Hi all!

Yesterday I composed a 3 part round for my Music students. It is created with Logic pro X and Band in a Box. You can see the movie here:

https://youtu.be/g2Lp-HwqiLw

I used Band in a Box for Mac 2017 and I used style _RootSyp.Sty with some basic Chords: G, D, Em, C, D and this over and over again.

now I get a copyright claim that I used the music from a song called:
Helping Hands NO MELODY-19260-RFR

First of all, that song does not come even close to what my song sounds (you could listen that helping hands song here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTawKmes4A0 )

And next to that, how can we use Band in a Box without getting the risk of these claims? It is not my main goal to make money with the music using youtube, but on the other side, I do not want other people to claim something, the do not own.

Is this something other people experience too? Or is this just a bad luck situation?

Thanks for any help!
Marius

Hi Marius. You shouldn't get copyright claims on Band-in-a-Box stuff. Just log a dispute.

Joanne's right. We've used 100s of RTs on YouTube without problem.

Like she says, just log a dispute and be prepared to bail out if things get serious.

ROG.

I'm thinking they are sending out thousands of claims hoping to get easy settlements from "rich" Americans and others who don't deserve to have that much money. Let us know what happens.

Thanks for all your very kind support. That is highly appreciated.

I did some investigation and I was able to track the composer of the song that was 'detected' in my music. This turned out to be a nice and friendly person, who was also amazed and surprised by the 'auto detection' in Youtube. He agreed also that his song and mine have seriously nothing in common, so he is curious how this will 'end' as well.

He was willing to write a message to the Copyright company for me. So I keep my fingers crossed.

It's really odd.

I must say I am extremely happy with Band in a Box. It is so 'easy' to create good backing-tracks for my stuff. It helps me focus on other stuff. Tonight I created a new video with the same song, but a different style and this time I played the 'lead' with a real instrument (a recorder). And it sounds AMAZING. I hope this time it will not be detected as copyrighted material. https://youtu.be/XMxXD5i5OBA

Thanks again for all your help and kind replies. This feels like a nice forum.

I can't say for sure but to me it's all about the melody line you used I don't think it has anything do with the Biab tracks. To me the melody is similar to the other tune. I have no idea how YouTube's computer algorithm calculates that.

Joanne is the expert with YT so she can comment too but I think all the original composer has to do is give you a release and you forward that to YT. I would assume somewhere in YT's documentation are instructions on how that release should look, the wording, etc.

Bob

We've got about 400 videos on our YouTube teaching channel and had three copyright claims in five years.
Basically the computer throws up some positives and some false positives. If you log an appeal,
which is what we do, the appeal is sent to the copyright holder who will the listen to the tracks
and can continue, or cancel, the action. All ours bore no relation to the other track and were cancelled.

If your track is compared to a particular song, it may be that the song has been recorded by several
artists on different labels and so each of them will have a copyright claim against you and will have
the same option of continuing or cancelling. If anyone continues with the action, take down your video
immediately, or risk losing everything you own.

Hope this helps.

ROG.

Thanks for the fact you took the time to compare both tracks. What you write is exact what I thought myself too first. But later (when I checked the claim again to reply to it) I saw the claim is about the last part of the movie where people could play along with a karaoke track. That is just the BiaB track without my melody.

I contacted the original composer of the song the claim is about. He agrees that this is strange. He is going to communicate with the copyright company too... let's hope it works out right.

Hi ROG!

It is good to read that with so many videos online you only had this with a very few videos. I was already worrying that this was going to be a complication I would have to deal with a lot. That is a good thing to know. Thanks!

Your last part of the video is slightly frightening though. When I get this copyright claim (had seen one before) it came with the message that it had no consequences for my YouTube channel or video. Are you saying that it also can happen that a copyright claim CAN have consequences? Let's hope that will never happen to you, me or anybody else here on the forum.

Some BIAB RealTracks have quite distinctive riffs. These riffs, if used in two different songs, at similar BPM, tempo and key, would certainly sound similar enough to cause an automated detector to throw a flag!

I'm not sure how likely this would be to actually occur as you would need two BIABers to each create and publish a song using the same RealTrack with similar parameters.

But it could happen!

Maybe a good precaution to take is always be sure to change BPM, key, tempo, etc. away from any defaults to further minimize risks.

Hi
I had a similar experience with you tube copyright.
On music I had done in Magix Music Maker, this program uses sound loop libraries,
I raised a dispute and the claim was withdrawn.
It seem some one else had used the same sound loops and similar chords on a song they had done.
However as soon as I explained the source of my material and my entitlement to use it no prob.
Also there are folks that just troll round You tube looking for songs to lodge claims against just to try their luck, especially it seems, if there is any clue that the song may use pre recorded material like Sound loops Realtracks etc
Mike

You are not alone.

I have purchased a license for Smart Sound libraries, and as a result can use them royalty free.

Subsequent to my library purchase, Getty Images Music purchased the same libraries.

Anything I publish using Smart Sound material is now always immediately challenged by Getty Images Music.

