I have a few questions that have been bothering me for a while...
How is it that when I make a song using samples from WAREZ, they almost always detect the sample and the description will say that this sound was already used by someone else and that they own the rights to it? Of course, all the monetization then goes to their account if I decide to publish the song.
I'm asking because I can't understand how it works.
Here's a song that Freedie Dredd sampled:

And here's his version:

And how is it possible that YouTube didn't flag his song like mine, saying that Lisa Ono is the owner of the music? Under his video, it's normally described as his own song, but under mine, it would immediately say that the original recording is Lisa Ono - Sway it.
I apologize in advance for my poor English.

 

If you use music you made yourself, then there won't be any trouble. If you steal samples, you always have to expect to be warned. Mistakes happen because of the people, who are not perfect either. And it's usually not fair.

YouTube says:
With our digital fingerprint, rights holders can upload content to which they have exclusive rights as reference files.
Videos uploaded to YouTube are then scanned for matches with this content.

It's not always fair! I once had a free sample where the moon rocket launch was counted, that was common knowledge, but then YouTube reported that someone had registered the rights, so I deleted my video. I don't want to get into a legal dispute.

There used to be lawyers who would send warnings, whose names were published in the firm, they were only after money.
The EU has passed a law that a stolen photo can cost a maximum of 50 euros.

 

What do you mean "using samples from warez" ?

Like, you downloaded the song from somewhere or ripped an mp3 from YouTube and then sampled it? Or do you just mean using an uncleared sample?

YouTube is constantly scanning videos for copyrighted content and when you put a song in your video, it will get flagged and the potential ad revenue from your video will go to the copyright holders. The reason Freddie Dredd's songs isn't flagged is probably because he officially cleared the sample and already has an agreement with the original artist about splitting the revenue from streaming, sales, YouTube revenue etc.

You're not in any trouble and your channel won't get deleted but you won't be able to make money from that video. I hope this explains it, but I still don't understand what you meant by "warez samples", sorry

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2024

"Yes, I was talking about samples that I didn't buy, but downloaded from a warez site.
What you wrote is very helpful and it already explains a lot to me, but I have to ask a few more things.
Let's say I buy a sound pack, for example, vocals or a sound pack with 200 sounds like kick, synth, bass, vocals, etc., and I use them in my track. Where do I report that I have a license for these sounds so that I don't get flagged again?
And what if many other people buy the same sound packs? We all have a license for it then, but do we still need to report it somewhere?
I know my questions might seem basic, but it's been bothering me for a long time and I can't find an answer anywhere."

 

If you own the license (i.e. you have bought the sample pack) and don't infringe the copyright in any other way, you would need to dispute the claim:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454

 

I have noticed YouTube is not as accurate as it either could be or should be. It seems some streamers get copyright infringement notices and others do not, even when it is obvious on both. In some cases of tutoring streamers YouTube should be fairer and in your case, it is impossible to know whether they will crucify you or not.

I won't call it hypocrisy because they also use some algorithm to determine watermarks, copyright and the like, but if anyone said what is good for one is good for all, it certainly does not seem like it for some people. I have also seen people have come back and said I OWN THIS as YouTube took it down in error. They had to show licenses and copyright ownership. YouTube is great for Global accessibility, but their algorithm is FAR............ from perfect.

 

It's on the site where you buy your samples, it's called Royalty Free for example. That means you can use the samples publicly. There are also sample manufacturers who put a kind of visual fingerprint on their samples. Then YouTube will report immediately.

Your sound packs like Kick etc. are common samples that have been used millions of times. There shouldn't be any problems at all. Read the T&Cs on the sample manufacturer's website before making a purchase.

Spoiler: Royalty-free (RF) material

Royalty-free (RF) material that is subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights can be used without having to pay license fees or royalties for each use, per copy or volume sold, or for a specific period of use or sale.

 

Ok, I understand. If you use sounds from a sample pack, you don't have to report it anywhere. It's because when you buy a sample pack, you almost always automatically buy a license to use those sounds (But you don't OWN them. You can't resell them or something like that. You only have a license to use them). Yes, sometimes people sell samples only for personal use and say directly that you cannot use them in released music, but that's rare. Most sample packs, like Vengeance, KSHMR, Loopmasters, Splice are made for you to put in your song and release. They expect it and you don't have to do anything else other than buy the pack.

