1:42 I too am not an expert on copyright law, but I am aware of enough of it due to my own doings and hobbies, that I can say without a single issue of being wrong; that you are absolutely correct. But again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just clever enough to be one, maybe, if I could be bothered to go through University to get the degree. Anyways... Fair use is pretty straight forward in some ways, but also not, in others. Remixing a song, is allowable. You are creatively transforming the work into something else, that may retain some similarity, but otherwise changes enough to not be confused as being the same song, or even same artist responsible. That said, there is some nuance. Covering a song, is allowable too. Covering, in this case, means doing what some of the bands will do where they play each others songs on stage before the main event. A lot of music can be 'covered' legally, so long as it is you actually playing the music with those instruments or tools, etc. Best example of covers being legal, is probably citing how litigious King Crimson is over his work, yet leaves artists like Ozzy Osbourne completely alone despite covering 21st century schizoid man. Cause it's perfectly legal, even if still under copyright. Trademark... and IP rights might intervene in some ways though, so YMMV depending on the source of the music being used. This is why I bring up King Crimson, because he's basically the mac daddy of "correctly" copyright claiming against people on TH-cam for stealing his music and profits. Key point is the correct part about it. Where as many do it wrong, or use false claims; his are legitimate. Yet he does nothing about covers. Because covers are a form of respect in a way, and while the piece might not have been 'transformed', it has at least been played originally by yourself, instead of just copying it. One more thing about covers. Covering a song/music piece by default basically has to be allowable, or otherwise you can't practice playing your instruments with any songs or music pieces other than whatever you come up with yourself. I.E. No sheet music for band class except whatever your teacher cooked up. The band class is in effect, covering the song or music of whatever artist made it. Perhaps not well, but that is what they are doing, without an audience, usually. NOW we get to buddy rap star wanna be. Technically, he could claim it's a cover and 'remix' of sorts, but only if he actually played the song himself as well, and didn't JUST record over it. IF he did just the recording over it, then he can still maybe claim it's a remix, but... you have to actually change the music somewhat. Adding lyrics, doesn't change the music beyond turning it into a song. For those who wonder why the difference matters... well... Songs have lyrics. Music has notes. Distinctions like these matter in the legal world, even if a person has (invalid) reason to disagree. Now, what buddy has done has transformed the music into a song, but he did nothing to change the music at all if I understand correctly. He didn't mix up the notes, add anything musical, etc. (Unless mistaken) He just added lyrics. Sony, MIGHT let this slide perhaps if there is no money made from it. But... looks like he's trying to make money from it. Which means it's outright theft of the original material. Fair use doesn't really protect him here. And if I am correct in all of this, Sony has legal reason to get proactive with a lawyer. P.S. Technically, your use of game music also is not legal 'fair use', but because of deals that Twitch and TH-cam have as I understand, there is leeway for folk to use it in ways like you do. But, don't be surprised if you do get an actual strike if they decide you are getting too relaxed and greedy about it. Simple fix, though maybe not simple for everyone... since rap star buddy didn't bother... is to just remix it a bit.
Yeah, I know my use is not covered under fair use and just that many companies let it slide when people use game osts (I assume mostly because sorting through videos of people actually playing your game vs. listening to the ost would be a nightmare). If sony had claimed I wouldn't have cared at all, it's totally within their rights. Also, you're correct that it wasn't modified, unless you count cutting off about .5s at the start, and was directly just spoken over. Funnily enough, I've put in more effort than the composer did because I looped/added some fade to all the tracks to make them flow well and balanced the audio tracks.
