CC claim on Youtube for a by Magix created loop?

jvandekasteele wrote on 4/30/2017, 5:53 AM

So I made 30minute loop using MM2015Premium which I put beneath video's on youtube. Suddenly one of them got a CC claim by a company called "Kanja Records" (from Slovenia) who's bot detected "their product" around 7:40, which would be odd as it's a few seconds loop that had been running from 0 seconds and further, in my youtube video. The loop has been running for all that time, yet their bot detects it only around 7:40?

This company is claiming "their" content, but allows me to use it still so they can put commercials on it. Disgusting!

Now I read the commercial use page on magix.com (http://magazine.magix.com/en/commercial-use-of-music/)... so technically I should own the rights to this loop here, especially too as it's not for commercial use.

I used the syntheziser with the India.wav for drum and the deepdown.wav for bass, that came with MM2015premium, and tweaked them in the synthesizer to create my loop. Both are just a few seconds long. I reviewed these 2 files in the directory, but the information on these two extreemly small files show no specific copyrights information. Certainly not Kanja records who is now claiming ownership of the resulting loop I myself made using these 2 files.

The Magix info page says the loops are created by professional artists, bla bla... et cetera... Okay, which professional artists? If this Kanja records company from Slovenia worked together with Magix then fine... but it seems to me this is just a pirating attempt to moneytize my video and put commericials on it... which I do not want. I dont have any video of mine moneytized at the moment as I dont want commercials on them. It's why I used MM2015Premium in the first place, so I wont be using professional music that risks my video's being moneytized. But... which now seems to have happened anyway.

So I want to counter this pathetic claim, but which option do I actually use on Youtube to counter it? Youtube gives me the following options:

I believe that 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 licence or permission from the proper rights holder 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.

To add, at the very beginning of this video of mine on youtube I even said: "Sound by <my name> with Magix"

So I was thinking point 3 should be enough. But as Youtube is never very helpful here, I think I may even get a strike if my counter claim goes bust? So I need to make sure the option to use is the correct one.

Option 2: wont prevent this Kanja Records company to pirate my video I think.

I could use option 4. But how do I proof I own all the rights?

I could use option 5, as Magix gave me permission to use these files for non commericial use.

Option 6 only applies when I had used other peoples content. I did not (directly) as I made the loop using files provided to me by Magix. I did not find these files in the public domain but with a commercial product of theirs.

Option 7: Is this an option? Because Magix is allowing these files and the resulting loops that people can create with them, to be used in the public domain.

So which option would I actually need to use to get the disgusting moneytization of my video? And how do I even proof I own the content?

Comments

emmrecs wrote on 4/30/2017, 10:04 AM

Hi.

Oh what a minefield!

I am not a legal expert but it seems to me that, given what you write in your opening paragraph (that the offending loop has been used from the beginning of your video but it was not "detected" by the record company until 7:40) the "claim" is completely without foundation. Is there any method of communication available for you to have direct contact with the claimant, Kanja Records, and explain this? A very quick Google search shows that Kanja Records have a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/Kanja-Records-484639965070268/ I suggest you post to that page with your statement refuting their claim.

In terms of a response to YT; I think the only one of the 7 responses which does NOT apply in your case is no. 7. I assume you have to pick one? If so, I would tend to choose no. 6 because I think that one offers the greatest relevant defence to the "record company's" claim.

Again, I must emphasise, I am not a legal expert; all the above is my opinion.

Jeff

browj2 wrote on 4/30/2017, 12:43 PM

Hi,

I am not a legal expert or lawyer, so like Jeff, this is only my opinion.

I would go for no. 5 first because you do have a license for private use, but Magix indicates in this article in the Magix Magazine, that:

"The rule is as follows: As long as your own songs – which contain loops or sounds from Music Maker/ Music Maker Jam – are not used commercially, you can upload them to Soundcloud, Youtube or other portals.

Just so there are no misunderstandings: MAGIX does not own the rights to your compositions. You own the copyright to these. Only the sounds and loops that you have used are protected by copyright."

If you can indicate more than one option, then go for 5 and 6.

It would be good to know how you make out, so please come back and give us updates.

I listened to a couple of YT songs that indicate that they are published by Kanja Records. They sound an awful lot like the Magix Soundpool loops, and given what I saw in the description, they most likely are. In one case, here is what one YTer posted:

"Published on Jan 25, 2017

Various ‎– Sunday Mornings 003
Label : Kanja Records ‎– KRV003
Format : Vinyl, 12"
Pays : Slovakia

Genre : Electronic
Style : House, Deep House, Minimal, Tech House

I do not own any copyrights for this track, so if you want me to remove it please send me a message and I will do it ASAP! Cheers :)"

The giveaway is in the Style description, which is probably the Soundpools from where the loops came from.

