13 ms·

What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright inf

by tssva 7y ago

What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement and whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court on a case by case basis. Unless a court has already ruled that the video is fair use then there is nothing false about the claim.

rahuldottech 7y ago
Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.
jimhefferon 7y ago
But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kjakm 7y ago
> What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.
skunkworker 7y ago
That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.
- jandrese 7y ago
  On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most lawyers.

by tssva 7y ago

rahuldottech 7y ago

Did you watch the video? The claimant lost the copyright to the melody in the court case. Furthermore, the section of the video they flagged wasn't from their song in the first place.

jimhefferon 7y ago

But a large corporation with many in-house lawyers fighting a single person YTer is not symmetric. They can "win" just because the small person cannot afford to fight. There needs to be a level playing ground.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kjakm 7y ago

> What is false about this claim? Copyrighted material was used in the video and the claimant does own the copyright. My understanding was that the section of the video they claimed as containing their copyrighted material ACTUALLY contained the melody from the other song - the one they claimed didn't sound like theirs.

skunkworker 7y ago

That’s not what happened here. For the seconds specified by the manual identification the melody is not from “Dark Horse” but from “Joyful Noise”. In addition they lost the suit against “Joyful Noise”, so both arguments are moot.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Watch the video please; the exact section that was claimed to be from the song Dark Horse was actually from a different song entirely, which the lawsuit referred to in the original video was about. And they lost the lawsuit. They cannot claim copyright on that segment because they were found guilty of plagiarism for that exact segment.

jandrese 7y ago
On Youtube the rightful owner of any piece of work is whomever has the most lawyers.