English 
French 
Spanish 
Chinese 
Japanese 
Korean 
Hindi 
German 
Norwegian 
Warner Music attacks a YouTuber after he helped them
Information
Video published by Adam Neely 2
After Katy Perry was sued for alleged “plagiarism” of “Joyful Noise”, a Christian rap track, YouTuber Adam Neely made a video defending Warner Music.
In this video, he explains that the set of notes tied to the plagiarism claim had already been used by several other songs, older or newer, and therefore the absurd Joyful Noise argument makes no sense.
After that video, Warner Music contacted him to thank him for providing an additional argument for their lawsuit. However, Katy Perry and therefore Warner Music still ended up losing that dispute.
The irony is that after losing the case, Warner Music launched a YouTube claim to take YouTuber Adam Neely’s revenue because he had used those famous notes in his video.
Besides the fact that it is pretty rotten to take the revenue of someone who helped them, the absurdity of this claim is even greater when you know they had just lost the lawsuit, so legally those notes do not belong to them...
It makes no sense for them to collect the YouTuber’s revenue since it had just been decided that those notes were not their property.
You might think they redirected the claim to some other element, but no: it is specifically defined, and manually by a human, that these notes triggered the claim.
It is really time for YouTube to add a new rule that triggers damages in case of false claims.
Warner Music attacks a YouTuber after he helped them
Information
Video published by Adam Neely 2
After Katy Perry was sued for alleged “plagiarism” of “Joyful Noise”, a Christian rap track, YouTuber Adam Neely made a video defending Warner Music.
In this video, he explains that the set of notes tied to the plagiarism claim had already been used by several other songs, older or newer, and therefore the absurd Joyful Noise argument makes no sense.
After that video, Warner Music contacted him to thank him for providing an additional argument for their lawsuit. However, Katy Perry and therefore Warner Music still ended up losing that dispute.
The irony is that after losing the case, Warner Music launched a YouTube claim to take YouTuber Adam Neely’s revenue because he had used those famous notes in his video.
Besides the fact that it is pretty rotten to take the revenue of someone who helped them, the absurdity of this claim is even greater when you know they had just lost the lawsuit, so legally those notes do not belong to them...
It makes no sense for them to collect the YouTuber’s revenue since it had just been decided that those notes were not their property.
You might think they redirected the claim to some other element, but no: it is specifically defined, and manually by a human, that these notes triggered the claim.
It is really time for YouTube to add a new rule that triggers damages in case of false claims.
Warner Music attacks a YouTuber after he helped them
Information
Video published by Adam Neely 2
After Katy Perry was sued for alleged “plagiarism” of “Joyful Noise”, a Christian rap track, YouTuber Adam Neely made a video defending Warner Music.
In this video, he explains that the set of notes tied to the plagiarism claim had already been used by several other songs, older or newer, and therefore the absurd Joyful Noise argument makes no sense.
After that video, Warner Music contacted him to thank him for providing an additional argument for their lawsuit. However, Katy Perry and therefore Warner Music still ended up losing that dispute.
The irony is that after losing the case, Warner Music launched a YouTube claim to take YouTuber Adam Neely’s revenue because he had used those famous notes in his video.
Besides the fact that it is pretty rotten to take the revenue of someone who helped them, the absurdity of this claim is even greater when you know they had just lost the lawsuit, so legally those notes do not belong to them...
It makes no sense for them to collect the YouTuber’s revenue since it had just been decided that those notes were not their property.
You might think they redirected the claim to some other element, but no: it is specifically defined, and manually by a human, that these notes triggered the claim.
It is really time for YouTube to add a new rule that triggers damages in case of false claims.