copyright claims against remixes.

[tom2991]

i'm trying to upload a remix to youtube, and i'm confronted with a copyright claim.


i believe this copyright claim is not valid because:

i own the cd/dvd or bought the song online.
i'm not selling the video or making any money from it.
i gave credit in the video.
the video is my original content and i own all of the rights to it.
i have a license or written permission from the owner to use this material.
my use of the content meets the legal requirements for fair use or fair dealing under applicable copyright laws.
the content is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.


it's been a while since my last upload, and i'm not quite sure how copyright and licensing plays out anymore. so, i was wondering if you guys could help me out with making the right choice.
i'm assuming it's either the second or third choice, but i could use a second opinion.

thank you.

[MissingNo]

I'm pretty certain that remixes can not be justified by any of the above points.

Most music that is even faced with copyright claims are in one way or another owned by record companies (and is also intellectual property of the artists and musicians involved), and as an "amateur" (no negative connotations attached), which I'm assuming you are, you technically have no legal right to redistribute other people's property in any way or form.
Also, buying the CD / single is not a valid point either, because it's still not "yours" technically speaking. Say I bought a black couch from IKEA, then went home and painted it blue with white polka dots on it and donated it to starving children under the moniker "IKEA couch reimagined by tom2991", then I'm pretty sure that IKEA, if they cared enough, would not let you go through with that.

I'm pretty sure Youtube has a long, long section of their legal notices dedicated to music specifically, so you should probably read up on that.

[tom2991]

an "amateur" (no negative connotations attached), which I'm assuming you are

none assumed. =]
thanks heaps, buddy, i'll have to give it a read later tonight.
youtube's just getting more and more complicated these days.

[Ridley]

Only the four last points are valid excuses, the first three are just common misunderstandings that people might believe gives them the right to upload copyrighted material. I'm not sure why they would put them there other than to mess with people...

Most of the times it works to put up videos and music that are somehow based on the work of others, but even if it works everyone should be aware that they usually don't have the right to do so. In most cases nobody will care and everything is fine for your part, but if you get a copyright claim there is nothing you can do (unless any of the last four points apply). Bad luck. ):

If you want to try again, you might want to change the remix more. I think the copyright claim comes from an automatic recognition of the song you remixed. Youtube somehow compares your song to existing songs, and if the song is in a list of songs that can not be uploaded then you will get this claim. If you change the remix to sound less like the original song you might be able to get past it (that wont make it legal, but there shouldn't be any problems).

[steo]

Most of the time just changed the tempo of the song and their detection system doesn't recognize the song, because they can match it to the original one.

((steo))

[tom2991]

ah, thanks guys.
i guess, i'll have to tweak it a little, and make it not so recognizable.
i'll probably just bump the bpm up or down by .5; would that work?
if not, how sensitive is the recognition software in youtube?