@@Naisarias Yeah, the game OSTs are a bit hit and miss on the copyright strikes that go out, etc. I got one on my actual channel a while back, from a group that only covered the same music used in the game, not that it was actually their music at all. They didn't even have any affiliation with the devs or Sega, the publisher. And then on top of it all, while the notes might be the same mostly, the pitch and tempo were not the same at all. The reverberations in the sounds, and the clarity of the tones, were way different. I.E. Similar but not the same, enough that Sega had no issue letting it go through on their end when making and selling the game; but apparently some diptwit out there figured otherwise in regards to my playing of said game and being quiet just long enough to get striked, inaccurately. Personally, I find it incredibly aggravating when stuff like this happens to myself or others, but then nothing happens to folk like rapstar buddy who is going above and beyond to break the rules. To put this into perspective for those who just don't get it. If the rules don't apply for one person, any person at all whoever they are... then they don't apply for any person at all regardless of whether any one person prefer otherwise or not. And frankly, this isn't up for debate via anyone, even actual lawyers, or actual police. Why? When this happens via court cases and judgments via the court, it is said to have set precedence. Precedence they have no legal right to challenge without proper evidence and a case to go with it. This is part of how dumb and bad laws are taken down over time. So again, it's not up for debate. But the public at large, doesn't realize that it also applies to the real world between folk as well. Scam other artists, don't be surprised when no one cares that they scammed you back, or did something else to teach you the lesson instead. People are dumb that way, by and large, generally. Anyways. That may all seem like it was off topic to you, or some others, but there is a point to it all. If TH-cam and the legal community at large won't do anything about these false claims made by scammers and such; then they have no right to complain when we the users of TH-cam, and the creators supporting it, decide to play their game too. How does one do this? Well... if my experience is anything to go by, you do this. 1. Make a 'cover' of the song at hand that the scammer is using. Now you have right to claim that cover as your work, even if the original is not. 2. Find every video using scrape bots to weed out the stuff that doesn't involve your song, from those that do. 3. Find the ones that the scammer uploaded, or their affiliated company putting out the strike requests. 4. ??? 5. Profit. Or something to that matter. The 4. ??? part is left like that on purpose in reference to the 'business plan' meme for comedy purposes, but also because technically telling someone to gather a bunch of users to effective w-hunt scammers, might not be legal outright... even if it's morally fine. (Remember folks. Legal and Moral are not the same thing.)
I mean, I doubt the artist has anything to do with the claim, and doubt he knowingly used the ost given that he does seem to have some level of success. Unless he somehow got sony to fork over the rights the track, which I doubt, my assumption is that what ever composer he outsources to couldnt meet a deadline, and just copy pasted a track he thought no one in the artist's target demographic would recognize. Regardless, even if he does have the rights to use the ost, it doesn't change the fact that his distributer is throwing out blatantly false copyright claims.
btw, it's a terribly unsuitable track to rap to lmao, you can find it on youtube if you want to hear the specific track: The Legend of Dragoon OST #27 - Sorrow
1:42 I too am not an expert on copyright law, but I am aware of enough of it due to my own doings and hobbies, that I can say without a single issue of being wrong; that you are absolutely correct. But again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just clever enough to be one, maybe, if I could be bothered to go through University to get the degree.
Anyways...
Fair use is pretty straight forward in some ways, but also not, in others. Remixing a song, is allowable. You are creatively transforming the work into something else, that may retain some similarity, but otherwise changes enough to not be confused as being the same song, or even same artist responsible.
That said, there is some nuance. Covering a song, is allowable too. Covering, in this case, means doing what some of the bands will do where they play each others songs on stage before the main event. A lot of music can be 'covered' legally, so long as it is you actually playing the music with those instruments or tools, etc.
Best example of covers being legal, is probably citing how litigious King Crimson is over his work, yet leaves artists like Ozzy Osbourne completely alone despite covering 21st century schizoid man. Cause it's perfectly legal, even if still under copyright. Trademark... and IP rights might intervene in some ways though, so YMMV depending on the source of the music being used. This is why I bring up King Crimson, because he's basically the mac daddy of "correctly" copyright claiming against people on TH-cam for stealing his music and profits. Key point is the correct part about it. Where as many do it wrong, or use false claims; his are legitimate. Yet he does nothing about covers.
Because covers are a form of respect in a way, and while the piece might not have been 'transformed', it has at least been played originally by yourself, instead of just copying it.
One more thing about covers. Covering a song/music piece by default basically has to be allowable, or otherwise you can't practice playing your instruments with any songs or music pieces other than whatever you come up with yourself. I.E. No sheet music for band class except whatever your teacher cooked up. The band class is in effect, covering the song or music of whatever artist made it. Perhaps not well, but that is what they are doing, without an audience, usually.
NOW we get to buddy rap star wanna be.
Technically, he could claim it's a cover and 'remix' of sorts, but only if he actually played the song himself as well, and didn't JUST record over it. IF he did just the recording over it, then he can still maybe claim it's a remix, but... you have to actually change the music somewhat. Adding lyrics, doesn't change the music beyond turning it into a song.
For those who wonder why the difference matters... well... Songs have lyrics. Music has notes. Distinctions like these matter in the legal world, even if a person has (invalid) reason to disagree.
