Jump to content



Copyright Infringement on Ridley Scott's "Raised By Wolves" TV Programme


Recommended Posts

Why don't you complain to YouTube, if your original music added to YouTube, has been used elsewhere ?

 

Of course you have no proof, any music added to Youtube was the source of any music being used elsewhere.

 

I think this is going nowhere, because you are likely to be ignored and don't have the resources to take this forward as a legal challenge. You could end up spending more, than the value of any music.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So you emailed a friend, who may have passed it on to his brother in law and they may have passed it on etc etc.   In the end your music file is just added to a long list of music and given

I'm sure we would all like to listen to the track on the YouTube video in question. Maybe you could post it up here. This is a very interesting story and you will have two problems. First of all

I'm afraid that this would not be a valid argument. Even if you give a piece of music away, it doesn't mean that you have also transferred copyright. Copyright can only be transferred by an assig

My first two ranty emails were the only ones that reception@ and Ridley received.  The polite email I sent to Ridley Scott's personal email address has been bounced back to me - that latest email hasn't been received.  I had sent that email after someone manually disconnected their website from it's hosting server.  The Administrator of the domain name scottfree.co.uk is the only person able to change the web forwarding settings.  It was done manually.

 

Ridley may have panicked after receiving an email from a complete stranger, at his personal email address and may have feared that his website had been hacked, but all I did was guess his mail address correctly.  People tend to follow a pattern when choosing how to create their @email moniker, and that pattern can be guessed at by looking at the other email addresses at any given domain name. 

 

I'm a little worried about my use of the word "foot shot" in my second received raty email.  I was trying to use the "shoot yourself in the foot" phrase in relation to the dangers of using muisicians of "low character".  This was merely an abbreviation, I wasn't suggesting violence of any kind.  If I send my letter by post, they'll have my address.

 

There is clearly a problem if gigantic media concerns can simply steal from musical minnows posting their original music on Youtube.  They used my music to fill 32 seconds.  This matter may indeed go absolutely nowhere or quickly become unaffordable, but I must try. 

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

> Why don't you complain to YouTube

 

Youtube immediately takes material down if it's been used illegally elsewhere on Youtube.  I'm not sure what Youtube would be willing to do beyond Youtube regarding copyright infringements, they don't have the copyright.  Any legal action seems to be horrendously expensive.  But I will ask, if I can find a human to communicate with.

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I understand that only the source material has been taken from YouTube. The infringing copy has not been placed on YouTube. If that's right then there is no point in talking to YouTube

Link to post
Share on other sites

My original intention with my music composition hobby was to create a "One Hit Wonder".  It can't be that hard, can it?  Pop music creators all use the same basic set of chords and the biggest hits use a only very small handful.  For six months in 2008, I tried very hard, and I thought I had succeeded when the "First Post" newspaper featured one of my tunes on it's website.  The viewcount went crazy.

 

Not knowing where the sudden increase in views was coming from and suspecting some sort of nefarious activity, I disabled the embedding of my music - this led to the complete stop of views.  In 20/20 retrospect, I should have let it roll.

 

Advertisers spend massive sums of money on seemingly inconsequential little jingles.  A small series of attractive notes can be vaulable:  I have no idea what Brian Eno was paid for the Windows 95 "Startup" noise.  Therefore, after awhile I stopped posting my good material on Youtube, planning to do so only after registering at PRS.  It's a bit late now.  Quite honestly, I never expected anyone to steal the music I have posted.

 

If I had joined PRS, I could have attempted the ceasing of Royalty payouts to those musicians from PRS by opening a copyright dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> The infringing copy has not been placed on YouTube. If that's right then there is no point in talking to YouTube

 

Youtube is positioning itself as a paid-for streaming service like Netflix and Amazon.  Perhaps it's simply a matter of time before "Raised By Wolves" appears, I could try to stop Episode 5 streaming then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Of course you have no proof, any music added to Youtube was the source of any music being used elsewhere.

