3 ms·

I do wonder if there's room for going after the people submitting false claims based on their libelous written claim to Google/YouTube that you're using unlicen

I do wonder if there's room for going after the people submitting false claims based on their libelous written claim to Google/YouTube that you're using unlicensed music. There's clearly a money trail to follow for identification.

winternett 5y ago
A lot of the time musicians sign themselves up to licensing services that create sub-agreements and some that don't even let the creators know that they have been licensed out to others. Then these artists stumble across their work in a project they didn't know about and report it out of confusion. There are also some gutless people out there who file the copyright claims for other negative purposes. Copyright has always been a huge mess though, and YouTube's method of making everyone compete for visibility certainly doesn't help it all. I only sign licensing agreements directly with the film makers I work with, and refuse to use 3rd party sites to handle my licensing in order to properly protect my work use rights though. The Internet can be a scary place to share personal work at times.
- fencepost 5y ago
  In a situation like that a strike should be retracted after more detail is provided - and if it's not, then you have a conflict between someone who's properly licensed music and someone claiming they haven't. Being able to determine whether it's licensed seems like a problem for the musician. Put differently, if the only practical difference between properly licensing and failing to properly license is that you pay extra for doing it right but get no benefit from doing so, then why bother licensing? If the punishment happens either way, might as well save the money and hassle up front. Regardless of that, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of predatory claimants out there who've found a low barrier to entry, enough payout to make the effort worthwhile, and little to no repercussions for fraudulent claims. THAT's the problem that really needs to be addressed.

winternett 5y ago

A lot of the time musicians sign themselves up to licensing services that create sub-agreements and some that don't even let the creators know that they have been licensed out to others. Then these artists stumble across their work in a project they didn't know about and report it out of confusion. There are also some gutless people out there who file the copyright claims for other negative purposes. Copyright has always been a huge mess though, and YouTube's method of making everyone compete for visibility certainly doesn't help it all. I only sign licensing agreements directly with the film makers I work with, and refuse to use 3rd party sites to handle my licensing in order to properly protect my work use rights though. The Internet can be a scary place to share personal work at times.

fencepost 5y ago
In a situation like that a strike should be retracted after more detail is provided - and if it's not, then you have a conflict between someone who's properly licensed music and someone claiming they haven't. Being able to determine whether it's licensed seems like a problem for the musician. Put differently, if the only practical difference between properly licensing and failing to properly license is that you pay extra for doing it right but get no benefit from doing so, then why bother licensing? If the punishment happens either way, might as well save the money and hassle up front. Regardless of that, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of predatory claimants out there who've found a low barrier to entry, enough payout to make the effort worthwhile, and little to no repercussions for fraudulent claims. THAT's the problem that really needs to be addressed.