Now, what buddy has done has transformed the music into a song, but he did nothing to change the music at all if I understand correctly. He didn't mix up the notes, add anything musical, etc. (Unless mistaken) He just added lyrics. Sony, MIGHT let this slide perhaps if there is no money made from it. But... looks like he's trying to make money from it.
Which means it's outright theft of the original material. Fair use doesn't really protect him here. And if I am correct in all of this, Sony has legal reason to get proactive with a lawyer.
P.S. Technically, your use of game music also is not legal 'fair use', but because of deals that Twitch and TH-cam have as I understand, there is leeway for folk to use it in ways like you do. But, don't be surprised if you do get an actual strike if they decide you are getting too relaxed and greedy about it. Simple fix, though maybe not simple for everyone... since rap star buddy didn't bother... is to just remix it a bit.
Yeah, I know my use is not covered under fair use and just that many companies let it slide when people use game osts (I assume mostly because sorting through videos of people actually playing your game vs. listening to the ost would be a nightmare). If sony had claimed I wouldn't have cared at all, it's totally within their rights.
Also, you're correct that it wasn't modified, unless you count cutting off about .5s at the start, and was directly just spoken over.
Funnily enough, I've put in more effort than the composer did because I looped/added some fade to all the tracks to make them flow well and balanced the audio tracks.
@@Naisarias Yeah, the game OSTs are a bit hit and miss on the copyright strikes that go out, etc. I got one on my actual channel a while back, from a group that only covered the same music used in the game, not that it was actually their music at all.
They didn't even have any affiliation with the devs or Sega, the publisher. And then on top of it all, while the notes might be the same mostly, the pitch and tempo were not the same at all. The reverberations in the sounds, and the clarity of the tones, were way different. I.E. Similar but not the same, enough that Sega had no issue letting it go through on their end when making and selling the game; but apparently some diptwit out there figured otherwise in regards to my playing of said game and being quiet just long enough to get striked, inaccurately.
Personally, I find it incredibly aggravating when stuff like this happens to myself or others, but then nothing happens to folk like rapstar buddy who is going above and beyond to break the rules.
To put this into perspective for those who just don't get it.
If the rules don't apply for one person, any person at all whoever they are... then they don't apply for any person at all regardless of whether any one person prefer otherwise or not. And frankly, this isn't up for debate via anyone, even actual lawyers, or actual police. Why?
When this happens via court cases and judgments via the court, it is said to have set precedence. Precedence they have no legal right to challenge without proper evidence and a case to go with it. This is part of how dumb and bad laws are taken down over time. So again, it's not up for debate.
But the public at large, doesn't realize that it also applies to the real world between folk as well. Scam other artists, don't be surprised when no one cares that they scammed you back, or did something else to teach you the lesson instead. People are dumb that way, by and large, generally.
Anyways. That may all seem like it was off topic to you, or some others, but there is a point to it all.
If TH-cam and the legal community at large won't do anything about these false claims made by scammers and such; then they have no right to complain when we the users of TH-cam, and the creators supporting it, decide to play their game too.
How does one do this?
Well... if my experience is anything to go by, you do this.
1. Make a 'cover' of the song at hand that the scammer is using. Now you have right to claim that cover as your work, even if the original is not.
2. Find every video using scrape bots to weed out the stuff that doesn't involve your song, from those that do.
3. Find the ones that the scammer uploaded, or their affiliated company putting out the strike requests.
4. ???
5. Profit.
Or something to that matter. The 4. ??? part is left like that on purpose in reference to the 'business plan' meme for comedy purposes, but also because technically telling someone to gather a bunch of users to effective w-hunt scammers, might not be legal outright... even if it's morally fine.
(Remember folks. Legal and Moral are not the same thing.)
Actions speak louder than words, in this case, you learned a lot about the guy copyright claiming your video without even speaking with him...
I mean, I doubt the artist has anything to do with the claim, and doubt he knowingly used the ost given that he does seem to have some level of success. Unless he somehow got sony to fork over the rights the track, which I doubt, my assumption is that what ever composer he outsources to couldnt meet a deadline, and just copy pasted a track he thought no one in the artist's target demographic would recognize.
Regardless, even if he does have the rights to use the ost, it doesn't change the fact that his distributer is throwing out blatantly false copyright claims.
btw, it's a terribly unsuitable track to rap to lmao, you can find it on youtube if you want to hear the specific track: The Legend of Dragoon OST #27 - Sorrow
How dare you? I am disgusted and disappointed. I have unsibscribed.
feelsbadman