Following up: Our Copyright team looked into this & confirmed that the claim is valid. We see that you’ve appealed the claim, which provides UMG with 30 days to review your appeal. If you would like to resolve the issue directly with them, please DM us for more info.
Well, if youtube sees that Warner Brothers DMCA'd something that contains not a single Warner Brothers copyright property, it's not valid. This isn't up for debate because no part of the video can even possibly belong to Warner Brothers and thus the DMCA is invalid.
-
-
also, by your definition, if WB even BELIEVED they owned something in the video, the claim would be valid.
-
Yes, if WB believed they owned something it would be valid. But in order to support that belief they would have to have some kind of copyright. If their belief was something that obviously they don't own they would get sued for falsely using the DMCA takedown system.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
answer my question, please. this is both obvious and totally beside the point.
-
That is my answer. When they mean valid they aren't talking about fair use. They are talking about whether the DMCA is literally invalid ie people using it in a completely incorrect manner. The manner UMG is using it the correct way, they will just lose in court.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.