Somehow, both Kanja and YouTube need to be told to not do this. Furthermore, Kanja should, in the first instance, be made to show proof that they or the "musician" has the Pro license from Magix. Secondly, they need to be told that they cannot copyright the use of these loops.

Good luck with your quest.

johnebaker wrote on 4/30/2017, 1:43 PM

I also am not a legal expert or lawyer either, however from my experience with copyright issues, IMHO, the only argument you have is:

"The soundtrack was created using Music Maker sounds and/or soundpools under the terms of the Magix licensing related to those sounds and soundpools and any similarity to other works is unavoidable or a coincidence"

ie your point no 5 - I see John CB has also recommended this option however there is a gotcha see the second bullet point below.

For the following reasons:

technically I should own the rights to this loop here . . . . these two extreemly small files show no specific copyrights information . . . .

You have a licence to use the soundpools and audio/sound files included with the program. These are Magix supplied sound files therefore it would be safe to assume they are also copyrighted and licenced as for the soundpools.
I used the syntheziser with the India.wav for drum and the deepdown.wav for bass, . . . . I believe that this copyright claim is not valid . . .

Do you mean the Loop Designer with these wav files and you created a new sequence from the drum and bass files?

If so then you may have created a sequence which sounds like theirs - in which case then they could have a genuine claim.
It's why I used MM2015Premium in the first place, so I wont be using professional music that risks my video's being moneytized . . .

Copyright claims such as this are a distinct possibility when, using sounds and soundpools supplied with Music Maker, posting on Youtube, Soundcloud etc.

Many professional musicians use the same software and sounds and soundpools, however they should have the commercial licences available from Catooh. Even with the correct licences they cannot claim copyright of them, this belongs to Magix or the performers who created the sounds and soundpools.
I gave credit in the video. . . .

Giving credit alone may not be enough, you should also cover yourself by including a link to the terms and conditions of use for any audio you have used
The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it. . . .

The video is not the issue it is the soundtrack that is the centre of the claim
I own the CD/DVD or bought the song online. . . . .. I have a licence or permission from the proper rights holder to use this material. . . .

There are 2 seperate items here

Music Maker - true you do - within the terms and conditions of the licence you hold.
Songs bought online - these may still be copyrighted and can only be used within the constarints of the copyright statement relating to them.

Also you should have written permission from the owner of the copyright, songs/music if the terms and conditions allow use with approval from the copyright owner.

With a royalty free licence the audio is still copyrighted you only have a licence to use them.

My use of the content meets the legal requirements for fair use or fair dealing under applicable copyright laws.

That depends on the jurisdiction where the copyright law is being applied. There is no worldwide agreement on copyright, some countries have different opinions on how far it extends.
The content is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection. . . . .

Because it is in the public domain does not mean it is not copyrighted. Also there is a lot of music, films etc which are in the public domain illegally.

HTH

John EB

jvandekasteele wrote on 5/1/2017, 2:25 AM

Yeah I also listened to some of the songs Kanja Records has made. The songs are terrible. They have a large listing of their files on soundcloud (https://soundcloud.com/kanja_records). It looks indeed, as suggested above, they made various crap songs using generic sounds, and then put a Youtube bot on them to "catch" any sounds in Youtube files that sounds very similar to theirs. But if all your songs, as theirs, are so very generic with simple sounds, you'll ofcourse always catch music that is also very generic. All their own "hard made songs" are nothing but soundloops themselves!

It's like saying the often used test sentence: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog's back."... and then go claim the word "fox" the moment anyone speaks it.

I suspect these companies dont really care about their own music, as it's usually crap, but they are only making their own "music" so they can use the Youtube copyright bot, to catch files similar to theirs... and then make money by allowing youtube to put commercials on them. That is probably how these people make money.

Anyway 2 people are suggesting to use option 5. That is a probably the best option yes. I also still have all the original files and Magix project files that would be needed to proof that.

I'll go try that option and update here (may take a while) what Youtube does with it.

It really pisses me off. I had this happen before using the ATMOS generator that comes with Magix. Then I let it go. But it's really starting to irritate me these socalled record companies claim your whole video because they catch 1 second of content that sounds similar to 1 second of content in their original soundfiles, eventhough you never used it.

jvandekasteele wrote on 5/1/2017, 3:01 AM

Dispute claimed using option 5. I said:

"As credited in the video, the generic sounds used for the soundloop comes from MAGIX soundpool (deepdown.wav, india.wav) that came with "Music Maker 2015 Premium" and are FREE to use when there is no commercial intend (http://magazine.magix.com/en/commercial-use-of-music/). If need be, I also still have all the MAGIX projectfiles to show how I created this loop and that it is a soundloop made with their product."

According to youtube:

"Your copyright dispute is currently being reviewed by the copyright owner. You'll receive a response within 30 days from when you filed the dispute."

