DealWithIt
Member
Have you addressed the point that the contract this is based on is for film music?It's not her music.
Have you addressed the point that the contract this is based on is for film music?It's not her music.
What is her other alternatives if she doesn't want her music on youtube?.
It's not her 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.
Have you addressed the point that the contract this is based on is for film 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.
I don't know steam seems to think she has a legitimate claim since they have pulled the game as well.
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).
The Steam page has been pulled and restored several times, so I don't think that's a definitive statement either way.
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?
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.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 changes.
1: it's not her music
2: she should read contracts if this offends her
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. 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.
- She made a huge mistake, regardless of whatever the truth is, by her DMCA takedown strategy. She's actually insane.
My question was rhetoric.
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.
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
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.The music was produced for the game not a film. If you want to see the contract it's in Taptap's video.
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.
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.
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.
She needs help and not just legal.
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.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.
Edit: And here's some more garbage by her if you don't yet realize she's completely disgusting:
(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.
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.
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