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

[Make It So Audio]

As a musician who has sold royalty free music for years, ContentID is tricky. The thing is Creative Commons and ContentID are not related so someone could give their music away via CC, but still track it on ContentID. I don't understand why anyone would do that, but its definitely possible. I can't imagine them getting many repeat visitors. Feel free to try my channel/website for professional CC music with no copyright problems!!

 

[Make It So Audio]

[QUOTE="
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.
[/QUOTE]

Also FYI, you shouldn't be turned off by the other licenses. Unless you're a company using the music for marketing or are another musician making a remix with the music, you can use these other licenses no problem.

 

[XXLRay]

Unless you're a company using the music for marketing or are another musician making a remix with the music, you can use these other licenses no problem.

Well SA means anybody else may copy and use my video, NC means I may not monetize it and as I am strictly making a derivate I may not use ND at all.

 

[Sabrina]

First of all, sorry for not responding sooner. I wanted to wait until I got a result but don't have one yet.

incompetech, YouTube's own library, Bensound

I've used them as well. I've listened to every song in the YT library that isn't classical or "sad", and it took me a year BTW, the Bensound songs have the No Derivatives license but he makes an exception for YouTube videos. So I'm hoping that artists can grant more rights than the license does, but not less!

Feel free to try my channel/website for professional CC music with no copyright problems!!

Wow you have a great trailer. I'll be sure to browse your site even though I'm put off by the No Derivatives license. BTW, there was someone else on this forum offering free music (I don't remember the name) and they gained thousands of subscribers by posting on Reddit. Just a thought.

Well SA means anybody else may copy and use my video, NC means I may not monetize it and as I am strictly making a derivate I may not use ND at all.

THIS. I've done the research before and came to the same conclusions.

 

[subversiveasset]

So, one thing that often happens with creative commons music is that a person uses some part of the song in their own commercial work, and then put that derivative work in content ID. Thus, when anyone uses the original beat, it may be matched to the derivative work.

(For whatever it's worth, Passion Hifi explicitly says that this is NOT allowed because of that interference with content ID....there seems to be a twitter conversation with another person who has the same issue...he used a Passion HiFi piece, and then "Audiam" [which is a copyright/rights protector on behalf of independent musicians, usually] matches the song in Content ID. But Passion HiFi's response was to suggest that someone else took the beats and then monetized them in content ID.)

 

[Sabrina]

Thus, when anyone uses the original beat, it may be matched to the derivative work.

Ooh, interesting. The claim just says it matches "N.U.T.s - The Passion HiFi".

.there seems to be a twitter conversation with another person who has the same issue.

Ha! I saw that tweet from April when I researched the issue and now I see PassionHiFi answered it 5 days ago! Thanks for pointing me towards it. I had thought that Audiam were the ones representing PassionHiFi because he mentions on his website that he's using ContentID, but apparently not!

 

[subversiveasset]

Definitely ask him about that, then!

I know there can be two cases

1) the artist themselves do sometimes put their content through content ID to "enforce" the creative commons license (in which case, there is a usually a process by which they will release the claim very quickly when disputed...(I can't link, but if you search for Dexter Britain's site, then go to "Information", then "AdRev and YouTube", he has a section on his site explaining why he uses a third party for content ID, and how you can get those claims released.

or

2) As I suggested before, if the artist themselves do not put their content in Content ID, then what can happen is that someone else can use that music in one of their songs (or even just steal the creative commons music itself and make no adjustments!), put that in content ID, and then that would be content ID matches that the original creative commons license holder can't really do anything about.

I think if you ask, you can probably find out which is which. If it is number 2, then HiFi should definitely see if he can manually get that fixed with youtube because that's just not right.

 

[Sabrina]

I didn't want to leave this thread hanging in the air. The claim was released - simply because Audiam didn't respond within 30 days. *shrugs*

Thanks again to everyone here for giving me the confidence to dispute

 

[XXLRay]

Thanks for the heads up. It always leaves you a bit hanging when claimants just don't react.