• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Starr Mazer composer issues YouTube copyright takedowns on videos with her music

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaser324

Banned
What is her other alternatives if she doesn't want her music on youtube?.

The key thing here is that you're assuming that it is actually her music, and based on the fact that she's still going back and forth with Imagos, that's very much up for debate and is something she would need a judge's ruling to be able to say definitively that its use in Starr Mazer is unlicensed and illegal.

Until that's proven, it's very hard to justify putting the livelihood and earning potential of Youtubers at risk.
 

Wereroku

Member
It's not her music.

She claims it is and they haven't produced proof that it isn't. The fact that steam isn't allowing it to be sold suggests that maybe they don't actually own the music.

The key thing here is that you're assuming that it is actually her music, and based on the fact that she's still going back and forth with Imagos, that's very much up for debate and is something she would need a judge's ruling to be able to say definitively that its use in Starr Mazer is unlicensed and illegal.

I don't know steam seems to think she has a legitimate claim since they have pulled the game as well.

Have you addressed the point that the contract this is based on is for film music?

Weird right people keep ignoring the links I posted to the contract that shows that it is for film music.
 

mas8705

Member
Nice to know we are still using a system where you can make all the false claims you can and not have to worry about any repercussions...
 

Wereroku

Member
Seems pretty clear to me.

The fact that Steam isn't allowing it to be sold is because of their overzealous copyright takedown system (much like YouTube's).

So basically your answer is I believe them more then her? Because she is claiming they don't have a contract and the only thing they have offered up is a film contract she signed.

The Steam page has been pulled and restored several times, so I don't think that's a definitive statement either way.

Which means that she could also own the music as well. The fact that it was pulled down and is still down and the devs have gone silent seems to suggest maybe her claim is more valid.

Also before people start crawling down my throat some one no I don't think it's good that she is hurting youtuber's like this and it is harming her more then helping but it would be a legitimate claim unlike many other cases.
 

Skux

Member
So basically your answer is I believe them more then her? Because she is claiming they don't have a contract and the only thing they have offered up is a film contract she signed.

Yes. The idea that Mauer started working for Imagos without a contract, and that Imagos commissioned Mauer to work without a contract, is absurd beyond belief.
 
Yes. The idea that Mauer started working for Imagos without a contract, and that Imagos commissioned Mauer to work without a contract, is absurd beyond belief.

You're okay with this leap? There must be a contract so the contract must give imagos exclusive rights?
 

Wereroku

Member
Yes. The idea that Mauer started working for Imagos without a contract, and that Imagos commissioned Mauer to work without a contract, is absurd beyond belief.

Well on her webpage she claimed to be a co-founder of Imagos so that would explain why she would start the work without one. Also she seems to have worked with them for many years so maybe she didn't see the need to rush a contract out.
 

low-G

Member
I've been listening to her music for a while. Shame, seems like she really went off the deep end in a workplace shooter style... Attack everyone randomly.
 

Skux

Member
You're okay with this leap? There must be a contract so the contract must give imagos exclusive rights?

It's standard procedure in the creative industry. You give up ownership rights for your work in exchange for credit, payment and/or residuals. This ensures that situations like these don't happen.
 
What is her other alternatives if she doesn't want her music on youtube? I mean yeah she should have just left them alone but does youtube have another system in place if you just want them removed without hurting the youtuber?
The short answer is yes. She could have just asked the reviewers and such to remove videos by themselves before striking and it would be an improvement, but if she was willing to wait a while and do some paperwork, ContentID allows blocking or muting affected videos without further charges.
 

Wereroku

Member
The short answer is yes. She could have just asked the reviewers and such to remove videos by themselves before striking and it would be an improvement, but if she was willing to wait a while and do some paperwork, ContentID allows blocking or muting affected videos without further changes.

So she clearly went more extreme then she should have.

1: it's not her music

2: she should read contracts if this offends her

There is video of the supposed contract and it's bullshit. Her claim is that there is no contract so what could she read?

it's probably not her music but obviously nobody has seen the contract but her and the company.

Nope in Taptap's video he said the company sent him that contract as proof. Thanks I asked if he would post a link to the file they sent around but it seems like bullshit to me.
 

