Splice Exposed: They Got Me a Copyright Strike | Watch Before Splice Issues Another Takedown

Summary

In this video, a music attorney and independent artist discusses the challenges of navigating music business contracts, specifically addressing issues with Splice's terms of service. After reviewing and critiquing Splice's agreement, the attorney receives a cease and desist email and a copyright strike on their YouTube channel. The video serves as an educational response, exploring the implications of the strike, the concept of fair use, and the importance of clear contract terms for content creators.

Takeaways

• 📜 The video discusses a conflict between the channel owner, an entertainment attorney, and Splice, a music platform, over a copyright strike issued against the channel for a video reviewing Splice's terms of service.
• 📬 The channel received a cease and desist email from Splice, claiming mischaracterization of their terms of service, which led to a phone call with Splice's legal team to clarify the issues.
• 🤝 The channel owner appreciates Splice reaching out for clarification and suggests a collaborative approach to resolve the discrepancies found in the terms of service.
• 📝 The channel owner points out inconsistencies in Splice's terms regarding the non-transferability of agreements and the rights to use samples, suggesting that Splice should update their terms for clarity.
• 🚫 Splice filed a copyright strike on the channel's video, which is considered aggressive as it can lead to the loss of the channel, despite ongoing communication with their legal department.
• 🎵 The video content includes a review of Splice's certified license, which is meant to provide users with the rights to use samples in their music, and the channel owner argues this should not be a basis for copyright infringement.
• 📚 The channel owner educates viewers on music business and legal matters, aiming to help independent artists and producers understand and navigate the industry.
• 📉 The strike has put the channel at risk, affecting not only the owner's reputation but also the significant time and effort invested in creating educational content.
• 📋 The channel owner files a counter-notification on YouTube, arguing that the video in question is an educational fair use and should not be subject to a copyright strike.
• 📝 The counter-notification references legal precedents, including the Lens vs. Universal Music Corporation case, to support the claim that the video is protected under fair use.
• 🔍 The video and the situation highlight the broader issue of companies potentially misusing copyright claims to suppress content they find unfavorable, which can have serious implications for content creators.

Q & A

What is the main issue the speaker is facing with their YouTube channel?

The speaker's YouTube channel received a copyright strike from Splice due to a video that reviewed Splice's terms of service, which led to the video being removed from YouTube.

What does the speaker do for a living?

The speaker is an entertainment attorney, an independent artist, and runs a channel providing music business education.

Why did the speaker review Splice's terms of service in their video?

The speaker reviewed Splice's terms of service to inform their audience about the implications of the contract they might be forced to sign to use Splice's platform.

What was the outcome of the speaker's initial communication with Splice's legal department?

The initial communication led to a phone call where Splice's legal department clarified some points and the speaker suggested Splice update their terms of service for clarity.

What specific part of the video received a DMCA copyright takedown notice?

The part of the video that displayed Splice's certified license for 57 seconds received the DMCA copyright takedown notice.

What does the speaker believe is the reason for Splice filing a copyright strike instead of a claim?

The speaker believes Splice filed the most aggressive action possible, a strike, instead of a claim, possibly due to dissatisfaction with the channel's critical review of their terms of service.

What is the speaker's argument against the claim that the certified license is proprietary and confidential?

The speaker argues that the certified license is neither confidential nor proprietary since it is a document that users are meant to freely share and use, as confirmed by Splice's legal department.

What legal precedent does the speaker reference to support their fair use argument?

The speaker references the case of Lenz vs. Universal Music Corporation, which established that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices.

What are the four factors that courts consider when determining fair use?

The four factors are the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

What is the speaker's proposed solution to the issue with Splice?

The speaker hopes that Splice will voluntarily retract the copyright strike and update their terms of service for better clarity regarding the use of their sound samples.

What is the speaker's stance on the audience's role in this situation?

The speaker does not want the audience to engage in any negative actions against Splice; instead, they want the audience to provide feedback on whether Splice should update their terms of service.

Outlines

00:00

📜 YouTube Channel Strike Over Terms of Service Review

The speaker, an entertainment attorney and independent artist, discusses receiving a copyright strike on their YouTube channel following a review of Splice's terms of service. They express surprise at the strike, especially after active communication with Splice's legal team. The speaker had provided educational content on music business contracts and was in the process of discussing a multi-million dollar deal when the strike occurred. They recount their efforts to resolve the issue through a phone call with Splice's legal department, where they sought clarification on certain terms and suggested updates to avoid confusion.

