Can you own Bach?
 

So I posted a video of me playing Bach's Minuet in G Major on the classical guitar to YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nK7xXRfme48 )

Today I got an e-mail from YouTube saying that third party content had been matched in the video from the 0:40 mark. These are the exact details: "ALIBI-Bach-Minuet in G major - Classical", musical composition administered by: 0:40
AdRev Publishing

Of course I disputed it as Bach music should be in the public domain. I was a little upset because I've been monetizing videos lately (I figure if it earns me $50 a year per video after building up a fan base that'll be a nice bonus) and whenever this happens they remove the monetization option for that particular video. I've got others where I had permission from the band Hinder to post a bass cover for a contest they were doing and it still matched the content and removed the video from mobile platforms and certain countries even after the dispute had been looked at.

Unbelievable. I thought three hundred-fifty-year-old compositions are in the public domain.

I would think so as well. The only thing I can think of is that maybe I used a particular arrangement they own a copyright to? But the format is all the same as the original and they'd have a hard time proving it (especially with my... liberal use of rubato).

Yeah, this is bogus. Someone/something has gone wrong on YouTube's end.

EDIT: Do a quick Google of AdRev. They're scammers making claims on public domain material. I see they've even made a false claim on a video that used Apple's loops from GarageBand/Logic, which I think is probably fraud. Sounds like you can get around it by contacting them and getting your channel 'whitelisted'.

Thanks for that info for sure

You can contact YouTube user support and explain

Found out their email is adrev@audiomicro.com and sent an e-mail there. Apparently they do this quite often

most if not all classical like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven are public domain by now. Not entirely sure they were ever covered by copywrite, I dont believe the concept was in force back then

The reason your post was flagged has nothing to do with protecting Bach's rights. The music IS considered part of the public domain but the recording and arrangement are NOT. Since there are no recordings of Bach actually performing his music, you may have used an arrangement which is owned by someone else, probably a publishing company, musicians who performed on a recording, etc. The recording is owned by the company or musician (musicians) who released it and therefore it is protected under copyright laws.

International Copyright Law
The Berne Convention is an international treaty standardizing copyright protection since 1886. In 1994 a "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT)"was signed by 117 countries, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in Geneva, Switzerland, to enforce compliance with the agreement. GATT includes a section covering copyrights called the "Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property" (TRIPS). U.S. law was amended to be essentially consistent with GATT by the "Uruguay Round Agreements Act" (URAA) in 1994. Many countries provide 95 years copyright protection, but until 1998 the US only protected works for 75 years. URAA provided that the US would provide copyright protection equal to that granted in the home country for a foreign work first published outside the US if a Notice to Enforce (NIE) is filed.Therefore any composition registered between 1904 and 1922 is NOT in the public domain if a NIE has been filed with the US copyright office by a foreign copyright holder.Despite GATT, copyright protection varies greatly from country to country, and extreme caution must be exercised on all international usage of any intellectual property. An attorney or rights clearance organization is absolutely necessary for any international use of music.

^ you missed the part about AdRev being dodgy, didn't you? Also, it was his own recording.

If he copied an arrangement that is protected he violated copyright law. It is also possible that the company who flagged him may misunderstand their rights as it pertains to Bach's music.

I have had similar discussions with my brother who happens to be an intellectual property attorney and is president of a firm with major clients all over the world.

AdRev has made fraudulent and false copyright claims on hundreds of videos. The end goal for them is not to police copyright infringement, but to generate advertising revenue. AdRev is not legitimate. Here is what the OP will receive if he emails them

Even that response would be a step up from the whopping nothing I've received

In Soviet Russia, Tchaikovsky owns you!

So this makes me mad... They removed the claim and their ads. But now YouTube will not monetize unless I have written acknowledgment that I have rights to it... From whom do they expect this?

I think your cart is in front of your horse.

I like that!

Possibly. But I don't like a company removing my right to put my cart wherever I like

There is no Soviet Russia. It died a few decades ago.