Constant false copyright claims on Youtube

[ShadowRaz]

Ok, so i am getting rather often some false copyright claims on my own compositions in Youtube, when i add them there. I asked about this problem in Facebook, couple of folks said that it was caused by some random copyright search engine that usually tends to make mistakes, it's just getting annoying to always make an argument (at least i think that would be the correct word as it is 'kiistauta' in Finnish, translation would be like 'make an argument' or 'debate' or something similar) over the claims. Of course they go away after a while when i have made the argument but still i'm almost getting suspicious already or at least slightly annoyed.

Is it normal? When you guys add your songs into Youtube, do you get false copyright claims often?

Took a screen capture as i was making an argument over it:

http://postimg.org/image/5frovzu6n

 

[ShadowRaz]

Seriously... check this out, uploaded second track of my EP into youtube, another copyright claim

http://postimg.org/image/ue9lk29vz/

[ShadowRaz]

So help me god, if all the tracks on the EP get false copyright claims, then i'm really suspicious

[ShadowRaz]

Nah, it's all good. The second copyright already vanished and third did not get one. It truly must be a mistake in those search engine thingies,

[ShadowRaz]

And yet fourth track (Prototype) did get a copyright claim.. that's 3 false copyright claims still. Fifth did not and sixth is still rendering.

I just got to ask from you guys still, is this a normal everyday thing on Youtube truly?

[Meteo Xavier]

Youtube's copyright algorithm and such has been known to be problematic for some time now. I would not be surprised if you're just caught up in the flaws of that program.

[timaeus222]

I've gotten a few every now and then and I've just kind of accepted them. The first time I tried disputing one of them, it got rejected and the ads stayed. I got to keep the video, but obviously there were unnecessary ads on there for a completely bogus reason. I could see right through the lies, but I didn't want to risk getting accused (by the entity) of a "false" counterclaim from me on my account.

[ShadowRaz]

Well, why would they accuse you of false counterclaim if it isn't false and therefore jeopardize your account? I personally will keep on making the arguments on every false copyright claim on the compositions that i did in fact make because just going along with some bullshit does not go for me anymore. I have had enough of it. 

And also i have also searched couple of times with the name of the composition they accused me of and have found nothing so it's kind of weird though... Like as there are truly enormous amount of music in the world already still so something could possibly sound ever so slightly similar, but the thing is, haven't found anything still and i have made the music from the top of my head so it should not affect. And for example when making remakes, why the chords/notes and sounds used haven't caught any claims? Or better yet, when i have played the actual track in the remake compared to the remake part, why those parts haven't caught in their engines.. It's weird though.. But for example on this particular video:

I got couple of claims because of the music i played on the background from youtube  They were genuine though and on that it's cool

It's not like i am expecting to earn money from youtube videos in the first place especially if i had enough to live by and truly fund my productions for example, i wouldn't even care basically if the "profit" from the video (do youtube videos truly earn anything all and all anyway?) would be shared with someone, but still.. I'm just suspicious sometimes could someone be stealing my art, as there are truly people who steal others stuff, no matter if it's in the form of art or something more physical, some just don't care.

[ShadowRaz]

Actually to go deeper, You know how especially in 'Emotive Strings' for example, there are those solo violin leads that are basically "ready to use" for own composition, in a way that is using others work for own stuff as are the lesser ones a.k.a basically all virtual instruments (kind of as the individual notes were played and recorded with a real instrument, and the plugin had to be made with some code working skills etc, wonder how much work and necessary equipment went into those) but not exactly for a composer/producer still 2 entirely different things.. For example i, as a producer / composer, choose the chords and notes that have been recorded individually, so i make it but someone else "plays" it, more or less.. although not exactly in all cases either for example modulations (in the solo violin that you recommended for example vibrato, expression etc, it would be kind of boring / dull without them modulations) are also my work and mixing and mastering etc.. and well sound designs of course are own work with the exception of the sound design plugin used hmm.. this is kind of controversial thing to think actually. 