05:00

🚫 Response to Copyright Infringement Claim and DMCA Takedown Notice

The speaker details their response to a DMCA copyright takedown notice issued by Splice, which resulted in the removal of their video from YouTube. They clarify that the content in question was a certified license provided by Splice and an email exchange that was not confidential or proprietary. The speaker argues that the takedown notice was unjustified and may constitute a false copyright claim, which could lead to legal repercussions under 17 USC §512f. They also explain the concept of fair use and how it applies to their video, which was educational and transformative in nature.

10:01

📝 Legal Analysis of Splice's Terms of Service and Copyright Misrepresentation

The speaker provides a legal analysis of Splice's terms of service, focusing on inconsistencies regarding the transferability of rights. They recount their conversation with Splice's legal team, where they sought clarification and suggested updates to the terms for clarity. The speaker also addresses the issue of copyright misrepresentation under the DMCA, citing the Lens vs. Universal Music Corporation case, which requires copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing takedown notices. They argue that Splice's legal team, as experienced attorneys, should have been aware of this requirement.

15:01

🎓 Education on Fair Use and Copyright Law

The speaker educates viewers on the concept of fair use, outlining the four factors considered by courts to determine whether a use of copyrighted material is fair. They discuss the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work. The speaker emphasizes that their video, which provided commentary and education on Splice's terms and certified license, qualifies as fair use and should not have been subject to a copyright infringement claim.

20:03

🛑 Impact of the Copyright Strike on the Educational Channel

The speaker reflects on the impact of the copyright strike on their educational YouTube channel, which hosts over 1,300 videos dedicated to helping individuals understand the music business and legal protection. They calculate the time and effort invested in creating content for the channel, amounting to over 1,200 hours and significant financial value. The speaker expresses concern that the strike puts their channel at risk and undermines their mission to educate and protect content creators.

25:04

📑 Counter-Notification and Call for Transparency from Splice

The speaker outlines their counter-notification to the copyright claim, arguing that their video constitutes fair use and that the claim was made in bad faith. They provide a template for others to use when submitting counter-notifications, emphasizing the importance of being factual and referencing legal precedents. The speaker calls for Splice to retract the copyright strike voluntarily and to update their terms of service for clarity, inviting viewers to comment on the need for such updates.

30:04

🚀 Passion for Music and Protection of Content Creators

The speaker concludes by reiterating their passion for music and their commitment to protecting content creators in the music industry. They express disappointment in Splice's actions but maintain hope for a resolution that involves transparency and updates to the terms of service. The speaker encourages viewers to share their thoughts on the need for updated terms and to support the release of the educational video that was taken down, emphasizing their role as an advocate for independent artists and music professionals.

Keywords

💡Terms of Service

Terms of Service are the legal agreements between a service provider and its users, outlining the rules and conditions for using the service. In the video, the speaker reviews the Terms of Service for a music business platform, Splice, to educate viewers on what they are agreeing to, which is central to the video's theme of transparency and user rights.

💡Copyright Strike

A Copyright Strike is a penalty imposed by YouTube on channels that infringe on copyright laws. The video discusses the impact of receiving a strike due to a claim by Splice, which poses a threat to the channel's existence and is a key plot point in the narrative.

💡Cease and Desist

A Cease and Desist is a legal request to stop an activity that is potentially harmful or damaging to others. In the script, Splice sends a cease and desist email to the speaker, demanding a retraction of their video content, which is a pivotal moment highlighting the conflict between the speaker and Splice.

💡Music Attorney

A Music Attorney is a legal professional specializing in the music industry. The speaker identifies as a music attorney, providing expertise and legal insights throughout the video, which is essential for understanding the video's educational purpose and the speaker's credibility.

💡Fair Use

Fair Use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and research. The speaker argues that their video falls under fair use, which is a central argument in their defense against the copyright strike.

💡Confidential Correspondence

Confidential Correspondence refers to private communications that are not meant to be disclosed to third parties. Splice claims that the speaker violated this by showing an email in the video, which the speaker disputes as a misunderstanding of the concept in the context of the video.

💡Proprietary Documentation

Proprietary Documentation is material that is owned by a company and is not publicly disclosed. Splice alleges that the speaker infringed on their copyright by showing proprietary documentation in the video, which the speaker counters by arguing the educational value and public interest in the content.