 

They have greatly increased it's length from about 4 seconds to about 32 seconds, plus added obscuring (and beautifully applied) reverb and effects.  This makes make digital fingerprinting impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, erikborgo said:

> Of course you have no proof, any music added to Youtube was the source of any music being used elsewhere.

 

They have greatly increased it's length from about 4 seconds to about 32 seconds, plus added obscuring (and beautifully applied) reverb and effects.  This makes make digital fingerprinting impossible.

 

I'm no musician, so what does that mean?  Is it going to make it more difficult for you to establish that someone must, on the balance of probabilities (ie more likely than not), have copied your composition?  Your composition in this case being a unique (I presume) sequence of ten notes played over a period of four seconds.

 

Can you definitely establish that you had distributed your composition to third parties prior to your posting of it on Youtube in June 2020?  Can you show how those third parties would have made your composition available to the "Raised by Wolves" composers to allow them to copy your work?  (Remember:  it isn't necessarily enough to show that the two peices of music are the same, my understanding is that you need to show that they actually copied your work, which means somebody must have made it available to them to copy.  Unless you can show how they would have heard it before writing the "Raised by Wolves" sequence, I think you'll find it difficult to prove any breach of copyright).

 

I think you really need legal advice on this.  I think that if you try to go it alone you will, as uncle bulgaria suggests, simply be ignored.  I suspect that film and TV producers are used to dealing with (and ignoring) intellectual property claims, and I'm afraid your earlier attempts at communication may lead to you not being taken seriously (or being taken seriously in the wrong way).

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I'm no musician, so what does that mean

 

I mean that I'm not a trained musician and I have no musical qualifications.  After taking one guitar lesson as a teenager, I'm self taught.

 

> a unique (I presume) sequence of ten notes played over a period of four seconds.

 

It's a unique ten note sequence.  Aside from that, they've used a drect recording (digital copy/sample) - it's the same instrument, ie the unique instrument sound I created.  You can daisy-chain many instruments together in DAW software with different settings within each instrument or effect, to produce something unique.  It's best to create something unique to prevent copyright problems down the line.


> Can you definitely establish that you had distributed your composition to third parties prior to your posting of it on Youtube in June 2020?  Can you show how those third parties would have made your composition available to the "Raised by Wolves" composers to allow them to copy your work?  (Remember:  it isn't necessarily enough to show that the two peices of music are the same, my understanding is that you need to show that they actually copied your work, which means somebody must have made it available to them to copy.  Unless you can show how they would have heard it before writing the "Raised by Wolves" sequence, I think you'll find it difficult to prove any breach of copyright). Can you definitely establish that you had distributed your composition to third parties prior to your posting of it on Youtube in June 2020?  Can you show how those third parties would have made your composition available to the "Raised by Wolves" composers to allow them to copy your work?  (Remember:  it isn't necessarily enough to show that the two peices of music are the same, my understanding is that you need to show that they actually copied your work, which means somebody must have made it available to them to copy.  Unless you can show how they would have heard it before writing the "Raised by Wolves" sequence, I think you'll find it difficult to prove any breach of copyright).

 

Other than proof of the emails being sent, I can't prove anything.  Once it's been sent, it can end up anywhere.  At least one of the people I sent it to knows a Film Composer (his brother in law).  Another is a producer and publisher of electronic music, who has extensive contacts in the music industry and knows people who compose sountracks.

 

I have no idea when their soundtrack was produced.  With online streaming moving at such a fast development pace, Directors these days tend to be compelled to make last minute editing decisions.  It could be that they used my music as a filler and didn't have time to compose anything themseves and left it in.

 

Ridley Scott is well known for being thrifty - nearly all of his productions have been completed under-budget, this is very rare in the film industry.  I doubt if I will see any action without legal pressure. 

 

> I think you really need legal advice on this.  I think that if you try to go it alone you will, as uncle bulgaria suggests, simply be ignored.

 

This is the conclusion I am coming to, but they will likely respond to a letter from a Law firm.  There seem to be a lot of No-Win-No-Fee Lawyers for Copyright issues advertised widely.  Should I leave it until it has been distributed more widely to increase their exposure or strike now? 