If you download that sample pack from a warez website, you technically don't have this license. But honestly, who's gonna know? Nobody is checking whether you have bought every single kick drum and snare drum in your songs, I wouldn't worry about it. It doesn't make any difference to the YouTube content ID, if you use a legal or warez sample pack, they can't tell the difference. And it's not the reason your song gets flagged.

And you also asked about two people using the same sample from a sample pack. This happens all the time because producers use the same sample packs. It's not a problem because of the way the licensing for sample packs works, as I explained. Everyone who bought it can use it (and even if you didn't buy it, nobody will check). Sometimes, YouTube will flag a song because it contains the same melody loop or drum loop from a sample pack, that was used in another song previously. On the rare occasion that this happens, YouTube is obviously incorrect because you both have the right to use it and you can dispute the claim. You can do this on your YouTube creator's page.

 

Here I found a good example of what is allowed and what is not, so it is better to read the text first before you waste your money and get into trouble.

Big Fish Audio License Agreement

The samples contained herein are licensed, not sold to you, the individual end user, by Big Fish Audio. This non-exclusive, non-transferable license is granted only to the individual end user who has purchased a lawfully made copy of this product from Big Fish Audio or a distributor authorized by Big Fish Audio. All samples remain the property of Big Fish Audio and are licensed only for use in the creation of a live or recorded performance that includes the licensed samples as part of a derivative musical work created by the licensed end user.

This license expressly forbids resale, rental, loan, gift, or transfer of these samples in any format or via any medium, except as part of a derivative musical work. The samples may not be included, whether unmodified or as part of a derivative work, in any sample library or virtual instrument product.

If you use this product in the creation of a music library, or music intended to be included in a music library catalog, you cannot use the demonstration mix track files or recreate the demonstration mix track, you can only use the other files to create a derivative musical work. When present, the demonstration mix track files contain the word “demo” in the file name. Some products do not contain any demonstration mix track files or demo files. All rights not expressly granted herein are exclusively reserved by Big Fish Audio.

Source: https://help.loopmasters.com/hc/en-us/articles/7718351143316-Big-Fish-Audio-License-Agreement

 

1. Youtube checks if a "sample" is copyrighted in its own database. This database obviously doesn't include "sample packs" you can buy somewhere on the net. They are not music. They are materials for music.

2. You don't distingush different meanings of the word "sample".
a) "Sample" can mean a fragment of any digital audio record (the most abstract sense). In this sense it can mean the smallest portion of audio. You have 44100 such samples in one second of any digital record with CD quality. But the length of a sample can be arbitrary.
b) "Sample" can mean a part of copyrighted material, esp. a song. Usually it's you who cut it from a song.
c) "Sample" can mean a fragment of audio recorded or created specially for use as a material for music. Loops, acapellas, melodic lines, bass lines in sample packs. They aren't cut from somebody' music. They created from scratch.

b) and c) must be distinguished.

What's wrong with your example. In the second song a big fragment of another song is used. It is obvious. If you cut a significantly smaller piece (that is a single kick sound, vowel "a" etc.) it hardly will be detected.

Also there is a difference between samples in sample packs (loops, acapellas etc.) and sample libraries (piano libraries, drums libraries etc.). In the second case they are just single notes rathen than "phrases" of any form.

 

I haven’t read all the responses but this issue isn’t about warez or sample library rights. The problem is, when you publish a song you can register it with YouTube's Content ID system. If someone publishes a song that uses a sample from a sample library and registers it with Content ID the system might assume that their song is the original source of the sample.

Then, if someone else publishes a song using the same sample Content ID could mistakenly flag it as containing material from the first song. As a result YouTube redirects revenue to the person who registered the first song even though they don’t own the sample exclusively.

This system is supposed to be used only for truly original material, but it’s likely that some people exploit this loophole intentionally to profit from other artists’ work.