💡Certified License

A Certified License in the context of the video refers to a document provided by Splice that grants users certain rights to use samples in their music. The speaker discusses this license to educate viewers on their rights when using Splice's service, which becomes a contentious point in the video's conflict.

💡DMCA Takedown Notice

A DMCA Takedown Notice is a request to remove access to copyrighted material under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The video describes receiving such a notice from Splice, which led to the video's removal from YouTube and is a key event in the video's storyline.

💡Counter-Notification

A Counter-Notification is a response to a DMCA Takedown Notice, asserting that the material was wrongly removed. The speaker outlines their intent to file a counter-notification to dispute the copyright claim, illustrating the video's theme of advocating for creators' rights.

💡Educational Content

Educational Content refers to material intended to inform or instruct. The speaker emphasizes that their channel and the contested video are educational, providing legal analysis and advice, which is integral to the video's purpose and the speaker's defense of their content.

Highlights

The YouTube channel 'Top Music Attorney' is dedicated to music business education, offering insights from an entertainment attorney and independent artist.

A review of Splice's terms of service was conducted, highlighting potentially confusing or concerning contract terms for music creators.

Splice filed a strike on the channel, which is a serious action that can lead to the loss of the channel, after the review was published.

The channel owner had been in active communication with Splice's legal department prior to the strike, discussing concerns about the terms of service.

Splice's legal team had suggested that the channel owner retract their video, claiming it mischaracterized some aspects of the contract.

A phone call with Splice's legal department resulted in a discussion about the terms of service, with suggestions for clarifications and updates.

The channel owner was surprised by Splice's decision to file a strike instead of continuing the discussion about the terms of service.

A detailed analysis of the 'non-transferability' language in Splice's contract was provided, pointing out inconsistencies.

Splice's certified license was discussed, explaining its importance for users who sample their music and need legal clearance.

A DMCA copyright takedown notice was received for a live stream, claiming the display of a certified license as infringement.

The channel owner argues that the certified license shown in the video is not proprietary and is freely available to users, thus not infringement.

The legal basis for fair use was explained, including a discussion of the four factors courts consider when determining fair use.

A comparison was made to the 'Lenz vs. Universal Music Corporation' case, emphasizing the requirement for copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing takedown notices.

The channel owner contemplates the potential for legal action against Splice for filing a false copyright claim, citing the DMCA's 512f provision.

The significant time and effort invested in creating educational content for the channel was quantified, highlighting the risk posed by the copyright strike.

A call to action for Splice to retract the copyright strike and update their terms of service for clarity was made, inviting audience feedback.

The channel owner demonstrates how to file a counter-notification on YouTube for those who believe a copyright claim against their video is unjust.

The importance of understanding terms of service for music creators and the role of the channel in educating and protecting artists was reiterated.

