission? Is the CC-BY ironclad or can the artist just say "in some cases you can't monetize it" as they did ?!

 

[XXLRay]

Once CC BY ever CC BY. The artist can't take back the license. I usually dispute these claims be giving a link where the license conditions for this song are stated and I keep screeenshots of this page as evidence. Make sure you indeed credit the artist.

 

[Yvelinaa]

It might be a thing of giving crediblity to the original source, like with NCS music they say you can monotise with their songs etc but you have to give ncs and the appropaite artist reconision along with having a template type of thing

 

[Sabrina]

Once CC BY ever CC BY. The artist can't take back the license.

They can't revoke it but the second YT quote makes it sound like they can make exceptions to the license. I'm just not sure on the legal details but I guess I'm gonna dispute and see what they say. Hoping I don't make it worse.

I keep screeenshots of this page as evidence.

That's a good idea. Or better yet, film the screen and do some clicking on the site which can't be faked

It might be a thing of giving crediblity to the original source

The license requires attribution, is that what you're saying? I already credited the artist and even subscribed to his YT and Twitter as requested.


Thanks for your help guys!

 

[XXLRay]

They can't revoke it but the second YT quote makes it sound like they can make exceptions to the license.

The latest version of the CC BY license allows artists to define the specific way they want to be credited. They can e.g. decide that you need to give their website link as credit instead of just their name. That's why you need to check back if they define something like that. If they don't it's your own choice how you credit them.

 

[WolfWraith]

* CC-BY means free for commercial use as long as credit is given

Hang on, not all the time. There are many different versions of the creative commons license each 1 with a specific set of rules and there's multiple versions of the CC BY as well.
Examples are:
CC by Attribution = you have to attribute the copyright owner, usually by the method the copyright owner has specified, if they have not specified a method something as simple as "Music: FartFartFace by MC Mouth"
CC by attribution share alike = you need to make YOUR work part of the same creative commons license i.e. if you use a song under this license, in your video, your video must also be available to use under the CC By Attribution Share Alike license.
And there's more.

To my understanding SoundCloud's artists/uploaders use varied licenses. Secondly, I never really trusted SoundCloud as technically anyone can upload music and say it's their own. From the 3rd quote you have, it sounds like this 1 may have used loops from another copyright holder or something? Or it sounds more like a CC By Attribution Non-Commercial to me.

 

[Sabrina]

The latest version of the CC BY license allows artists to define the specific way they want to be credited. They can e.g. decide that you need to give their website link as credit instead of just their name. That's why you need to check back if they define something like that. If they don't it's your own choice how you credit them.

Thanks for the explanation

There are many different versions of the creative commons license each 1 with a specific set of rules and there's multiple versions of the CC BY as well.

Thanks for helping out but I'm aware of the different licenses. There's
CC BY
CC BY SA (Share Alike)
CC BY NC (Non Commercial)
CC BY ND (No Derivatives)
and the song in question has the first license, attribution only. I've stayed faaaaar away from the others.

Secondly, I never really trusted SoundCloud as technically anyone can upload music and say it's their own.

You're right, there's always a risk But I've gone through so many music websites and I've found the best (free) music to be on there.

 

[WolfWraith]

You're right, there's always a risk But I've gone through so many music websites and I've found the best (free) music to be on there.

I know, I want to use Soundcloud myself but I just can't be bothered with the risk or unnecessary content ID claims. There's some real high quality music on there. But this is why I usually go to solo artists. I think I've pretty much used most of what I can out of incompetech, YouTube's own library, Bensound, Audionautix and MachinimaSound. I want to start using paid music but some of the sites I want to use, make their licenses so vague & have a wall of text (they're never CC BY Attr either since when you pay for it the license covers that part sort of), I have no idea what I'm paying for half the time. All I need to know is if I can use it on YouTube. xD