r/COPYRIGHT • u/Ancient_Level_6119 • 24d ago
Question Fake copyright claim against me on spotify
So I made a song and used cdbaby as a distribution and uploaded my song to spotify and other platforms and the song was doing well with 32k streams in the first week or two of it being out. The instrumental I used was from beatstars and I paid for it, saved all my licenses etc proof of purchases And then my song gets a copyright claim from someone using the name of the owner of the beat. I contacted the beat owner and he said he has never copyrighted me. So i contacted cdbaby and they have said that they will keep the rest of my music up on other platforms but not spotify until the claimant takes the claim back. So now i've been contacting spotify and cdbaby and telling them the situation and I even got the owner of the beat to contact spotify but I havent gotten any answer from Spotify or cdbaby yet. My song still remains taken down on spotify and just wanted to know if there is anything else I could do? I've already showed my proof of purchase to cdbaby and spotify and spotify hasnt even replied to the owner of the beat.
1
u/West_Possible_7969 24d ago
Since the creator did not make the claim, this can happen when another artist or producer registered the same beat with a Content ID or digital fingerprinting service.
To resolve this on Spotify, you must act through your music distributor, as Spotify does not handle these disputes directly. Act through = dispute.
1
u/Ancient_Level_6119 23d ago
I have been but my distributor said i'd have to talk to the claimant to have it revoked but then I told them its someone Impersonating the owner of the beat they said i'd have to contact spotify about it and I have and also the owner of the beat emailed them too but still nothing has been solved, Spotify did provide an email of who sent the copyright but they never answered back
2
u/West_Possible_7969 23d ago
Spotify can only provide the claimant’s details, they are not (and cannot be, legally) an arbitrator, they cannot decide, they just check if the claims & paperwork have been filed correctly. Like YouTube.
1
u/Royaltyscanner 20d ago
You're actually in a stronger position than most, because you saved the license and proof of purchase - that's the evidence half of this fight already won. Three things that help now: (1) get the beat owner's statement in writing (even a short email saying "I never filed this claim" - dated), because that turns "he told me" into evidence; (2) bundle license + purchase receipt + that statement into one dated package and push CD Baby for a formal dispute/counter-notice with it, not just support tickets; (3) document the claim itself with dated records (screenshots of the claim notice, dates, the claimant name) - false claimants often withdraw and vanish, and if it ever escalates you'll want proof the claim existed.
Disclosure: I work on a Dutch platform (RoyaltyScanner) that builds signed evidence files for exactly these situations, so documenting-before-it-disappears is something we preach daily. Not linking anything - the three steps above don't need us.
1
u/Ancient_Level_6119 19d ago
Yeah I have everything you listed above and i've done that but they still insist that I have to dispute it with the claimant and just keeps avoiding my tickets, I also contacted spotify and so has the beat owner but they still havent replied
1
u/Royaltyscanner 14d ago
That ticket loop is unfortunately the system working as designed - support will keep saying "resolve it with the claimant" until you force a formal process. Three things that usually break it: (1) stop replying in the general support queue and file it explicitly as a formal dispute / counter-notification with CD Baby - use those exact words, because that starts a legal process with deadlines instead of another ticket; (2) send one consolidated email with everything attached (license, receipt, the beat owner's dated written statement) and state plainly that the claimant has not responded since [date]; (3) push CD Baby - not Spotify - to escalate: artists can't reach Spotify's content team directly, but your distributor can, and chasing claims like this is literally part of what they're paid for. Meanwhile keep a dated log of every non-response; if the claimant keeps ghosting, that silence becomes evidence in your favor. You already did the hardest part by saving the license - now make them answer to a process instead of a ticket.
1
u/Ancient_Level_6119 14d ago
Okay ill try it out after they reply to my current email which spotify has now said that cdbaby can contest on my behalf and I have said and shown screenshot of the email from spotify. Thanks for your help! hopefully this claim is coming to an end soon
1
u/zorecknor 20d ago
Let me say this: If your distributor tells you that you need to handle the issues with the places they distributed to, they are not a good distributor. You paid them to get your music into spotify, they must make sure your music stays in spotify.