Transcripts

so we do the terms of service and then I

get little email ceas and assist from

Spice hi top music attorney we removed

your video from YouTube I'm sorry that

that seems to piss off companies to the

extent that I get threats because

they're not happy with what I'm

saying I fight for you guys on this

channel every single day but apparently

now I have to fight to even keep this

channel so if you're new here what I do

is music business education I'm an

entertainment attorney I'm also an

independent artist and I take all my

experience collectively together to put

out content to help you with your music

careers and your music businesses and

just everything that you want to do and

what you want to accomplish for yourself

so if you've been following me for a

while you know I am a real attorney I

own a law firm and I've been doing this

for 10 years so we're in a really

important meeting today it's like a

multi-million dollar deal super intense

and then I'm noticing that my phone

notifications are popping off I'm like

Oh my goodness what is happening so I

finally kind of you know look just to

see what crisis is going on and one of

my team members is like oh my gosh

Crystal splice filed a strike on your

YouTube channel and I was nothing short

of totally mortified not just because of

the strike which as you guys who make

YouTube videos know is a really bad

thing and can actually result in the

loss of the channel altogether but

actually I've been in active

communication with SPL SP this week and

specifically their legal department so I

go oh boy if splyce had a problem I'm so

surprised that they didn't just email me

like they did yesterday or maybe just

file a copyright claim on the video no

they filed the most aggressive thing

they could which is a strike so let me

give you a little context a few days ago

I released a review of the spices terms

of service I do that I have a series

where I go through the terms of service

for these music businesses and I tell

you guys what these contracts say that

you're being forced to sign in order to

use these platforms and I've had a lot

of requests to review splice for a long

time and I finally had a chance to get

to it so just like I always do I go

through and I just give you the four

corners of the contract what it says

I've read thousands of terms of service

and so I just let you guys know here's

some stuff that might be good might be

bad this is just what you should know so

we do the term a service and we release

it and then I get a cute little email

that's a cease and assist from splyce

and they give me a list right and they

go look we think that you are

mischaracterizing some things we think

that you are causing some confusion and

so we're like demanding that you issue a

new statement a retraction that you just

do something and it took a look at the

position that they were taking because

as you know lawyers have a tendency to

take different positions on things and I

go you know what first first of all I

love that you actually reached out to me

to the extent that I am a spokesperson

of any kind for the music business

community and knowing that we had

questions we're confused about some of

the language in the contract or we don't

think some things are clear the fact

that you reached out is amazing thank

you very much and I go you know would

you do me a favor let's jump on a phone

call right so let's jump on a phone call

because I understand what you're saying

but we need to talk about this a little

bit further cuz I'd like just tell me

just tell me what your guys' policies

are tell me what you do and then I can

like give some updates to my community

and I specifically told them that I was

going to be going live this was

yesterday now I go I'm going live and so

you know we did this like two three

hours right before the show so big

meeting with the legal department for

splice and as we went through and they

kind of explained and go okay so you

know it's so helpful for me that you are

telling me this extra stuff and now I

know and I will also share it with my

community I go however the issue here is

that it doesn't actually say what you're

saying in some of these instances in the

contract so I go at the end of the call

I just go look it would be quite the win

if you made an update to your terms of

service for purposes of just clarifying

this cuz in the call you know they're

all saying you know it's so important to

us that we're super clear we really are

all about our creators and our users so

okay great if that's the case let's do

this as a team you know you guys

hopefully will update your terms of

service to be a little more clear and I

will concurrently do a video you know

providing some updates and

clarifications right and even on that

call you know I gave recommendations on

how I you know suggest I'm like take it

or leave it I'm like but this is how I

would reward it because there was a

little bit of push back and they're like

well you know we kind of don't want to

do it for this reason or that reason I

go okay I hear you but here's how I

would do it and I just gave them an

example because I'm like actually it's a

really easy solution so without

repeating the entire video that I did

yesterday which is now taken down and

I'll show you guys all the things here

shortly I basically just went through

the email that they sent me and I go all

right so you know they're taking issue

with the fact that I am pointing out the

non-transferability language right these

words that they're using and showing

that it's kind of inconsistent here and

there so I go this is what I said this

is what the term said this is what their

email said and this is what they told me

today so here's what I can at least

share with you guys that's what I did so

I just went through and I'm like for

purposes of just clarifying this is what

they told me this is maybe why I said

something a certain way and then I want

to step further because I actually went

out of my way to try to just you know

end this on a really positive note to be

like I was so excited that splice took

time to have a little chat and to you

know hopefully try to provide some

clarification to their users and one of

the things that we talked about was this

certified license so if you are using

samples from splice they provide you a

certified license and what I was told

was that this certified license is like

the only thing that you need if you ever

need to do something with your song

which contains the sample if you are

licensing it if you are selling it like

any instance you're good to go and so in

my effort to create transparency and

show you guys I'm like hey this is where

you get your license in your account and

