YouTube copyright: "matched third party content"
  • Sometimes YouTube's content ID system will incorrectly flag videos using properly licensed music as infringing. If you have a license to use certain musical work in your video, but still receive a copyright claim from YouTube, this is what you need to do:

    Go to Copyright Notices in your Video Manager on YouTube and click the "Includes copyrighted content" link.

    image


    Click the link that says"File a dispute".

    image



    Check the option that says "I have a license or written permission from the proper rights holder to use this material" and click "Continue". You will be prompted then to confirm that you are sure about having it.

    image


    At the final step you will be asked to give a brief explanation to your dispute. Explain that you have purchased a license and include a direct link to it (upload it to Google Drive or similar services).
    Submit your response by clicking "Continue" and YouTube will process your claim as soon as possible.

    image


    If you used a track under Creative Commons license which allows using it in videos, post a link to the track's page on Jamendo. Make sure that you carried out each clause of the CC license, otherwise your dispute may be rejected and appealing a reinstalled claim is not that simple. Read this post to learn about CC clauses. Note that music with ND clause in a CC license cannot be used in videos.
  • Very good (and useful) post Saregama!

    There are lots of issues due to this "content ID" system tracking music at youtube.
    Just to go a little further concerning that, composers having their music under CC, and signing with various non exclusive libraries should be careful about what the library exactly does with the tracks.
    For example, If you sign your music with Rumblefish, your tracks will be uploaded in the "Content ID" system, which is completely incompatible with also having them under Creative Commons.

    When you sign a track with an exclusive editor, i don't see any problem with him using adrev for this track (as he manages the copyright).
    But I still don't understand how a "non exclusive" library can use "Content ID" (which means that they manage your copyright), knowing the fact that many youtubers might have bought a regular license in another non exclusive library (they will get a content ID notification anyway....) This leads to a non-sense.
    According to Adrev, you must be the copyright owner to use their system...
  • You are wrong regarding the Content Id system and exclusive rights.

    Exclusive rights = by default the composer/producer of the music has this for all eternity UNLESS he explicitly GIVES AWAY exclusive rights to somebody else

    Non-exclusive rights = customers who PURCHASER NON-EXCLUSIVE licences via Jamendo or any other stock music site. This gives them the ability to use the music in their own production

    The AdRev clause means that any customer who purchases a non-exclusive licence is not allowed to put that tune into AdRev, because they do not have the exclusive rights - the exclusive right is only owned by one single entity at the same time and in this case it is the composer/producer, because he hasn't given them away.

    The exclusive rights owner can always upload his music, no matter how many non-exclusive licences he has sold - that is the whole point of the Content ID system - to make sure the the exclusive rights owner gets his due from all the non-exclusive use of his music.

    What confuses people is that they think that having exclusive rights means that you haven't given ANY licence rights away but that is not true. Only way to lose exclusive rights is to actually transfer them to some other party. This is quite a rare thing to do. I think a better wording in this case would be "master ownership" or something in the effect. Because that is what it's all about. The composer has the master ownership and he just lends extra licences to customers while holding onto that master ownership.

    The only thing Content ID is interested in that only a single person / instance can upload the tune to the Content ID system. And that person is the composer / producer of the tune, unless he has given up the exclusive rights for the tune to somebody (usually Label). If the rights haven't been given up, there's no problem.

    Non exclusive licence sales do not affect this.