Commodore Remix

Got this flagged on Youtube for my Delta cover I put on my channel.What gives here?? All content came out of and was generated by VST's within fruity loops, with some public domain NASA samples.. Does Rob still own the copyright for the Delta tune?


Delta - Voyage of discovery
Your video may include a song owned by a third party. For example, this might be a song playing in the background or someone performing a song.

To hear the matched song please play the video on the right. The video will play from the point where the matched content was identified.
Your video is available and playable.
Here are the details:

"Delta", musical composition administered by: 1:02
CD Baby

When i click DISPUTE: it gives me these options.. Any advice?


Delta - Voyage of discovery
I believe this copyright claim is not valid because:

I own the CD / DVD or bought the song online.

I'm not selling the video or making any money from it.

I gave credit in the video.

The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.

I have a license or written permission from the proper rights holder to use this material.

My use of the content meets the legal requirements for fair use or fair dealing under applicable copyright laws.

The content is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.

Did you monetize the video? That is usually when they come after you.

I'm in a belligerent mood tonight, so I say publish and (let them) be damned! It's only a cover, what they gonna do?

And you can always put it back up if the babe cries too hard so that Mother takes it down. But it'll probably be alright if you explain.

Nope, nothing like that at all. Much like your vids just the tune and a custom render image.. Damn annoying though.. Worst of it is that they don't even give me a link to this ' possible ' infringement , just says it might contain . tempted to re_upload it with a video of fruity playing the tune.. Delta - the cdbaby go blow me mix!!

The bit that bugs me is that even though they say 'might contain' the options I have to dispute the claim all read like it DOES. The only thing I can think of is that delta was sort of a cover when Rob wrote it right?? Maybe some random check pulled up my cover of Robs cover of the original?? Sounds weird but you never know.

Analog-X64 wrote:Did you monetize the video? That is usually when they come after you.

It's just someone playing jobsworth. If it's a rigmarole for them to deal with you, they'll chase off and harass somebody else. Chances are, even if they wipe the video or its soundtrack, nothing will happen if you stick it back up.

I've had the treatment too, where they've punished without letting you know what it was that so-called offended. In my book that means it can't have been all that bad then. But I do think it's a method of keeping people on eggshells in case they 'upset' somebody again.

But it should just come to nothing. I've had spare accounts lined up and ready for 'house' moves or spreading of content for years, though I've never needed them yet.

First of all, yes, most C64 tunes are copyrighted, and many of them are still owned by the original authors. So technically all remixes are infringements unless there's written permission from the composer's publisher or the composer themselves (in that order, generally).

Second, this detection was by a mechanical system run by Rumblefish who are used by (among others) CD Baby for administering American synchronisation rights through YouTube.

What happens to your video? In this case is... nothing. It's noted that you have used Delta, and somewhere down the line, Rob Hubbard gets $0.00001 (or some random share of whatever monetisation your page gets). It looks like Rumblefish learned to recognise melody and chords from the video soundtracks, which is kind of scary.

The original C64 compositions have been in the International copyright system for ages (some since 1997), because this was necessary to police commercial usage by record companies, and establish a framework where the original composers could be paid for commercial releases. This has worked pretty well, generally.

However, this is a double-edged sword because when you do this, you assign quite global rights to the companies (MCPS/PRS/GEMA/PPS), and you lose the ability to be granular (for instance "so and so has my permission to do something non-commercial"), since you're giving them the right to create agreements on your behalf.

In the past this has worked out, since MCPS/PRS/etc are not proactive in tracking infringements: which means they couldn't care less about Remix.kwed.org, for instance: they would only take action if they were asked to (and of course, no one asked them to).

However, what's happened now is quite a complex chain of events:

1) I signed rights to many tunes from composers and register them
2) I released some of the remixes through CD Baby so they could go on iTunes. Quite a few of the remixes were down as us having Publishing Rights, which is true.
3) It's necessary to avoid a situation where companies and ad agencies might use a C64 SID for a commercial use and don't pay, so we sign the right to make synchronisation agreements over to Rumblefish, through CD Baby, covering mechanical and master rights.
4) The Rumblefish system goes from detecting sounds (e.g. telling us when the SID is in use), to detecting music, and starts flagging videos.

A copyright claim isn't "punishment". It's a statement of fact: you have used Delta, and it is copyrighted.

What won't happen is any of the associated legal stuff (threats/sanctions) you seem to be expecting.

When you uploaded the track, what the system did was "pre-clear" the rights to use the tune, in exchange for {???}. Whatever {???} is, it would be taken out of any revenue generated by you on YouTube. Which, if you think about it, is fair enough. The dispute process is there to give you back your {???} (such as it is).

I hope that defuses the situation a tad.

Chris

Just to clarify, three of the options YouTube gives you are actually odd, since they're not valid reasons:

> I own the CD / DVD or bought the song online (personal ownership of a song does not convey synchronization rights)
> I'm not selling the video or making any money from it (use is use: the amount of money made is actually irrelevant to the point of law)
> I gave credit in the video (again, this does not necessarily clear you from copyright responsibility).

The other options are all valid disputes, including Fair Use, the limits of which are quite stringent.

Thank you Chris for such an informative answer. There was never any issue with me monetizing my page, or claiming rights to the delta tune. In fact my description clearly states its a cover of a tune by Rob Hubbard etc etc.. My youtube page is a basic youtube account, used to show people i know wips and any renders I do. Thats about it..

My main issue was how CDBaby got to claim an infringement for Robs music, or if not CDBaby then someone else ( Aside from Rob himself ). Which you made so very clear. It was never a worry about a legal claim.

If this is the case though, how far back does this go time wise?If you wrote a cover of the elite loader by Mark Cooksey for example could you in effect be dropped with an infringement for Living on video?



Once again Chris, thank you.!