To think about copyright in general, it's both good and bad. For example of course the original maker of something should have the rights to the work the original maker did, so if some were stealing and claiming it as their own, that is bad so copyright is good in that case, but still making something for others to use, re-upload or especially enjoy, in that case too strict copyrights are bad, especially if the one who uses it, tells about the source a.k.a the original maker. For example i am kind of open book with the plugins and libraries i use for my productions because i would not want to claim that i basically played the actual instruments, as in i had all freaking orchestral instruments at my home and i could play them one by one and record for my compositions.. that's just absurd.  Yet it seems like some of those "big names" aren't always so open with all the things they use for their productions.. Is it because people would basically copy them and hence "steal" their work or not be special anymore if everyone could do the same or are they ashamed how they do it or something? Actually that first one kind of makes sense, yet it does not, i believe in free information and teaching people to be skilled and to learn to produce stuff, but the reason why it makes sense is still if everyone could do something the producer does for example music in this case, how could one get anything out of the individual work (if one wanted something from it) if it was not in anyway of value to anyone.. But still why do some really simple tracks are so popular yet some really difficult stuff are not as i have listened to lot's of music? Of course the taste and opinions matter hugely on that but also there is the advertising part.. Is it the image of the producer for example a DJ that shows his face basically everywhere is famous but a bedroom producer is not as they do not show up basically anywhere and therefore their work is not appreciated.. And well that of course goes into some label thingies once more as some channels play lot's of others music and for that reason people will like the channel as they play a lot of good music etc but not perhaps the artists.. but not exactly always as of course the artists that people like might get popular as they are merely noticed from there.. but still sometimes some only respect the channels which play them, not the artists.. maybe? I usually respect the actual artists more, not the channels that play them, even though i'm not saying i don't like some good music channels as they play good music to listen for long periods of time especially (when gaming for example), but for example on some of these epic trailer music mixes that i listen, they sometimes even don't mention the composer but write the name of the track if even those, sometimes some channels just write the genre of the mix and add some "juicy" adjectives for it. Of course they help to find the music but IF the artists aren't mentioned, then it's bad. Luckily usually people do write the artists also and link even the pictures used which is good for the picture artists. But still sometimes the channels are way more popular than the artists.. this is difficult controversial matter to think as there are so many sides to this, from so many directions.

[ShadowRaz]

Today is the day i'm about to drop my house ep and got slightly concerned about copyrights again in advance (for example just like a week ago or so the last copyright of my last EPs song 'Prototype' went away BUT it said the claimer did not check it and that's the reason.. so.. does it mean that if i uploaded the song again it would pop up once more, the same false claim? well whatever i still made the track and i do own the rights to it. I also remembered a site i read earlier on..

http://www.complex.com/music/2013/04/6-steps-to-take-if-your-music-has-been-stolen/wait-for-the-song-to-become-successful

"Wait For the Song to Become Successful"

 

"This might not make sense to you, but if a song comes out with your work sampled, it’s up for sale, and it’s on a major label, they will likely try to get an appropriate license and pay you.  The bigger the song, the more leverage you have, which likely means more money for you.  It's great press, too.  I know video guys that had their data used without their permission for commercials, and they got sizable checks once they reached out and said “hey you didn’t have paperwork for that."  But if you start screaming before the record is commercially released, they might just axe it and you might not get anything.  Your bargaining power increases if you wait and the song

becomes successful. Don't wait too long, though. The statute of limitations to bring a civil suit is three years"

 

 

 