 

It can be about warez and sample library rights also, and maybe even more importantly for some users.

If I pay for a sample pack and use the sample; but it detects it as such from someone else's track, can I get my money back for the pack I just paid for? Unlikely. So by this Content ID logic, every paid (or warezed) sample may only be used once in it's detectable sounding condition. Am I misunderstanding this? I hope so.

My personal opinion (which doesn't matter) is that if you sample something from someone else's track, monetarily it becomes a "cover" version and they are entitled to any money due them for that sample. Completely acceptable. But if a sample from a sample pack is used, why does that matter? Does the first person who used the sample need to show that *They* paid for it? I change any sample I use hopefully enough to where it doesn't matter. But a lot of people do not. They shouldn't have to, that's why they are paying for samples in the first place.

This is how to end up racing to use every officially released sample in packs people sell. This doesn't sound right or I am confused.

 

The internet is relatively new and a lot of things are legally gray areas and not yet clearly defined. In cases of doubt, YouTube, as the platform owner, will assert its rights and can delete everything, including your account. There's nothing you can do about that.

 

This is such a non-answer I don't know why you wasted your time typing that.

 

Clone, calm down, you are dramatizing unnecessarily and asking questions that don't even come up in real life. Your post is actually causing more fear and the matter is becoming more and more confusing.

Are people now supposed to think about whether YouTube will block every time they use a different DAW?

If they have read the previous posts about the "YouTube's Content ID system" and "Big Fish Audio License Agreement", they should actually know what the really important things to note are.

 

Rimixing a song/track, is different than creating a new song,
even with sampled elements..

Sampling an entire track, mangling it with FX, and putting other sampled stuff on top..
is also pretty much like a collage Remix

I'm not saying there's no Art, Craft, Skill or Effort put into it,
but it's what it is..

If you made your own source material, with your technical skills and artistic vision,
you will be creating something new and uniquely yours

 

"Thank you everyone for your answers, each one was very helpful and finally I understood how it all works. These questions have been bothering me for a long time.
BUT now I have a thought, if for example I used a sample from a sound pack that I bought and many other people bought, then YouTube should offer, at the time of publishing the track, the possibility of presenting the license. This would solve the problem of "first come, first served". I don't understand why there's still no such thing there. Only when you get flagged can you appeal, and that takes at least 30 days. This would solve the problem of flagging people who have a license and if you don't have it and use sounds without a license then you get flagged.
YouTube says they've spent millions of dollars on this detection system and really nobody has ever complained there for it to work this way?"

 

In theory, that sounds good, but the large number of videos uploaded is too large to manage in terms of personnel. There are more than 800 million videos on YouTube. That equates to around 14.4 million videos per day. The average length of a YouTube video is 11.7 minutes.

Without this software, YouTube itself would be in court, so YouTube can say we are doing something about copyright infringement.

 

Someone posted this thread in another one here and it was great read for sure
https://vi-control.net/community/th...le-libraries-in-your-track-or-are-you.135281/

 

This is slightly off topic....but. My U-Tube channel was hacked. The !@#$ hacker uploaded a shit-ton of videos selling warez.
U-Tube blamed me and immediaitely deleted my channel and I have NEVER been able to get it back. There is NO real support,
just a form you can fill out...which I did several times. I got absolutely no response. AND because U-Tube is owned by and
tied into Google they wouldn't even let me create a new channel. I had to create an entirely seperate Google account in
order to have a working U-Tube channel again. Now, I'm not a big time tuber. I don't sell music, host influential money
making podcasts etc....all I ever uploded was my own original music, (sample free BTW), to share with my friends. So
this wasn't a real big deal.....just a big PITA.

But what if I was a pro and that was my main income stream? I wonder if they would have been more helpful then.
Because, if I was losing money.....they would be too.

I f#cking hate Google. They have been the source of nearly all security breaches I've fallen victim to. Just the
other day I got a txt saying that both my phone maker, (Samsung), and carrier, (Verizon), would be discontinuing their
messaging apps and I would be FORCED to switch to Google Messages......if that's not a violation of anti-trust laws I
don't know what is.