Hi - I hope someone can give me a definitive answer on this one.
I've put a track together using BIAB Realtracks and uploaded it to Tunecore for distribution. This morning I received an email from them which said:

"We have determined that the above release contains audio which violates third party rights. Any time you remix a recording you did not previously record yourself, you MUST have a license from the owner of that original recording, as well as a license from the publisher showing rights to create a derivative work."

So where does that leave me when I use Band In A Box to write and record a song? Looking online I am led to believe that when you buy & use Band In A Box that the tracks are free to use.

I'd be grateful for any helpful comments as I negotiate with Tunecore.

Thanks
Colin

This is what PG Music had to say this morning.

"he arrangements made by Band-in-a-Box, RealBand, and PowerTracks are yours, and your songs may be used freely as long as they don't infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others, such as with cover songs. https://www.pgmusic.com/salesfaq5.htm#23

The following add-ons are under PG Music Inc. copyright:

Band-in-a-Box demo songs
Performance Series songs
MIDI Fakebooks (except the Sound Tracks MIDI Fakebooks)
PowerTracks MultiTracks

So in other words, you cannot use Band-in-a-Box to make a cover song and then claim it as your own. And you cannot use the list of items above as your own song."

"We have determined that the above release contains audio which violates third party rights"

Is it possible they are matching your song to someone else's BIAB song that uses the same tracks? Maybe you got unfairly flagged for "sampling".

Perhaps Tunecore just needs to be advised it's a BIAB track, and that this sort of match is to be expected.

I also submitted a request to hear a definitive PG Music ruling on a question someone else raised about "sound recording" rights as opposed to "copyright" in another thread.

The way the industry is going with so many new rules each year, I would love to have an up to date statement on both.

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=668455#Post668455

Assuming that you do in fact have an original song and not a cover....

Perhaps your tune has a melody line in it that is close to a copyrighted song. I was understanding, and perhaps that is not correct, that you can request an override and ask a person to review the issue.

I've heard that BiaB created tunes are being flagged in this manner. I personally have not had that happen.

From a technical perspective what would a algorithm “look” for to flag a BiaB track in an original song?

Obviously not rhythm tracks and while BiaB solos can be regened and comped to get them supportive and compatible with your melody I find it hard to imagine they are flagged as “stealing” a melody from a copyrighted tune.

FWIW

Bud

Similar note sequences..... think of the My Sweet Lord fiasco over 3 notes. The algorithm spiders search all the new content posted and flag things it thinks are copies/violations. I think they are getting pretty good at that.... there was an app that was out years ago that would identify a song in a few notes and it was fairly accurate.

So if an RT solo had three notes that duplicated three in a song within whatever database the programmers used it could get flagged? That oughta keep em busy!

Bud

I would interpret your song as being in copyright violation if your song performance consists only of a solo track. Realtracks normally are not distributed in isolation but as part of an ensemble performance. Assuming the solo is included in an ensemble performance, no.

If the solo comes from a Soloist RealTrack then it is governed by the RealTrack rules but if it comes from somewhere else like PG Music's Master Class Series then there is another set of rules.

4 years ago I "borrowed" a Gong sound. Uploaded to my Soundcloud to store it briefly, and it was immediately flagged. It was nothing more that a few seconds of a single gong hit. I tried to delete it but I apparently uploaded it again, and again it was flagged. To this day I have never been able to delete these two flagged files.

Hi. I have an entire catalogue on Tunecore and I have never been questioned. Not all of my songs are BIAB but a few are. One thing you did not mention is "are you doing an original song or a cover"? I've done my own versions of covers with BIAB (Walk On By, Ooh Baby Baby) and distributed through Tunecore. However, I secured copyright permission through Tunecore before the music was distributed. So in essence even if you're doing a cover with your own version it's still considered a copyright violation unless you secured the rights. My original songs that I wrote with the assistance of BIAB have never been questioned. Also they are vocal driven songs. I'm also not sure if your song is instrumental or not. It appears that some way your melody was flagged. I'm sure you can put in a help ticket and ask them to clarify. They usually get back to you pretty quickly. The sites have seriously clamped down on copyrighted material. I've gotten copyright warnings on my YouTube Channel for my OWN songs. Because Tunecore is also my Publisher they actually have YouTube and Facebook rights (which I granted) to my own songs. Again if you believe this is in error submit a ticket and have them explain ... or go to DistroKid .. :-)

Colin,

Did you by any chance include the names of the musicians who recorded the Realtracks (e.g. Guitar: Brent Mason)?