Whompa02

Member
it's probably not her music but obviously nobody has seen the contract but her and the company.

edit: Sorry edited. I assumed they had a contract written up. If they don't then she can do whatever she wants.

double edit: Oh boy it's a kickstarter project. Shit's messy. Abort! Abort!

Nope in Taptap's video he said the company sent him that contract as proof. Why not watch the clip I put in a message and see if you think it is legitimate.

watching now. OKAY my takeaway:

- If there's a contract, it's not her music.

- If there is one, the company will obviously have to abide by it. If they didn't then obviously she has a case.

- Regardless of all of that: She made a huge mistake by her DMCA takedown strategy. She's actually insane. She opened up a huge can of worms with that...
 

Wereroku

Member
watching now. OKAY my takeaway:

- If there's a contract, it's not her music.

- If there is one, the company will obviously have to abide by it.

- She made a huge mistake, regardless of whatever the truth is, by her DMCA takedown strategy. She's actually insane.

Yeah she is clearly going overboard now. Especially the Adult Swim stuff seems weird unless they something else comes out. Also I doubt there is an actual contract if the company is sending out the one in the video as proof.

My question was rhetoric.

Sorry didn't realize I thought you were actually contributing to the thread like the person who let me know content ID could have achieved the same thing without harming the youtubers.
 

jett

D-Member
What is her other alternatives if she doesn't want her music on youtube? I mean yeah she should have just left them alone but does youtube have another system in place if you just want them removed without hurting the youtuber?



Going by the kickstarter post this is after a prolonged period of fighting with the dev. She probably just wants to remove her work from theirs and is being extreme about it.

My question was rhetoric. I honestly believe this is the behavior of someone who is mentally unwell.
 

Bluth54

Member
Youtube should really charge a fee to file a copyright claim and if it turns out to be a false claim like this one you don't get the fee back. Unfortunately I doubt they'll ever do that.
 

autoduelist

Member
Taptap's proof of the studio owning the tracks is literally a signed film contract. That wouldn't apply to any work she did on video games for them

I haven't read the contract, but many media contracts are universal in their wording. A studio doesn't want to have to clear a song or text whenever they need to use it... for example using the song in a commercial or a demo or whatever. Book cover art is another example where they might want to put the cover in a commercial, in a magazine ad, in future books, in a newspaper, etc. the fact that the original contract is a film contract is meaningless, only the wording counts. If they have full ownership they have full ownership
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
i dont see why she wants credit for it. Music sucks.

edit: Listened to the intro on bandcamp. Didnt want to make it further than that if thats indicative of her work.
 

Wereroku

Member
I haven't read the contract, but many media contracts are universal in their wording. A studio doesn't want to have to clear a song or text whenever they need to use it... for example using the song in a commercial or a demo or whatever. Book cover art is another example where they might want to put the cover in a commercial, in a magazine ad, in future books, in a newspaper, etc. the fact that the original contract is a film contract is meaningless, only the wording counts. If they have full ownership they have full ownership

The music was produced for the game not a film. If you want to see the contract it's in Taptap's video.
 
The music was produced for the game not a film. If you want to see the contract it's in Taptap's video.
Hes trying to tell you that if the contract states that Imagos owns the music, it doesn't matter what the contract was for. Unless this contract refers to music other than the music in the game, then they own it for all uses.
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Never mind the fact that these videos would give her work a lot more exposure, thus increasing potential jobs in the future.

i dont see why she wants credit for it. Music sucks.

edit: Listened to the intro on bandcamp. Didnt want to make it further than that if thats indicative of her work.

I actually think it's pretty good but I don't understand why she is charging $1,000 for it or who the fuck would pay that.
 
This's the answer that the developer gave back on March 12 about this situation:

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...zer/comments?cursor=16156359#comment-16156358
The developer has gone silent, the game was removed from Steam.

I find it hard to believe they have an open and shut case if they are willing to pay her more money and profits off the game.

If you're an indie that claims to have already paid someone close to 40 grand with a binding contract that they're already not honoring, this doesn't seem like the way to go.

As for the Youtubers, it sucks but they know the risks they take covering games this way is a grey area. If the pub told them it was fine beforehand its especially shitty.
 

