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.