This has sometimes stopped songs from being accepted.

Regards,
Noel

Dan, a gong hit? Really?

How does one determine and prove that the single sound is my gong and not your gong? Gongs are not unlimited in size, and there are only so many ways to strike them. Someone copyrighted a single gong hit?

Spooky stuff. I have a song on Youtube that I used BIAB on and someone claimed copyright ownership on one little part of it so Youtube flagged it. (The video link is below. The song is "I Won't Be Home Tonight".) I appealed and I am still awaiting a final ruling. The company makes a living off of claiming other peoples work as its own, from what I read.

I mean this is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack.... however.... your gong hit and my gong hit... played in two different gongs of the same size....and even on the same exact gong...... and hit with the same force and the same mallet.... might sound the same..... but... if you decide to go forensic on the file, down to the bit level.... that's where you WILL see either a difference or an exact match. If it's an exact match, it's been copied. I'm pretty sure, although I have not bothered to take the time to actually test this out, no two unique gong hits are going to be bit for bit exact no matter how similar they sound. there will always be a difference at that DNA level.

I keep wondering about this.

Maybe as part of a samples package?

The match is presumably made using a hash or fingerprint, which wouldn't necessarily discriminate between long and short recordings. And I suppose that even identical-sounding hits would fingerprint differently using mathematical analysis, so you really could tell this gong hit from that one.

You keep asking for that but it's unlikely to happen. You're asking attorneys to practice law in a Users forum.

The EULA is pretty clear on this and relevant passages have been quoted already.


Back to the OP. I'm pretty sure that there's something going on you aren't aware of and that's copyright trolls. There are companies and individuals slapping their names on everything and anything they can—everything from sample libraries to Apple Loops and beyond. The biggest offenders seem to be based in Brazil but it's not just there.

The goal is to monetize music they don't own. Here's how it works: When the bots pick up on something that they've "registered", you get a notice as do they. If YouTube, they'll try to place advertising based on these bogus claims — otherwise, they'll try to get you to pay a nominal license fee. No human interaction is involved. Because of some massive copyright suits in the EU, everyone is afraid.

The bots flagged your music and now you have to deal with it. The easiest way is to immediately explain that the tracks came from BIAB (or Apple Loops or…) and upload the appropriate ELUA. Do not explain or interpret it unless you are an attorney. The supposed claimants have a response period — YouTube and others give them 30 days; I don't know the situation here. After this period, you should be given the go ahead or reasons why someone thinks they have a valid claim.

I've lost count of the number of times this has happened to me, my friends and the churches for whom I currently work. I fight every one by uploading the correct licensing and/or copyright info and have yet to get a response disputing my claims. Lots of 30 day waiting periods, though.

Standard disclaimer: Though I have worked in music industry and IP legal departments, I am not an attorney and I am not practicing law. My views are my own and I do not represent anyone other than myself. Most especially, I do not speak for any present or former employers.

If you need legal advice, see a lawyer. User groups and online message boards are horrible places to seek legal advice.

I found the simple lead sheet, single staff w/ chords, words, and melody easier to get through the copyright office than a recording. That's why recording studios have lawyers, isn't it?

Mike.
its sad good church people (or anyone for that matter) have to endure this bot trolling.
i guess the game is the automated bots throw up a million challenges, and hope a few people pay up.
am i correct ? is that the game ?
oddly enough as an ex cathedral choir boy , if i ever do some original worship songs its obvious i'll have to keep them off the net, in case some bot falsely targets me.

it must be a pain going through all this and of course the extra added work for you.
am i correct in thinking if someone decides to fight back via eula or other means, the bot moves on ?

best to you.
om

Thanks,

Yes it is sad but also a fact of life. I've helped a number of churches with it now. It's not hard but these extra steps are a time consuming PIA.