Sir TapTap

Member
I find it hard to believe they have an open and shut case if they are willing to pay her more money and profits off the game.

If you're an indie that claims to have already paid someone close to 40 grand with a binding contract that they're already not honoring, this doesn't seem like the way to go.

As for the Youtubers, it sucks but they know the risks they take covering games this way is a grey area. If the pub told them it was fine beforehand its especially shitty.

What? We were specifically given the game by a pub and told it was fine. 99% of indies and 98% of AAA are fine with coverage. Youtube is no more a grey area these days than publishing movie reviews. They come to US.

And they're not staying silent; don't confuse their March 13th stance on Kickstarter with today. They're in the middle of a legal battle, taking down her new Bandcamp page, and they've gotten the game back on Steam before. This is round two at least.

Also, care to explain why the C&D against Adult Swim is ALSO okay? Did everyone she's ever worked with scam her out of money and only in the last 2 days she decided to admit it?

Also please explain the creepy emails she keeps sending me even though I don't reply to her. She's nuts, stop trying to defend it.

Edit: And here's some more garbage by her if you don't yet realize she's completely disgusting:
DDHqm-kWAAAVRjJ.jpg


(I realize there's an email address in the image but it was shared publicly by the owner. We're media, our addresses are public anyway)

She emailed this to another youtuber: https://twitter.com/Jupiter_Hadley/status/878741439668269056
She never stops emailing us. All I did was email her asking politely to remove the DMCA and said I would remove the music. She said she wouldn't no matter what, and is now sending me threats addressed to Adult Swim.
 
What? We were specifically given the game by a pub and told it was fine. 99% of indies and 98% of AAA are fine with coverage. Youtube is no more a grey area these days than publishing movie reviews. They come to US.

And they're not staying silent; don't confuse their March 13th stance on Kickstarter with today. They're in the middle of a legal battle, taking down her new Bandcamp page, and they've gotten the game back on Steam before. This is round two at least.

Also, care to explain why the C&D against Adult Swim is ALSO okay? Did everyone she's ever worked with scam her out of money and only in the last 2 days she decided to admit it?

Also please explain the creepy emails she keeps sending me even though I don't reply to her. She's nuts, stop trying to defend it.

I expressed disbelief a company with some sort of publisher would buckle this much if they had a very open and shut case. What they laid out Is beyond generous to the point of reasonable suspicion.

I also said its a bad thing to happen to Youtubers and especially shitty if they got the all clear from the publisher. I said grey area because a number of things on youtube are just that. If you had a review that was effected by this, that should clearly be covered by fair use. I just recognize that you are participating in a system (Youtube) that gives all power to corporations when it comes to their creations and they are within their rights to handle it this way. (If she has the rights. If she does not, she did a shitty thing and you should win an appeal.)

I did not say everything she is doing is rational, reasonable and right. I understand that you were effected by this and I hope it works out for you but there is a difference between someone saying that seems weird and we all know how Youtube works and saying everything this woman is doing is right.
 
damn she's just crazy. That's one way to kill your own career.

and youtube is also to blame for their highly abusable copyright takedown system.
 
It's standard procedure in the creative industry. You give up ownership rights for your work in exchange for credit, payment and/or residuals. This ensures that situations like these don't happen.
The leap I am talking about is both the "exclusive part" (not guaranteed) and also the "there must be a contract" part which suggests to me you don't understand how non-savvy the majority of people are when it comes to the law.

As far as exclusive rights, why do you think games/movies sell soundtracks? If the composer sells the soundtrack they are not ceding exclusive rights. And, one contract does not magically create another.

This is not to say I love the Youtube DMCA system, I don't. But "she doesn't own this music" is very different from "she's using takedowns abusively."

Composers regularly retain some rights to their music. And, absent an actual contract and a release the rights don't just disappear. This is actually one aspect of practice that makes artists and programmers different from musicians in the creative industry.

See, for example http://music.disasterpeace.com/album/hyper-light-drifter
 

Peroroncino

Member
Edit: And here's some more garbage by her if you don't yet realize she's completely disgusting:
DDHqm-kWAAAVRjJ.jpg


(I realize there's an email address in the image but it was shared publicly by the owner. We're media, our addresses are public anyway)

She emailed this to another youtuber: https://twitter.com/Jupiter_Hadley/status/878741439668269056
She never stops emailing us. All I did was email her asking politely to remove the DMCA and said I would remove the music. She said she wouldn't no matter what, and is now sending me threats addressed to Adult Swim.

what the hell... this is seriously mental.
 