When contacted, Smart Sound stated: "Thank you for contacting us. Since we have non-exclusive agreements with our composers, they can also sell/distribute their music through other channels that may or may not be royalty free. However, if you purchased the music from us or it came with one of our authorized plug-ins, it is properly licensed for this type of use."

I challenge You Tube and always get this response:
"Good news! After reviewing your dispute, Getty Images Music has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video."

Damn it, so they should. It wasn't theirs in the first place.

This is a typical example of unwarranted bluffing and bullying.

Don't be afraid to challenge and stand up for your rights if you believe you are acting fairly and lawfully.

I am so happy to let you all know that the claim is withdrawn!

No copyright claim anymore! Wow!

Another big thank you to all the people here on the forum. You are all so kind and supportive. This is pretty unique on the internet.

Thanks a lot!
I hope I can share some other cool stuff in the near future.

Good luck with all your music projects.
Marius

Mike said:

Bob Dylan has a vast array of lawyers constantly on the lookout for infringements. What cost fame and talent? In fact, the copyright holder is OBLIGATED to pursue infringers or risk losing his/her rights.

Few of us can afford a team of lawyers.

On a similar note; I once talked to a patent attorney about an invention I had and he said that if the infringement didn't total in the thousands of US Dollars, attorneys wouldn't go near it.

The strike isn't about BIAB. Part of your song DOES sound like the whistled song in that song from wherever that writing comes from. That strike would come from whoever owns that other song, not BIAB. BIAB isn't even really in the conversation here.

Wrong, he specifically said it was the Biab tracks and not about the melody. This is his reply to my post saying the same thing you just did:

What you write is exact what I thought myself too first. But later (when I checked the claim again to reply to it) I saw the claim is about the last part of the movie where people could play along with a karaoke track. That is just the BiaB track without my melody.

Then read what others just wrote about using royalty free sound libraries. Can't just jump to the end of a thread and post without reading the whole thing.

Bob

First thing is to distinguish between the composer and the copyright holder, who may or not be the same person.
Copyright can also exist separately on a recording of the song, meaning that several copyright holders can be involved.
I speak from practical experience here - one of our strikes had six copyright claims, not of which were upheld.

Once the computer has thrown up a positive, the copyright holder(s) are informed and they can assess the situation
and either withdraw the claim, or continue with it. If they choose to continue, they may allow use of the track but claim
any advertising revenue which the track generates. Alternatively, they may ask for the video to be taken down and you
should do this without delay. Exceptionally, they can move straight to a legal action against you for infringement and this
is the event to which I referred when I said you can lose everything you own. This last option is unlikely, but technically possible.

Hope this makes things clear.

ROG.

The claim was definitely about the BiaB track. In youtube you can see what part of the movie they have a problem with. It was the end of the track, where no recorder melody was heard, but simply the BiaB track.

I also emailed the composer of the song they said I used from. Even the composer was amazed by the claim, since my song did not even sound for a single bit like his song.

But I am happy, my dispute was accepted and they withdraw the claim. So no problems here anymore.

So how do you interpret the section in bold red as a strike having anything to do with BIAB? It says right there that the strike is about using "Music from a song blah blah blah", which I indeed found quite similar. Nowhere in his report from youtube does it say BIAB. BIAB didn't create the melody, just the backing track. Marius created the melody.

Now, that being said, does this copyright strike make any sense? Hell no. The original is a silly little song to start with and he used his creation as a teaching tool for kids. How PETTY does the author have to be to file that claim against Marius because 8 notes line up? Is Marius going to make a boatload of money with his little round to teach kids? This is the kind of BS that just makes me roll my eyes and hate people even more. But to make the point again, after reading his post at least 10 times, I saw not one word about BIAB as far as the copyright claim, and BIAB didn't create that melody. He did. I'm glad the strike was lifted but it should never have been raised to begin with. In a time where EVERY song sounds the same.... wow. I mean this isn't Brian Wilson lifting Be My Baby for Don't Worry Baby here (which he did).

Hi Eddie!

First of all thanks for your empathy. I appreciate that a lot. You are right about my position as a music teacher. It has not much to do with earning money or becoming famous haha.

The copyright claim was not literally about band in a box but was definitely about the backing track for sure. The misunderstanding here on the forum was caused probably by a language difference. I am not a native english speaker.

What I did not mention was that in the claim I could see which part of the movie was the claim about.

In the claim you see a start and end time. That was exact the time frame where my melody was absent. The end of the movie plays just the Band in a Box track and not my melody.

I should have been more clear about that... but I was already so confused by the claim in the first place that I wrote that opening post with some kind of nervous and slightly worried emotion.

I am glad the claim is lifted and I am also very pleased with your recognition that the claim was absurd in the first place. Thanks!

Also important to mention again that also the creator of that other song found it unbelievable. He was also very surprised and wrote me that his and my song had really nothing in common.

It is the auto detection that fails. Those copyright companies have a lot of power... but the fact they lifted the claim gives me some faith again.