Remixes and copyright law - please help

[Kruai]

Hi all,

I recently posted my own remix of Zedd - Clarity on YouTube, and it has gotten a copyright claim from UMG almost immediately. They're already blocking the video in Germany, and I'm not sure if I should dispute their claim or not. I added a lot of original content to it, and I'm not making profit from it. I gave credit to the original in my video, I linked to Clarity on iTunes, and I even linked to Zedd's Facebook.

Zedd - Clarity (Kruai Remix)

My question is--should I dispute the claim? I don't know how copyright law works with remixes, and I'm terrified of being sued by this massive company. I would love any advice you guys can offer.

[Skrypnyk]

I'm terrified of being sued by this massive company.

But think of the publicity that would generate.

[Kruai]

But think of the publicity that would generate.

"Massive company sues pants off of college student, along with the rest of his possessions".

I don't think the pros outweigh the cons in this case

[Moseph]

I am neither a lawyer nor a YouTube TOS expert, but if you're remixing their stuff, their copyright claim is almost certainly justified even if you're adding your own material.

[Mustin]

If you don't have a license, you can't do a remix. Even if you did have a license for the remix, you have to get a separate license for video.

"Adding to it" and "not profiting off it" has nothing to do with the fact that you're arranging and releasing someone else's property without consent. That's the problem here. Don't fight it. You won't win. Get a license? Better chance.

I recommend Joypad Records for licensing.

[Kruai]

If you don't have a license, you can't do a remix. Even if you did have a license for the remix, you have to get a separate license for video.

"Adding to it" and "not profiting off it" has nothing to do with the fact that you're arranging and releasing someone else's property without consent. That's the problem here. Don't fight it. You won't win. Get a license? Better chance.

I recommend Joypad Records for licensing.

OK--I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the clarification. Isn't Joypad just for game music? Either way, though, I'll look into getting a license.

Thanks again.

[Vig]

I'm sorry to hear that they pulled it off youtube. I don't work for UMG legal or anything, but I suspect the chance of you getting sued is pretty much zero. You're not the first to do that, and you're not profiting by it, so even if UMG felt inclined, there's really no money for them to gain.

Perhaps it's some consolation for you to know that Zedd himself often checks out fans' remixes of his stuff on youtube/soundcloud/whatever. You certainly have no ill will from his end.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Vig

[Rozovian]

Germany's copyright enforcers are fairly powerful... in Germany.

[Radiowar]

my guess is if you used any of the original audio/stems it probably triggered youtube's fingerprinting system (which would explain how it raised a flag "almost immediately"). i doubt you are at any risk of being sued at all - i'd be more worried about consequences for your youtube account's uploading/monetizing privileges, etc. (though i doubt that would be a problem either).

the real lesson here is to not upload remixes (or anything that could be construed as copyright infringing) to youtube. their content identification can be a bit of a loose cannon: i uploaded a recording of myself playing a chopin nocturne on my own piano once and it got flagged.

[Kruai]

my guess is if you used any of the original audio/stems it probably triggered youtube's fingerprinting system (which would explain how it raised a flag "almost immediately"). i doubt you are at any risk of being sued at all - i'd be more worried about consequences for your youtube account's uploading/monetizing privileges, etc. (though i doubt that would be a problem either).

the real lesson here is to not upload remixes (or anything that could be construed as copyright infringing) to youtube. their content identification can be a bit of a loose cannon: i uploaded a recording of myself playing a chopin nocturne on my own piano once and it got flagged.

Yeah... I got another copyright notice because you could kinda hear a choir in the background in a sort of vlog I was doing at Notre Dame. Kind of a pain :/

[Mustin]

Joypad's not just for games.

[orlouge82]

"Adding to it" and "not profiting off it" has nothing to do with the fact that you're arranging and releasing someone else's property without consent.

False. Those are significant factors in the "fair use" defense. It's not going to stop your videos from getting flagged, but in litigation, you would almost certainly prevail.

[Mustin]

hahah no you wouldn't.

It's not fair use. It's not using the original finished work. You're more often than not creating a derivative work. And there are usually two copyrights in the first place.

Bah.

This is a lot more complicated than most take it for. If you want to get into it, we can. You can also search the myriad of threads that have popped up on this issue over the years on this board. Just ignore any posts where people start with, "I think," or "maybe."

I think we answered OP's question.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Mustin

[djpretzel]

hahah no you wouldn't.

It's not fair use. It's not using the original finished work. You're more often than not creating a derivative work. And there are usually two copyrights in the first place.

Bah.

This is a lot more complicated than most take it for. If you want to get into it, we can. You can also search the myriad of threads that have popped up on this issue over the years on this board. Just ignore any posts where people start with, "I think," or "maybe."

I think we answered OP's question.

Well, at least with "I think" and "maybe" people don't come off as trying to be the ultimate authority on something, which can be rather dangerous...

For example, when you say de facto that something "is not fair use," as you just did in the above quote, I think you're the one who should be using "maybe" or "I think," since fair use is an affirmative defense, the legitimacy of which is determined in court; prior to that event, you can only really express the legitimacy of fair use claims in terms of likelihoods, and you're expressing it as an absolute.

This is misleading; people use "I think" and "maybe" for a lot of good reasons, one of which is to acknowledge and reflect the nature of fair use more accurately.

If you're going to speak with authority and certainty, and criticize others for not doing so themselves, please try to be both correct AND specific in your language.

Edited May 12, 2013 by djpretzel

[Mustin]

Well, at least with "I think" and "maybe" people don't come off as trying to be the ultimate authority on something, which can be rather dangerous...

I am not the ultimate authority on anything. No one is. If you're going to use a video game music remix Web site's forum as a substitute for proper legal advice, you deserve whatever you get.

For example, when you say de facto that something "is not fair use," as you just did in the above quote, I think you're the one who should be using "maybe" or "I think," since fair use is an affirmative defense, the legitimacy of which is determined in court; prior to that event, you can only really express the legitimacy of fair use claims in terms of likelihoods, and you're expressing it as an absolute.

This is misleading; people use "I think" and "maybe" for a lot of good reasons, one of which is to acknowledge and reflect the nature of fair use more accurately.

Fine. "Based on my legal advising and study of copyright law," will proceed my ridiculous opinions as of late from here on.

If you're going to speak with authority and certainty, and criticize others for not doing so themselves, please try to be both correct AND specific in your language.

Okay.

And yes, "fair use" will ultimately be decided by the court on a case by case basis, but if you want to know my opinion, I'd be happy to give it to you based on my legal advising and study of copyright law.

blam

[djpretzel]

Fine. "Based on my legal advising and study of copyright law," will proceed my ridiculous opinions as of late from here on.

If you feel like it; "I think" and "maybe" and "likely" are all far more elegant, the only problem being that you were specifically criticizing anyone using those more concise qualifiers...

And yes, "fair use" will ultimately be decided by the court on a case by case basis, but if you want to know my opinion, I'd be happy to give it to you based on my legal advising and study of copyright law.

blam

I think you mean "maybe... blam"

I was kinda curious on your opinion, actually, because it seemed like by saying:

It's not fair use. It's not using the original finished work. You're more often than not creating a derivative work. And there are usually two copyrights in the first place.

You were implying/suggesting that:

1. Fair use can only apply when using the original finished work. I'm curious what your definition of a "finished work" is in this context, and where you're drawing this concept from in terms of case law and the actual Fair Use doctrine. I'm not familiar with it.
   
2. That somehow fair use does not apply to derivative works, which is not the case...
   

Can you explain further?

[Mustin]

That was a poor collection of thoughts on my part which is why I ended with "bah." I'm sorry.

Yes, you're right that derivative work is eligible for fair use. Any implication to the contrary on my part was wrong. I apologize.

I was thinking back to the original statement to which I wanted to refute. Now that I'm more awake, I see that orlouge82 was right in that what I said was important to the fair use factors.

So let me start over.

Based on my legal advising and study of copyright law, in the matter of Kruai remixing Zedd and releasing it for free, I would not consider Kruai's arrangement "fair use."

Referring to the Copyright Law:

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

1.) Kraui state that the arrangement is not for profit, but it is not for educational purposes.

2.) The nature of the copyrighted work is to be sold for profit. The arrangement is available for free.

3.) The work in question uses a substantial amount of the copyrighted work.

4.) The market for copyrighted work is affected because I can download the free remix instead of paying for the copyrighted work.

If I were a judge in this "case," I would not allow for "fair use" as a defense.

An excellent study for Fair Use is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

And that's only the "fair use" argument.

I hope I've made myself more clear and I apologize for any faulty information.

[Vig]

In any court proceedings regarding this case specifically, it would probably be relevant that Zedd gave away the stems for "Clarity" for free, for the expressed purpose of creating remixes.

Source.

[Mustin]

blammo hell yeah it does.

But!

Does he own it?

Oy.

[Kruai]

In any court proceedings regarding this case specifically, it would probably be relevant that Zedd gave away the stems for "Clarity" for free, for the expressed purpose of creating remixes.

Source.

Yeah, I actually got the stems from his Soundcloud back when there was the whole remix competition thing.

Also, calm down, you guys! I'm not going to assume anyone is the ultimate authority on anything--I almost always assume on a forum that people mean "I think" or "maybe" unless they back up what they say with a reliable source. Rest assured, though, I'm taking each of your ideas and opinions into account

[liquid wind]

False. Those are significant factors in the "fair use" defense. It's not going to stop your videos from getting flagged, but in litigation, you would almost certainly prevail.

Fair use ahahaha

hehheh hoohoo

what an archaic notion

[Annie Felis]

Every time somebody claims that illegal use of copyrighted material is "fair use" somebody kicks a puppy.

Please think of the puppies.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

The lesson here is: Don't remix music

[Vig]

For what it's worth, I just showed Zedd this Clarity remix, and he loved it.

[Mustin]

Oh I know MOST artists really enjoy hearing arrangements by fans. But a lot of times - especially in video game music - the artist doesn't own their own music so they don't have a say in what happens to it from a legal standpoint.

Crazy sometimes this world of ours being.