Steroyd

Member
What in the actual fuck!?

They may have had a point with not recieving payments for their work but instantly lost any support by involving unrelated youtubers to blackmail them into joining their cause.

What is this person thinking!?
 

Falk

that puzzling face
Sir TapTap/Wereroku:

So, humor me here for a bit because you two are going in circles a little in a case of he-said she-said.

So, firstly, considering that the thread is specifically about Starr Mazer (and DSP), I'd appreciate if we stopped bringing up anything else simply in a specific effort to paint Alex in one light or another. Her mental state and other actions are completely irrelevant with regards to the basic question as to who owns the rights to the music.

I think the bottom line to the conversation you two are having here is:

- Wereroku is asserting that Alex has the rights to the music in question here

- Sir TapTap is asserting that Imagos has the rights to the music in question here

The only document that's been referred to in this thread is the one in TapTap's video, which stipulates a work-for-hire agreement, but does not show the product being referred to, on top of the reference to Picture as opposed to video game. (If it's been shown elsewhere in your video, I apologize; I didn't have time to sit through the entire thing).

I would assert that at this point in the discussion, despite any other interactions you may have had with Alex, neither of you have provided proof with regards to your stipulations above. If you did, I'd like to see it. *(edit: just to be clear here I'm not saying 'don't discuss the other stuff' since it IS topical. I'm saying it's not proof)

Composers regularly retain some rights to their music. And, absent an actual contract and a release the rights don't just disappear. This is actually one aspect of practice that makes artists and programmers different from musicians in the creative industry.

In my experience, typically in AA and above game music is very much work-for-hire. The industry changes so fast and is plagued by so many individual cases of games being taken down or otherwise needing to jump through legal hoops decades down the line due to standing or lapsed music contracts that the default state has essentially become work-for-hire.

That being said, indies do typically barter rights with composers due to a much lower budget, with the idea that the composers can then monetize their work on top of whatever return-of-investment they get out of the collaboration. Typical clauses on a license where composer holds the rights include right to use within the game, sequels, ports, DLC, crossovers, etc. and for perpetuity.

And you're absolutely right in that in the absence of an actual contract, rights default to the person who created the work.
 
What in the actual fuck!?

They may have had a point with not recieving payments for their work but instantly lost any support by involving unrelated youtubers to blackmail them into joining their cause.

What is this person thinking!?

TBH if they really didn't pay, then the part where the developer owns the music might not apply anymore. But that's for the authorities to decide.
The reaction by the artist is really indefensible, and yet another wake up call for youtube
 

Vidal

Member
ationsyouplayedyourse.gif

To have a problem with a dev/publisher and don't have a contract to argue against is one thing, to fake DMCA and threaten YouTubers it is crazy.

I'm sorry, but I really hope this person is sued into oblivion.
 

Apathy

Member
People need to read contracts or get a lawyer to read it for you and don't fucking sign it if you don't like what the conditions are. How fucking hard is that?
 

atomsk

Party Pooper
Using Content ID (video stays up and generates money for the claimant), whether it's valid or invalid, is usually the way things go with music on YouTube...

Using Copyright Strike takedowns (manually) is just being malicious.

As someone who has covered a number of indie games only because the PR sent me a copy of the game in the first place, this sets a disturbing precedent.
 

Steroyd

Member
TBH if they really didn't pay, then the part where the developer owns the music might not apply anymore. But that's for the authorities to decide.
The reaction by the artist is really indefensible, and yet another wake up call for youtube

This is the thing, I think totalbiscuit brought it up, you have to be clean to get full compensation, Alex Maur doing all this is only going to hurt her case in court, she may get compensated if it turns out she does legally own the music but she'll likely not get the full package because she's being a dick to unrelated people.

And she's taken the immediate conversation away from the core issue of wether she has the rights to the music anymore, that side of things is irrelevant at this point and she doesn't seem to grasp that if the Jim Sterling video is any indication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom