2 ms·
I took a few music-centered copyright classes in college and thought I had a decent understanding of copyright. How in the world does this qualify for copyright
by tibbon 2y ago
I took a few music-centered copyright classes in college and thought I had a decent understanding of copyright. How in the world does this qualify for copyright claim? Is it that taking a photo/video of the physical device is making a derivative work? That too doesn't seem to make sense.
Or is this just another bogus claim, like the one UMG made against the Esoterica channel recently against their own recording and arrangement of a Debussy piece that's 150 years old?
It seems to me that there needs to be some sort of escrow that large copyright claimants need to put into when making these claims. If they make bogus claims, that should go to the person they accused incorrectly of a copyright violation. This would balance things out a bit, as currently last companies can just go claim anything they like, bully others, and have nothing behind it.
- db48x 2y agoIt’s just yet another bogus claim.
- onli 2y agoI think it doesn't. But YouTubes copyright system is not a translation of how copyright actual works. Usually, these attacks are on YouTube and YouTube alone, as their system enables this.
- teddyh 2y agoThis has barely anything to do with the legal concept you studied. A “copyright strike” is not a legal concept; it is a YouTube-specific term, used in the opaque bureaucracy that is YouTube/Google ToS violations, rules adherence, and ad revenue eligibility.
- CoastalCoder 2y agoCould this qualify as tortuous interference with a business relationship, and/or slander of title? Or does the DMCA preempt such things?
- 15155 2y agoIf Mend It Mark actually earns revenue from his videos (the more, the better), he can sue under standard tort law, no contract involved, for the losses.