 

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and find a way to view all the different streaming versions.  If they remove my music in Episode 5 in any of the versions, that would be a possible admission of a copyright breach.

 

Can I use the Small Claims Court? The limit is £10,000.

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the other people I emailed is a Director of a  large and famous advertising firm with offices all over the world.  I was touting for work of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> a unique (I presume) sequence of ten notes played over a period of four seconds.

 

One of the benefits of using Youtube is their use of algorithms designed to detect breaches of copyright.  A sequence of notes within published music similar to the ones I uploaded is automatically regarded as being legitimate and mine would be automatically deleted.  It happens quite often. 

 

A friend of mine tried to upload his documentary to Youtube about the many similarities between a popular spy novel and a recent TV spy drama, by using extracts from two TV dramatisations.  It was immediately flagged as in breach of copyright automatically, and deleted.  The music gave it away.

 

There are ways to beat the algorithm: Reverb and time stretching works, as in this case.  Lots of music is distributed illegally on Youtube at half speed by using this method - to be downloaded and speeded up later.  Until a publisher flags it up manually.

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Under Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules that govern civil disputes:

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

 

The court will rarely make an order for the losing party to pay sums in respect of the winning party's 'costs, fees and expenses', e.g. legal fees.

 

There are exceptions which allow the court discretion to make an award for the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim, court fees paid by the issuing party, travel and accommodation expenses which a witness reasonably incurs in attending a hearing, fees incurred in the instruction of an expert to attend the hearing  - limited to £200.

 

Therefore my costs (if I lose)  will be limited to about £800, at Small Claims Court.  Should I open a case in Small Claims Court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to upload a copy of their version and mine but to do so would breach their (invalid) copyright.  I have a recording with a version of theirs which I have sped up, followed by mine which I have slowed down and they have exactly 11 notes (missed one earlier) - exactly the same notes that are in mine, and in the same order!  One note is doubled in exactly the same place.  This is deeply irritating.  I must have satisfaction.  Just a credit would do.

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely insane that they deleted their website hosting - doing so has the effect of deleting their received emails, because their mail server is deleted too. 

 

The mail server is part of any hosting package - I sell hosting packages myself and know that when you receive a bounced email after the hosting has been removed, it's because the mail server was operating within that hosting package (it can be separate, it wasn't in this case) and has been deleted.

 

I also know that web forwarding has to be set manually.  They have done this on purpose, straight after receiving my ranty email threatening legal action.  But it could of course be a coincidence.  Why didn't they just change their email addresses?

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2020 at 09:06, erikborgo said:

I tend to label - as in this case - my noises as trailers for upcoming movies such as "The Matrix 4 Trailer Final" or "James Bond - No time To Die" or similar, to get more views. 

 

Have you ever considered that perhaps you should not be doing this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, erikborgo said:

> I'm no musician, so what does that mean

 

I mean that I'm not a trained musician and I have no musical qualifications.  After taking one guitar lesson as a teenager, I'm self taught.

 

 

 

??? 

 

Maybe you misunderstand the quoting function on these boards?  I was not asking you what the phrase "I'm no musician" (I was referring to myself by the way, not you) means, I was asking you what this in your post #57 means:

 

 

8 hours ago, erikborgo said:

 

They have greatly increased it's length from about 4 seconds to about 32 seconds, plus added obscuring (and beautifully applied) reverb and effects.  This makes make digital fingerprinting impossible.

 

 

Does it make it more difficult to prove copying?

 

(Are you being serious with this thread or is it tongue in cheek?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Does it make it more difficult to prove copying?

 

Why do you keep asking if I'm serious?  I do wish it was legal to post both their recording and mine played at roughly the same speed, so that you could hear it.  I don't want to be accused of copyright infringement myself, which is why I haven't done so. 