it wasn't my account right this is my

show producers account he's the music

producer so he downloaded one of these

licenses he gave it to me and it's just

you know their template language with a

couple of sentences in it so fast

forward to today we get a dmca copyright

takedown notice let me show you what

that looks like hi top musicor

we received a copyright removal request

for your video based on applicable

copyright law based on applicable

copyright law we removed your video from

YouTube and what video was it it was my

live stream from the night before which

is splice response and they go tips to

start new music projects I did a Q&A and

this is a music business podcast they go

the content use that

allegedly is copyright infringement was

they put what splice put is not

applicable confidential

correspondence and proprietary

documentations screen shared within the

video so they say it the content use not

applicable what do you mean it's not

applicable that's the entire basis of

filing a copyright infringement claim

that you are alleging someone is using

your copyrighted content but then it

does go on to explain it says well there

was a confidential you know

communication correspondence and a

proprietary documentation screen shared

within the video and then you are asked

to actually tell YouTube and to tell the

end person receiving this which happens

to be me what was it so I download of

course all my content and so I have

copies of everything so even though it's

off of YouTube right now I still have a

copy of the video so this particular and

I think it's 57 seconds so this

particular 57 seconds is showing their

certified license that we had done as

just kind of like a little test to show

you guys and be like where do you get

your license to make sure that you can

if you run into problems with your music

distributors or your record labels or

whatever so we're just showing that to

educate you and help you and to explain

so in a you know almost what was it hour

and a half 2 hour live stream this is

what they were claiming okay so let go

on back and well who who claimed it who

filed this and we know that this is

distributed Creations Incorporated which

is the company doing business as splice

we also have the contact information for

privacy purposes I like to give

courtesies all right they may not be

given to me but I like to give

courtesies of covering people's names so

it's one of the legal people over at

splice filed this all right they go this

means your video can no longer be viewed

on YouTube you received a copyright

strike you now have one copyright strike

if you get multiple copyright strikes

will have to terminate your channel so

let me take a quick step back and

basically just walk through this as if I

was the client right it's not actually

me I'm I'm advising someone I go well

they're identifying that there may have

been a confidential correspondence so

we'll say that was the email that they

sent me it was not a confidential

correspondence and in fact as a

litigation attorney I can tell you that

when we're litigating sometimes there

really are confidential Communications

which we have to identify we go pursuant

to rule 4 away to the federal Rules of

Evidence this is not something that you

can use if there's a lawsuit doesn't

mean you can't share it it just means

that you can't use in a lawsuit to prove

liability but that's not what this was

they sent me a little email saying hey

we think that you need to clarify some

stuff so all right is this copyright

infringement no they're saying it was a

confidential correspondence the other

piece that we just saw is that it said

that this was a proprietary document so

I'm assuming that they're talking about

the CER ified license all right so if

they go this is our Preparatory document

and we didn't want to sh

everybody well a big part of the

conversation that I had with splice is I

go look my big problem here is that I go

I sell music catalog all the time we

sold $9 million of Music catalog last

year and I can tell you that when I'm

looking at your terms there's going to

be problems because it's not clear and

especially in the language where it's

like you can not assign this agreement

or any of your rights here too it at

best conflicts with the other language

which is like yeah please go license no

big deal you can remix you can adapt and

I go that's inconsistent so I'm like

asking for just clarification or updates

you need to make some updates but back

to the discussion which was oh Crystal

you know when it comes to this you know

this this license this is the thing that

everyone uses right the big labels use

it and this is the thing that freely

transfers the rights our artists you

know on users they can license they can

sell we have no problem with any of that

I was like wow that's really good to

know and then I told my audience

yesterday but going back to is me

showing their license copyright

infringement the answer is no and I'm

going to tell you why so if I was

advising myself I go gosh it seems like

someone has filed a false copyright

infringement claim on your video Crystal

and I would argue this is only not

confidential information it's also not

proprietary information because

according to spice's own legal

department everyone can just freely give

this license to whoever they want

anytime meaning other people get to see

this document this is not like a private

document but most importantly it's not

copyright infringement so what do we do

I'm glad you asked so what we're going

to do for a second is pretend that the

information that was contained in the

letter in the license agreement the

certified license is copyrighted

material materal because under copyright

in order to have copyright protection

you just need to take your creative

expression and fix it into a tangible

medium and have your own originality in

it so in this case where it's like a

half a page license agreement and then

also an email that was kind of rude P.S

but nonetheless the drafter may have a

claim that they have copyright

protection in those things now again

what was actually claimed on the video

is solely the license agreement in the

time code that was provided to YouTube

but this is how we work through it as

lawyers so we take a peek at Lens versus

Universal Music Corporation 801 f3d 1126

and this was in the United States court

of appeals 9th circuit I am in the ninth

circuit so this is a very applicable

case so here's a quick summary so

Stephanie lens she filed a lawsuit and

this was under 17 USC section 512f we've

talked about this on the channel

actually which is part of the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act the dmca and so

