Can you own Bach?

[oniman7]

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.

[Vince Klortho]

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

[oniman7]

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).

[punkjazzben]

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'.

[oniman7]

Thanks for that info for sure

[FrednBass]

You can contact YouTube user support and explain

[Richland123]

[oniman7]

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

[tmdazed]

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

[Kmonk]

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.

[punkjazzben]

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

[Kmonk]

Originally Posted by punkjazzben

^ 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.

[punkjazzben]

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

Thank you for contacting the AudioMicro AdRev Team! If you have
already sent in your email for white list request, please do not
respond to this email, rest assured we are on it!

If you have emailed us, chances are you have questions or concerns
about Youtube site mail you received regarding a copyright claim.

Do not panic! There is nothing you need to do and you have absolutely
nothing to worry about whatsoever. Kick back and relax...you can
literally ignore the email and consider the matter closed.

In case you want to read further, here are some details as to why you
received the sitemail:

We are monitoring tracks for various artists/partners and helping them
gather data on the usage of their material and monetize their work via
ads.

And if you're still reading and you want to know about some additional
options (other than ignoring the sitemail), here you go:

OPTION 1

If you do not respond to the claim, your video will stay live on
Youtube, unchanged, and simply have some ads run on the bottom 1/5 of
the video. Viewers can click an "X" and close the ads anytime.

These ads help our artists/partners make money from their hard
work/fantastic music they provide.

OPTION 2

You can simply dispute the claim and as a courtesy, we will release
the claim soon thereafter and the ads will stop running soon
thereafter.

We suggest going with OPTION 1. but if you really don't want the ads
to appear and don't want to help out the artist that created the
material that you've used in your video, then by all means, go for
OPTION 2.

If you have asked for a white list request, please note that we need
the EMAIL associated with your YouTube account, NOT your YouTube ID or
links to your videos, in order to whitelist. Please send us the
correct data or we can't assist you with a whitelist.

Again, if you have already provided the correct data (email), please
DO NOT respond to this email, it will only delay our ability to attend
to other users' white list requests! Thanks so much for your
cooperation.

All the Best,

The AudioMicro Ad Rev Team

[oniman7]

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

[elgecko]

In Soviet Russia, Tchaikovsky owns you!

[oniman7]

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?

[Pacman]

I think your cart is in front of your horse.

[sobie18]

Originally Posted by elgecko

In Soviet Russia, Tchaikovsky owns you!

I like that!

[oniman7]

Originally Posted by Pacman

I think your cart is in front of your horse.

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

[Vince Klortho]

Originally Posted by elgecko

In Soviet Russia, Tchaikovsky owns you!

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