So now we'll wait and see.

One good thing I see, that I did not thought YT did... was that they removed the moneytisation whilst the dispute claim is running. So now these guys wont be making money of my "hard" work. Not that it really matters as the video only had 17views. But for me it's a matter of principle.

Companies like this Kanja records really destroy a platform like youtube with their claims, as they steal away money from people that perhaps do need that extra money they get from their youtube channels. I on the other hand have none of my videos moneytised, so it's not a problem for me.

But for any original creator out there, as long as a dispute is running, nobody makes money of videos. And seeing that lots of the time video's often get the most views when they are just launched... a lot of money is lost for the original creator of a video whilst a dispute is running.

johnebaker wrote on 5/1/2017, 4:10 AM

Changing direction slightly on this topic, one way to avoid the stress of having to deal with copyright claims is to use music which is specifically created for free use, may be with an acknowledgement, such as Youtube's own audio library for your videos?

There are also many websites which have genuine royalty free and free to use terms and conditions for background music.

John EB

jvandekasteele wrote on 5/1/2017, 4:26 PM

I know that that is available.

But I'm not a fan of that music. The times I browsed it, I could not find any music that suited my specific need. Besides... for the type of video I used the loop for I also dont find it appropriate. In this case it was a speedpaint video. Having a short loop with a bass behind it as backgroundsound I found appropriate, instead generic music found in youtube's database. Just my personal preference...

Besides, it's rather ridiculous if you make a loop yourself, basically make the sound itself in MAGIX synthesizer, it can be instantly claimed by whomever just because 1 second in your loop seems to sound like 1 second in the generic loops in one of their "songs".

Just go ahead and go to the links provided for this Kanja Records company on soundcloud. It's generic music made with soundloops themselves:

https://soundcloud.com/kanja_records

And the particular song of theirs, they say sounded like mine is this one:

https://soundcloud.com/kanja_records/vedran-komm-elegant-original-mix

I dont want commercials on my video's. It's why I dont have them moneytised in the first place!

jvandekasteele wrote on 5/10/2017, 12:33 AM

Update on their CC claim from today, after I filed in the dispute a week or so ago:

Good news! After reviewing your dispute, Label Engine has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

So in this case option 5 worked for me.

browj2 wrote on 5/10/2017, 9:28 AM

Congratulations! Pleased to see the good guys win one. Still, I think that the message has to get to YT that there are people out there who are just stringing together loops from others and then trying to claim copyright on anyone who legitimately uses them. As I mentioned, one of the "songs" that I listened to sounded like someone had randomly inserted as many loops as they could, with no musical sense.

I am curious, other than selecting a number from the list, was there any way to comment?

jvandekasteele wrote on 5/10/2017, 1:17 PM

When you protest you do get an option to type in comment. But I kept it small, as there tends to be a limited textbox.

However I think in this case most of it happened automatically, and youtube is not directly involved. Not sure. It was the bot called "Label Engine" that detected a potential conflict which resulted in this company (perhaps automaticaly) to claim ownership. Here is a link to the website of this piece of software:

https://label-engine.com/record_label_youtube_admin.php

I have seen video's before on youtube that alot, if not most of this process all happens automatically. That kinda makes sense as it would probably be impossible to detect copyright stuff by hand-reviewing, seeing how much is uploaded everyday on youtube.

Still,... it is kinda odd that youtube without a human-moderator, sticks to the side of the claimer and not the youtuber that uploaded the video. Small youtubers get most of their views during the very first days. After that most of the stuff tends to sinks away in the searchengine as other stuff gets uploaded. This video of mine had 25views or something like it during the first few days and then nothing. I dont have any video commercialized, as I'm a very small youtuber anyway, if that had been the case, I would have lost revenue thanks to the Label Engine's CC claim taking away moneytization. In my case that would have been mere cents, perhaps not even that.

But it's the principle that counts. Once another claims CC on your video, you wont get money back during their CC claim and the time your appeal in underway. But the appeal does break their moneytization, meaning they wont be making any money from it either.

It's not the first time this has happened to me. Another video in which I used MAGIX' Atmos generator for a wind sound, also got claimed some months ago. The song they were comparing it with they claim who's CC I was breaking, also had wind sound in it. At that time I listened to that song and I noticed that the song's wind sounded oddly very much like the windy sounds made with the ATMOS generator. In this case that song claiming the CC also was a loopy electronics "song". However back then I did not look into it more.

So now that I know what to do, I think I'll go repeal that CC claim as well, and get any potential commercials of my videos. Especially when you dont make such spectaculor video's (mine was only a speedpaint video of not very spectacular art, being not that good of an artist ;-D), having people potentially sit through a commercial first, will most likely not want them comming back to your channel. It's the main reason I dont have my vids moneytized.