 

I don't know what state of the art forensic music copy detection technology can do, but here's what I believe they did to cover their tracks and re-engineer my musical piece:

 

1.  They slowed down my sample to fit a longer time period.

 

2.  They then chopped up their recording of my 12 notes and rearragned them to fit 32 seconds they needed to fill.

 

3.  They added reverb.  (This had the effect of blending two very short notes of my 12, which are played very close together, hence 11 notes)

 

4.  They then played my slowed down music and changed the timing of the notes.

 

5. They then played my slowed down music through a guitar cabinet and re-recorded it using a microphone into a computer.  You can hear the untidy noisy sound of the guitar cabinet in the episode fade in shortly before the first note of my music plays.  It's a very hissy sound (and very odd to hear in an otherwise well funded and squeaky clean audio presentation) , because guitar cabinets are analogue devices and music producers tend to use very old models to add atmosphere to recordings.

 

This process also makes detection of copying harder because guitar cabinets are not high quality audio reproduction devices, especially the old, unusual and badly built classics from the 60s and 70s which producers like to use.  They add character to guitar, which is what they were designed to do. 

 

This technique is often used to create the "Wall of sound" effect used by Phil Spektor, and many other producers since, by playing music through guitar cabinets in large rooms with hard walls and floors (a "Live Room") which add reverb (echo) to mix back into the original recording.  I know that this process sounds overly laborious, but it's just one of the sonic activities producers get up to.

 

6. They added more layers of digital effects to some layers (expensive pre-echo and impulse shaping of reverb to rebuild the attack of my notes - they had to do this because they had stretched it so much, which reduces the attack) to produce a smooth sonic experience, but they used the same samples of my music to make those layers, to make sure that they are the same pitch.

 

My 32 seconds of stretched out music has been streamed many millions of times.  Apparently, in North America, an artist is paid $0.091 per play in streaming format.  32 seconds is a big chunk of an hour long soundtrack.  Therefore could I ask the Small Claims Court to award me £10,000 for the first million views from the UK?   The maximum award at Small Claims Court is £10,000.  If that works, could I keep going back for the next million etc?

 

 

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

Have you ever considered that perhaps you should not be doing this?

Youtube would take it down if it was a problem.  I believe it's entirely legal to call my music anything I like, so long as it isn't actually a forgery of "The Matrix 4 Trailer". 

 

Despite the very extensive and expensive number they ran on my music, I recognised it from the very first note.  I know my sound.  The next 31 seconds saw me becoming more and more incredulous as more and more of the notes of my music played out at me.  I couldn't breate by the time the final note played, they had obscured it most with layers of synth, but it was the pitch of my final note. I couldn't enjoy the rest of that episode.

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Hi.

 

To answer your questions about emailing people, please wait for BF to see your latest findings before you rush into anything. :)

 

HB

 

 

I have no intention of doing anything at all until I have some guidance from the esteemed members of this website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO Max alone have at least 36.3 Million Subscribers:

 

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/hbo-max-subscribers-subscribers-q2-att-1234714316/

 

"Raised By Wolves" is a hit programme.  My music has been played millions of times.  I have no idea where I can get accurate streaming statistics for "Raised By Wolves".

Edited by erikborgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Raised By Wolves" is being streamed by Youtube TV!  Maybe I could lodge a complaint with Youtube after all.  On the other hand, Youtube TV might be a wholly different commercial entity.  It's also being streamed on AT&T, Charter, Verizon, Cox Communications, Comcast, Apple and Hulu:

 

https://www.androidcentral.com/how-watch-raised-wolves

 

It's likely been viewed many tens of millions of times.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@erikborgo
 I am beginning to think that you may believe that you have struck gold ? Look at the  number and length of your posts. Gold fever ?

 

Are you going to gamble your house on this ?

 

It seems to me that you would could only claim a small part of any fee the music producers obtained, as you say they had significantly improved/altered the music track. The music producers may have only received a few hundred pounds for that small part of an overall soundtrack. And they are probably not paid any royalties, unless it is the main title theme music.

 

Why not ask Rick Beato a well known YouTube music genius to listen to both your track and the one on the programme ?

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...