this complaint was filed against

Universal Music Corp okay and she was

alleging that Universal filed a takedown

notification of her YouTube video and

was climbing copyright infringement for

use of a portion of the video that

contained a Prince song in the

background okay and so she goes well and

and then you know we we'll get to to to

to to more of the meat of the claim but

the claim boils down to a question of

whether copyright holders have been

abusing the extrajudicial takeown

procedure provided for in the tmca by

declining to First evaluate whether the

content qualifies as fair use and in

this court they said we hold that the

statute requires copyright holders to

consider fair use before sending a

takedown notification and that failure

to do so raises a triable issue as to

whether the copyright holder formed a

subjective good faith belief that the

use was not authorized by law all right

so quick recap so they're saying that

under

512f if you if you try this little like

Trojan Horse thing where really you're

filing a false copyright claim and

you're going I actually want to take

this down because I don't want you to

see something that's in this video

unfortunately that happens all the time

right like I said doing this a long time

and you know we have to deal with people

who file false claims and we assert the

512f and I'll tell you why that matters

but we just go look you don't get to

file a copyright infringement claim

because you're unhappy like and that's

this is usually what it is because

you're unhappy of what the person's

actually saying in the video about you

you might have other claims you might be

able to sue you might be to do all kinds

of things but you don't get to use the

Digital Millennium Copyright Act and

what's set up through YouTube to get a

video taken down and reportedly

according to the claim itself it was

because the email and the license

agreement was showed on the screen all

right so in the courts analysis back to

this Johnson and PS Johnson was working

for Universal so he's the one that's

assigned to go and find all the songs

with Prince music in it and to file

takedowns on YouTube so uh when univers

will say had to file the takedowns the

notice has to include a good faith

belief statement as required under copy

right law 17 USC section 512 C3 a v

which says we have a good faith belief

that the above described activity is not

authorized by the copyright owner its

agent or the law so as it relates to my

video and the good faith statement that

was made by an experienced music

attorney who works for a music business

I don't even say attorney a team of

attorneys who work for a music business

who are aware of fair use which we're

going to talk about for a sec here

momentarily said yes we have a good F

believe that the above activity is

copyright infringement so let's keep

going all right so lens right filed the

second amended complaint and alleging

cuz there were other claims and they

eventually got dismissed so but alleging

just we're back to the 512f okay so that

there was a claim for misrepresentation

under 512f well you know what what does

512f say the court goes on to discuss if

an entity abuses the dmca abuses the

dmca because this is something that is

set up to help people to protect their

copyright that the entity doing this

thing may be subject to liability under

512f the section provides quote any

person who knowingly materially

misrepresents right you file a fake

claim under this section that material

or activity is infringing so you're

making a claim that the stuff in the

video is copyright infringement shall be

liable for any

damages and I've read the statute so

many times I can just tell you what the

rest of that sentence says which is any

damages incurred by the alleged

infringer whether they actual damages or

their attorney's fees so you know as a

law office we we make this argument all

the time and we go you know usually

we're just trying to sort this out we're

like just please retract you know your

claim and sometimes it's maybe because

people just make a mistake they don't

understand and we go just so you know it

does say this we are able to come after

you for like damages and attorney fees

and all the stuff happening so before

that happens and before this escalates

please just retract your claim fair use

is not just excused by the law it is

wholly authorized by the law in

1976 Congress codified the application

of a four-step test for determining the

fair use of copyrighted works and this

is what it says not with understanding

the provisions of sections 106 106a the

fair use of a copyrighted work for

purposes such as criticism comment news

reporting teaching including multiple

copies for classroom use scholarship or

research is not an infringement of

copyright in determining whether the use

made of a work in any particular case is

a fair use the factors shall be

considered include and this is this is

how the court looks at this and guys

just for context because sometimes

people will hire our office to provide a

fair use analysis because maybe someone

is doing a documentary and so they're

using pictures and video clips that are

copyrighted and belong to other people

but their documentary may qualify as

fair use and if it qualifies as fair use

under the law you are okay to include it

in your let's say video but there's four

factors okay and the courts generally

look at these they don't take all of

them sometimes they'll weigh different

things a little heavier than others but

this is what the factors are so they go

the purpose and character of the use

including whether such use is for a

commercial nature or is it for a

nonprofit educational purposes right are

we just trying to educate people okay

two the nature of the copyrighted work

what is it right is it something where

you have invested I don't know hundreds

of thousands of dollars youve made a you

know feature film is it an email that

took 30 seconds there may be copyright

in it but the court looks at this as far