Ignoring it can cause one to lose a YouTube channel or pay a troll. Both are unacceptable, IMO.

Anyway, I'm certain that using a gong hit triggered something somewhere. Next time, filter or resample it.

On the rare occasion that someone's rights really are being stepped on, you remove your content or pay the legitimate sync license. That's doing the right thing, of course.

Best

After reading through this thread, it strikes me that if this bot inanity continues, most C&W and Blues tunes that have been written since the beginning of time will be flagged for copyright infringement. Am I wrong?

Sounds like it has turned into a typical shady lawyers' game, Mike, with challenges and threats being used to basically extort.
I recently watched The Death of Melody for the second time. In the conclusion, it goes into Billboard #1 hits that have melodies of two or three notes -- Taylor Swift, rappers, among others. Makes you think.

The bots I'm familiar with are looking for titles and, more importantly, samples. A freely available sample is used in something and, Bingo, you get notified. The only way to fight it is to explain why the notice is wrong and be very specific with your details. Otherwise, you can lose in many ways including possible loss of your YouTube, SoundCloud or BandCamp channel.

With church groups, a piano part might be used in a Youtube video. The accompaniment is in public domain and the track is uploaded by, say Hymnody.com with a clear notice that anyone can use it — so you do. Then the Brazilian publisher bot flags it as being under Copyright under a different title by (Christian artist name you've never heard of). You find the guy's recording on Youtube and, sure enough, he has a song using the same melody but he isn't even using that piano track and (here's the best part) his words, though different, are also in the PD.

Hymn tunes, like blues licks are recycled constantly once in the PD. This gives those [*****] their opening.

Fun, huh?

So I was in church just before communion and the preacher said:

"What the %F$J*K&*$^%$^% is wrong with those B^*&^CVX^&(*&^*(&^ in GGJ^*&^*&%$% in Brazil and those ******** G676%% ing bots?"

And I stood up and said:

"Preach, you should read the B&&*&(*%$@)I(******** stuff they are saying on the Band in a Box forum about this."

And the P&W director said:

"^HBV$*****^^*&VHBVGH&*** I have had enough of this H**&%^&*^%$$***** I'm calling *&(*&HKLKLVB*** ASCAP."

Holy S***!

I believe I may be having a similar issue with a track on CD Baby - although they haven't told me exactly what's going on yet, because they are slow to respond. But they did tell there's an "issue" with one of my tracks. Supposedly something matched in their database. Of course it could be a false positive, but it would be extremely helpful if they actually tell me exactly what the problem is!

I'm going through the same thing with two songs on YouTube. Never happened before.
It is ridiculous. The melody and lyrics are totally different, only the chord progression is the same, and they can't own a chord progression. The company creating this mess is: Associated Production Music LLC.
The chords are from a BIAB Bluegrass Demo. There was no melody or lyrics on it other than solos and I didn't use any solo lines for my melody. Here's one they're trying to take from me.

https://youtu.be/TQ29WPRLLds

No Noel - I didn't include any musicians names and the song was original.

I have found soundcloud to be inconsistent in what they takedown. I put two songs from an album I own on SoundCloud. One was taken down for copyright violation. I could have sent SoundCloud the paperwork that proved I owned both songs. Too much like work.

There are many changes going on in the last few years as a result of this thing called the internet.

Copyright infringement is happening every day on youtube and youtube is making money off it.

Copyright law is actually pretty straightforward and written in plain language. It is the enforcement of copyright law that is inconsistent.

It is illegal to sell cocaine on Sunset Blvd. in LA but the law is not enforced. The fact that it is not enforced does not make it legal.

Just because a law is not enforced does not change the law.

If copyright is automatic as a function of recording a piece of music. it seems like it would be hard not to infringe on someone's work. How many zillions of songs have been created?

One can post a cover song on youtube and get away with it. But the person who does that has stolen from someone and is both a criminal and a thief.

Provisions in the law give anyone the right to cover someone else song. All that is needed to do that is to compensate the owner by buying a mechanical license and a synchronization license in the case of a video. The mechanical is mandatory but the copyright owner can refuse to give a sync license.

Billy