15 ms·

This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the compan

This really sucks. But just because he has gotten a "license" from a musician friend does not mean that they can use/copy any sounds or melodies, and the company attacking him might have some kind of valid claim. Just a quick check of the first video I found from him had an intro which could be argued to be similar to George Harrison, Got My Mind Set On You for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IVj4K2hLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwjdGSqO0k

colordrops 7y ago
It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the rhythm nor the melody is the same.
ddingus 7y ago
The timing of the few prominent notes in that intro are similar to the George Harrison tune, but the notes themselves as well as supporting elements are different, as is the overall percussion. Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend. Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks... Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician. Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out. While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out. Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding. It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should. It's also reasonable to expect better.
gatherhunterer 7y ago
He has now tweeted an update acknowledging that the artist from whom he licensed the music may not have had the right to claim sampled music as their own. Another update urges others to ensure that licensees actually have the right to license the work that they claim as original. This is the only top-level comment that offers actual information on why this may have happened and it was downvoted for a difference of perspective informed by that information.

colordrops 7y ago

It sounds nothing like George Harrison's song. If similarities that superficial were enough for a copyright claim, then virtually every song in existence would be in violation of someone else's copyright. Neither the rhythm nor the melody is the same.

ddingus 7y ago

The timing of the few prominent notes in that intro are similar to the George Harrison tune, but the notes themselves as well as supporting elements are different, as is the overall percussion. Unfortunately, while I feel it's not infringing, it is debatable enough to be a problem. "few note" cases like this tend to be painful and should be avoided. I would put that right on his musician friend. Since the bell appears to be ringing at the school of hard knocks... Given how YT works at present, this guy should immediately produce his music elements himself, as an original work, in tandem with a musician. Validate that shit, and then move to using that imaging from here on out. While that is in progress, definitely counter claim every single one. Gotta be someone in the family, or a friend, able to help. Just knock them out. Make lots of noise about the whole mess too, including the production of original music, complete with behind the scenes videos that substantiate the originality, as well as inform and transition people to the new branding. It's possible to move past this, and the creator absolutely should. It's also reasonable to expect better.

gatherhunterer 7y ago

He has now tweeted an update acknowledging that the artist from whom he licensed the music may not have had the right to claim sampled music as their own. Another update urges others to ensure that licensees actually have the right to license the work that they claim as original. This is the only top-level comment that offers actual information on why this may have happened and it was downvoted for a difference of perspective informed by that information.