as what is the copyright thing that you

are upset about out number three the

court looks at the amount and the

substantiality of the portion used in

relation to the copyrighted work as a

whole right so you know for example how

much did we actually need to use if I'm

like hey I'm doing a documentary and

then you know I go this is a documentary

talking about the different types of

films in the world and then I literally

just have the whole like all these films

just play from start to finish that

doesn't make sense if I'm using a

representative portion like a little

portion I'm like hey so this is like a

horror film oh this is like a you know

and so I go through for purposes of

making my educational point that would

weigh towards fair use and then number

four we have and consider the effect of

the use upon the potential market for or

value of the copyrighted work so we look

at basically like what's the impact on

the market is you using this copyrighted

thing damaging the original thing right

and sometimes the answer is

unequivocally yes so is me talking about

this certified license in a very

positive light which I did I go hey

here's the thing this is what they said

use it this is the you know everyone

it's like accepted in the industry and

so me just showing you what it is so you

know where to get it and what it is is

this damaging splice in the market or

devaluing their certified license in my

opinion no it's not and again even as it

relates to the Emil they're like hey you

didn't make us look very good because we

were kind of like you know mean to you

when you're in the email on it kind of

made us look not so good okay that's not

copyright infringement so let's keep

going 17 USC section 107 the statute

explains that the fair use of a

copyrighted work is permissible because

it is a

non-infringing use so I gave this a

little thought and I go all right so you

know my channel has about 1,300

educational videos on it all dedicated

just to helping you guys with you know

understanding the music business

understanding how to stay protected

legally and I was like let me try to

figure out what it costs for me to do

what I do and what I've done to dat and

so I go all right 1300 videos and you

know we take holidays off but otherwise

I do this once a week just for the live

show segment and so you know that's

approximately 50 shows a year so that's

you know over the course of four years

about 200 shows each show that I do is

no less than six hours from prep to

recording to you know all the stuff we

have to do afterwards so basically that

brings us to about 1,200 hours that I've

invested to get this channel to where it

is and if we multiply that by the time

that I take off of work right as a

full-time lawyer we're now in the

multiple six figures so that's the value

of this channel by itself that they've

now put at risk because they chose to

actually file a strike against the

channel and of course that doesn't

account for other time invested by

editors that you know edit the video so

you guys have videos all throughout the

week now here's the thing I go back to

we did the live stream but that's the

way that I do this channel is that we do

the live stream and then I cut up all

the different videos and segments of

what I talk about and that's what we

release throughout the week so the

actual video that we have been editing

and we were planning on releasing was

meant for purposes and they saw it

that's why they filed the claim but was

meant for purposes of not only providing

clarification specifically from splice

because you know on our call I just

pointed out some things and they you

know clarified for example one thing

that came out it had to do with your

access to your account and then also

these certified licenses that are so

important that you download that it's

the first time I've ever heard about it

and I represent producers all the time

who use splice and so one thing that

splice legal had shared with me was that

they're like uh you never you well in

fact to be honest they actually

conflicted two of the attorneys one said

you are good to have access to your

account for 5 to six years and then the

other one jumped in and said no no no

it's forever and even if there is a

problem you can reach out to our

copyright email and we'll help you and

so then you know on that call I was like

Hey so just so you know when I went

through your terms it actually doesn't

say that it says once you are done you

are kicked out of your account you no

longer have access and that's why I

stress to my followers that it's just

really important that you download your

certified license which proves that you

are okay to use the sample in your songs

so there was my reaction to this but you

know my show producer who has been a

part of this channel since the very

beginning he was quite up in arms and he

goes what are they trying to hide if

this really is about the certified

license what do they not want people to

see that they then filed this false

copyright infringement claim against

your video to get it taken down so to be

clear I really would like to release

that video but it's going to be really

tough while I have already one strike on

my channel and the the idea was

literally to help you guys and to convey

what they shared but then also to

provide clarification on the language in

their terms of service that literally

conflicts whether this is actually me

and my Channel or if I was just advising

someone I would say this is completely

an utterly outrageous and I'm pretty

disappointed in splice now I do want to

say that I do not want you to hate on

splice okay this is my fight it is not

yours my honest hope is that they will

voluntarily retract their copyright

strike on my channel and the only ask

that I have which was in my video

yesterday is that splyce needs to update

its terms of service and in fact their

legal team told me that they would and

if you have seen my original review of

their terms of service if you think that

splice needs to update their terms to

just better clarify that you have an

unrestricted right to use the sound

within your song including for purposes

of selling your song so long as you

don't do all the things that we go

through in their terms such as just

taking their samples and reselling them

as sample packs if you think some

updates would be helpful leave your

comments down below now because this is

an educational Channel I thought I would

show you what I'm filing as my counter

notification on YouTube so a counter

notification basically this is like the

appeal right on YouTube so distributed

Creations Incorporated which is splice

Hereafter claimant improperly issued a

copyright claim in violation of the

Copyright Act which is 17 USC 101

sequential clayman's copyright claim

lacks Merit and is made in bad faith

claimant blatantly ignores the fair use

nature of the video which is pursuant to

107 and therefore fails to uphold its

burden in lens versus Universal Music

corporation which we just went through

the creative YouTube video at issue

which is Hereafter the YouTube video of

top music attorney Hereafter YouTuber is

an educational and transformative video

providing a legal reaction to documents

provided to claimant users the video

also analyzes claimants terms of service

in particular which are publicly posted

on its website this is not a

confidential thing splice has it on its

website the YouTuber provides commentary

and criticism and education for users

utilizing clayman's website the document

in question is displayed on the screen

for 27 seconds and the YouTuber educates

users on its purpose and use this

YouTube video and use unequivocally

qualifies as commentary education and

criticism so real quick guys you know if

you want to freeze frame uh you know

this video this is language when you do

file your counter notifications if you

are claiming fair use if you were saying

someone filed a claim it's wrong because

I did have the ability to let's say you

know if you just cover news you're like

I am reacting to this for commentary

criticism so this is the language that

you would use this YouTube video

constitutes non-infringing fair use

under us copyright law because it is

transformative in nature it uses no more

of the original than necessary to make

the educational point and has no

negative effect on the market for the

original work thus under Section 107 of

the 1976 Copyright Act the fair use

factors weigh heavily in favor of good

faith fair use courts have already

weighed on this question YouTube videos

of this nature are fair use as a matter

of Law and we side to another two cases

thus climens copyright claim has no

merit was not made in good faith and

must be removed immediately the YouTuber

appreciates your review and

consideration so just a pro tip you know

it's helpful when you are just as

factual as possible when you are

submitting these counter notifications

just to help it along because quite

frankly had we you know drafted this out

of just you know emotion and being like

this is what they said in their claim

they're like there's a confidential

communication there's a proprietary

document that I'm seeing and oh by the

way as it relates to the claim of

copyright it's not applicable so rather

than just kind of getting into that and

just being like to the extent that you

guys take is what they're saying is true

that it is copyright infringement cuz

there may be copyright in these things

right we go regardless this still

qualifies as fair use and this was a

very improper claim that was filed on

this video to be clear I do not want

escalation of this matter and like I

said I really would love to release that

video even if they would like me to take

out the alleged showing of the license

agreement I can take that out it was

literally meant for the users for you

guys just to see in case this is like

news to you I could certainly take that

out since that seems to be the big issue

here but I did want to mention regards

to the 512 F damages and the fact that

they have filed a false claim for

copyright infringement because pursuant

to the law as we read they were required

to consider that this could have

qualified for fair use and not only that

we don't have a lay person who filed

this we had a legal department who's

very familiar with the law and this law

in particular and I mean you know the

nuclear option with all of this you know

if I again if I was advising myself is

you know eventually we can just get an

injunction because maybe let's say I

release that video right it's almost

done being edited and they decide to

file a second copyright strike well even

at this point getting an injunction

getting a court to say you splice are

violating the law you cannot file these

dmca copyright infringement takedown

notices and I have all of these options

because I'm not only an attorney but I'm

an attorney who also has a team of

attorneys that work for me across the

United States and that's not Fair that's

why I do this channel because I can go

to bat for myself and I can just go as

long as I need to go on this but you

guys don't have that option and that's

why I review these terms of service

because it's important that you

understand what these companies are

really saying and what you are required

to sign to use their services and I'm

sorry that that seems to piss off

companies to the extent that in some

instances now I get threats or I

actually have a company take legal

action against my YouTube channel

because they're not happy with what I'm

saying like I said I do this channel

because I'm just so passionate about

music I've been doing music since I was

four I'm an independent artist I've run

my own record label and I became a

lawyer because I wanted to learn how to

protect myself so I go you know what for

the people who are like me who want to

learn how to protect themselves in this

music business I'm going to help them

please be sure to leave that comment

below if you would like to see that

splice video and most important ly if

you think that splice needs to update

its terms of service