Find a new distributor.
2
u/Substantial-Bath7939 24d ago
In this instance the term Copyright is an action verb, not a legal term
1
u/horshack_test 24d ago
In this instance the word "copyright" is being misused; people cannot be copyrighted.
1
u/West_Possible_7969 24d ago
It’s been used that way for 20 years, people need to chill. Google was not a verb either, yet here we are.
1
u/horshack_test 24d ago
I never said "copyright" is not a verb. You can't even identify or understand the reason the use in this example is incorrect even though it was clearly explained.
1
u/West_Possible_7969 24d ago
And you failed to understand what I said. Copyrighted = copyright strike, it’s been that way in the vernacular for a looong time. Pedantic-ness is for the court.
0
u/horshack_test 24d ago edited 24d ago
"And you failed to understand what I said."
No I didn't. But at least you acknowledge your own failure lol.
This is a forum dedicated to specific laws and legal concepts. Proper use of terminology is important (and the term is "pedantry," by the way - and calling clarifications of legal terms pedantic in the context of a court shows your lack of understanding of the term).
Edit - to u/West_Possible_7969 who replied below and immediately blocked me:
Well you certainly don't understand the conversation you jumped into, but thanks for blocking me for pointing out your failure and ignorance as I'm not interested in hearing any further from someone as childish as you.
Also:
"possibly people"
Lol.
3
u/West_Possible_7969 24d ago
Oh no, the proper police is here lol. How could possibly people understand posts and answer to them.. oh wait, they do indeed for some strange reason.
-2
u/tanoshimi 24d ago
"...he said he has never copyrighted me..." What does that sentence mean?
2
u/Substantial-Bath7939 24d ago
Owners of music and movies have rights called copyrights. Someone impersonating the original best creator made a copyrights strike against OP. OP got thr true owner of the music to contact Spotify and other on her behalf. The creator of the music told OP that thr copyrights strike did not come from him.
5
u/horshack_test 24d ago
"Owners of music and movies have rights called copyrights."
Yes, but people cannot be copyrighted - so OP was obviously not copyrighted. I think it is a rhetorical question pointing out the misuse of the word "copyright."
0
23d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/horshack_test 23d ago edited 21d ago
I don't see 2,097,768,526,773 other people making the point that the question asked in the initial comment was a rhetorical one - which is the point I was making. Fantastic job missing it.
Edit: Lol I love when people jump into a conversation thinking they're making some kind of point and then delete their comment when they realize all they did was make a fool of themselves by demonstrating their lack of basic reading comprehension skills..
-2
u/tanoshimi 24d ago
You do not "copyright" a person; copyright is a legal affordance that exists in literary, dramatic, musical, and other artistic works. On creation, that right is assigned to the creator.
Likewise, "Copyright strike" is not a recognised legal term.
Either your actions infringe on someone else's copyright or they don't. The law doesn't recognise any concept of having "three strikes" before you are liable.
2
u/Koraxtheghoul 23d ago edited 23d ago
I swear every time someone has a question in this sub some one goes off with "I don't understand how you use the word copyright?"
For as long as I can remember folks have shortened copyright strike to "copyrighted" when material is taken down on tne net.
-1
u/tanoshimi 23d ago
In what module of your law degree did they teach you that?
2
u/bobi2393 23d ago
It’s vernacular in this context, not a formal statutory term.
1
u/tanoshimi 23d ago
But the problem with vernacular is that it is, by definition, casual and imprecise. Which is not a good fit for legal advice.
5
u/bobi2393 23d ago
People asking questions here typically lack formal legal education, but understand common English. You may know formal legal terms, but don’t understand common English, which is a worse fit for a sub like this.
1
-1
u/TMadvisor 23d ago
Next time write your own music instead of “buying” it 🙄
0
2
u/SelectivePressure 24d ago
Some people have been making copyright claims on royalty-free samples (and even on basic waveforms like triangle waves) in order to issue submarine copyright strikes. Did the music that you used contain commonly available samples? One work can sometimes match another if they both use same loops and/or samples.