"Dispute rejected: The claimant decided that their claim is valid. The video restrictions will remain."
Am I missing something here? A video of mine was copyright claimed upon uploading for about two minutes of music. The song was the Robocop theme I've used in a ton of videos without issue, and the person making the claim isn't even the original artist; they're someone who sampled the song for one of their own tracks.
First, how can someone copyright my video for a song that a) isn't theirs, and b) that they stole themselves, and thus shouldn't have any right to it anyway; and...
Second, why is the claimant the final word here? It's got a real, "we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing" vibe to it. Whether the claim was genuine or not (it's not), shouldn't a neutral third party make the call?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the video isn't monetised, but I'm confused by this, and annoyed that some people can abuse this system.
Definitely Mitch
"Dispute rejected: The claimant decided that their claim is valid. The video restrictions will remain."
Am I missing something here? A video of mine was copyright claimed upon uploading for about two minutes of music. The song was the Robocop theme I've used in a ton of videos without issue, and the person making the claim isn't even the original artist; they're someone who sampled the song for one of their own tracks.
First, how can someone copyright my video for a song that a) isn't theirs, and b) that they stole themselves, and thus shouldn't have any right to it anyway; and...
Second, why is the claimant the final word here? It's got a real, "we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing" vibe to it. Whether the claim was genuine or not (it's not), shouldn't a neutral third party make the call?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the video isn't monetised, but I'm confused by this, and annoyed that some people can abuse this system.
2 months ago | [YT] | 27