“I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish’s copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube’s system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: ‘All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.’ So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish’s exclusive intellectual property.”
YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music (Original video, Original forum post).
-
blacksalt likes this
-
affectedlytrendy likes this
-
dynosaurusrex reblogged this from new-aesthetic
-
zeugirdorknarf reblogged this from lizziefreeflowing
-
soliman reblogged this from new-aesthetic
-
lf reblogged this from new-aesthetic
-
lf likes this
-
devilinmyshoes reblogged this from thewaronindifference and added:
what.
-
thewavingcat reblogged this from new-aesthetic and added:
hm. fishy. sorry. bad pun.
-
julianstahnke likes this
-
neonresolutions likes this
-
amkelly likes this
-
pandylynn reblogged this from thewaronindifference
-
kkithika reblogged this from new-aesthetic
-
haikyo likes this
-
bonesandroots likes this
-
benkraal likes this
-
lizziefreeflowing reblogged this from notational
-
felixwilson likes this
-
puzzleoverit likes this
-
prostheticknowledge likes this
-
notational reblogged this from new-aesthetic
-
fyeahlilbit2point0 likes this
-
skiesofmars likes this
-
blech likes this
-
new-aesthetic posted this