Now that is something to think about, and a good enough reason for me to publish my music in peace. Not just time stamps and the actual projects and memory for doing it (if i were to prove something), but this too. As in i would get money and maybe even some headlines (as in great press i suppose?) about my music being stolen which equals to good type of fame for me, and really bad for the thief. Feel good man. No worries about this matter anymore. Just wanted to share the site with you folks as well if you ever get paranoid. If there was someone stealing my composition or yours, those folks are practically digging their own graves since eventually it will most likely be noticed and therefore they have ruined their reputation. How to find it out is another story though unless the track is extra popular and it would pop up to the original artist somewhere. Although, someone nice would most likely give the heads up, or someone ignorant of the truth (or worse if someone knew the truth but is emotionless empty human shell and wants to benefit or otherwise cause misery but then again why would that person claim it when it is supposed to stay a secret i suppose?) would claim the original maker for stealing the imposter's stuff and at that point, the original artist would be informed about the imposter and then take appropriate actions..

 

Anyways, gonna release my EP for free as i'm not a popular artist nor are the tracks professional level compositions / productions (so who the hell would want to spend their money to download them ;D ), and even though i have spent time and effort into these tracks, for the sake of the persons, who like my music already (got over 50 followers on Soundcloud already and 40 in Youtube) and possible new people who like the new stuff, i don't want them to think that i only do my music because of money. It's not like that at all. Of course i'm hoping i would maybe someday earn living from it (which might be impossible) but until that day comes, it's free for the people who appreciate them at all in the first place

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

If you use single VIs in a song, say..a patch from Omnisphere that's one note, there is a change someone else did too. That has gotten me matched once in a while. If you explain on the response and it goes away, it generally should be fine. Matches aren't strikes to your channel.

I haven't been matched very often because I tend to include more than one sample, as that is actually required by the sample developers you buy from, so people can't sample their sounds from your work.

[ShadowRaz]

Well i tend to get these false claims often from the tracks on which i have used Action Strings for them fast staccato violins. Such as now i did get another false claim on my 'Through the Darkness' track (the claim claimed the time between  2:03 - 4:27  which is mostly precisely on the orchestral part), that i uploaded now. I assume many people have used Action Strings to create their orchestral music which causes it to catch into a false match. Now i'm just wondering how did i not see it before when i usually get these copyright claims from the use of Action Strings on my virtual orchestral music, i guess it helped now me to realize this when you said: 

On 6/23/2016 at 3:27 PM, Nathan Allen Pinard said:

say..a patch from Omnisphere that's one note, there is a change someone else did too

And the false claims have basically always been from the orchestral parts in which i use it. Thank you for the reply. BUT Still i do compose them on my own them via either trying chords and lead-ish or almost arpeggios style notes on my MIDI keyboard or merely by clicking the notes i want on the piano roll so still it does not explain it fully how they can claim the composition to be copyrighted.. oh well.. the claims have always vanished eventually when i make the response / argument over the false claims.

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

I used Action Strings too, however it's so ...messy (it doesn't even match itself from violin to cello parts) I eventually switched to just engineering each note with samples from other libs (Hollywood Strings)

[ShadowRaz]

If only had Hollywood Strings too, i could maybe try out the same, Would be way more modular / tweakable to compose and fine tune anyways although on the good side, Action Strings still sounds kind of delicious in my opinion in certain amounts and is kind of easy to use.

By the way, just uploaded an screen capture of the project, did not get a claim on this when i play the orchestral part a little (from 1m20sec point on):

Also have composed them violins further with more high pitch lead note modulations towards the end because they too were too repetitive (as were the orchestral drums) compared to Beta version of this track

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

Well HS is kinda out the door soon now. Looke what CS released: http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/

 

 

[ShadowRaz]

On 6/30/2016 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Allen Pinard said:

http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/

HOLY SHIT; I WANT

 

Edit. Now i got another false copyright claim from the Restless project which was in my Orchestral Redemption EP. Funny thing, i swear i have had this same exact claim at some point before, named WHAM CITY and the claimer is Harry Fox Agency. Of course made an argument counter-claim but i do wonder how can they claim it. I want to test something now. edit. and as i tested uploading the part from which the claim was via screen capture, the same claim did not appear. Weird stuff