If he can get a human to check it. People liked to complain about the EU legislation on copyright online but it would have forced the likes of YouTube to put humans on the case (which is why Google etc fought it so vehemently). As it stands, unless they get a lot of pushback from users, YouTube will often just ignore the appeal.Kongru wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:51 pm He didn't specify if the audio was manually claimed or not, usually on the video it will tell you. I suspect this was automatically claimed by Content ID and that his appeal will be successful once checked by a real person.
Insane Chemical Brothers copyright claim for... a filter sweep
-
- KVRAF
- 6406 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1666 posts since 28 Jun, 2007 from Amazon rain forest
This is a delicious idea.thecontrolcentre wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:59 pm I've got songs using the same sound that precede the Chemical Bros ... maybes I should sue them?
-
- KVRAF
- 3508 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
I can't remember who it was, but there was someone else struck for using the same sample from a sample CD as a big artist.
I've personally been struck for uploading freely available music with a liberal license from a folk music archive that was also used (presumably without payment under the same liberal license) on a commercially released CD. Also had a strike where I had permission to upload a track, but was then struck out of the blue years later when the rights to the music changed hands because another label gave the album a reissue. I've no idea if that's kosher, but it doesn't matter because nobody at Youtube cares anyway unless you mount a f**king Twitter campaign or whatever against them. You just have to do Youtube's 'copyright school' and move on.
There's a gaming Youtuber called Jim Sterling who got so many spurious strikes on videos containing bona-fide fair use footage that he started deliberately inserting copyrighted music at the end of his videos, creating a 'copyright deadlock' that will never be solved between the spurious striker and the music striker. Thus, if he can't make money from his work, nobody else can. Devilish!
I've personally been struck for uploading freely available music with a liberal license from a folk music archive that was also used (presumably without payment under the same liberal license) on a commercially released CD. Also had a strike where I had permission to upload a track, but was then struck out of the blue years later when the rights to the music changed hands because another label gave the album a reissue. I've no idea if that's kosher, but it doesn't matter because nobody at Youtube cares anyway unless you mount a f**king Twitter campaign or whatever against them. You just have to do Youtube's 'copyright school' and move on.
There's a gaming Youtuber called Jim Sterling who got so many spurious strikes on videos containing bona-fide fair use footage that he started deliberately inserting copyrighted music at the end of his videos, creating a 'copyright deadlock' that will never be solved between the spurious striker and the music striker. Thus, if he can't make money from his work, nobody else can. Devilish!
