Who owns "At Doom's Gate"?

I was under the impression that all the music in Doom was owned by id Software, but I recently got a copyright notice on a Youtube video from UMPG Publishing, which is part of Universal Music Group, for a short playthrough of E1M1. According to the claim, the video may contain "Theme from Doom", and that they'll add ads, with the revenue going directly to them. Is this the "copyright trolling" I've been hearing about? It's not like they'll be making money or I'll be losing any from this, but if they don't actually own this song, I have to deny the claim and get them off the video out of principle.

Strange. If anything, I thought that Zenimax has the rights to it.

Well E1M1 was based loosely off of "Master of Puppets" by Metallica, which was released on one of many labels that has been owned by Universal. So if they are putting out copyright claims on the music now, Bobby Prince needs to have a word with them in a lawyer setting since that's what he did prior to making game music.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Universal has no right to the music.

The Doom movie was distributed by Universal Studios.

That seems more like something they're trying to take advantage of then, because I doubt that allows UMG to profit on the original song like this, though admittedly I don't think any of us know the exact details of the deal. Either way, I think I'm going to report the claim as invalid. I dunno what other action to take. I wouldn't really know how to contact Bobby about this, assuming it's more than an isolated incident (which I doubt, given how amazingly small the video is).

EDIT: On further inspection, it looks as if it might be a copyright troll, but I'm not entirely sure anymore. Still going through with the invalid copyright claim either way.

Akira_98 said:

I wouldn't really know how to contact Bobby about this

You could try the email link on his website.

WMG are a bunch of tards. They claimed one of my own original songs, no two of them, as in their copyright. Bull! Basically told them no and it's settled.

GreyGhost said:

You could try the email link on his website.

...Wow, can't believe I missed that. Twice. I let him know, anyways. Thanks for the help everyone.

PRIMEVAL said:

WMG are a bunch of tards. They claimed one of my own original songs, no two of them, as in their copyright. Bull! Basically told them no and it's settled.

Didn't work out so well with me. they own E1M3 too (even my remix of it!)

i've had it with them.

You sould persist with the counter-claim. This whole thing reminds me of how pathetic youtube has gotten.

Isn't this DMCA in action and how it can be abused?

My "Final Doom Plutonia Experiment Map 31 "Cyberden" UV-MAX" says:

YouTube says:
Your video may include the following copyrighted content:

"Over The Table", musical composition administered by:
One or more music publishing rights collecting societies

Yet this video which has "Sign of Evil" in it three times did not get any "Matched third party content."

Which one of these should I select?

I believe this copyright claim is not valid because:

1. I own the CD / DVD or bought the song online.

2. I'm not selling the video or making any money from it.

3. I gave credit in the video.

4. The video is my original content and I own all of the rights to it.

5. I have a license or written permission from the proper rights holder to use this material.

6. My use of the content meets the legal requirements for fair use or fair dealing under applicable copyright laws.

7. The content is in the public domain or is not eligible for copyright protection.

I'd go for 5 or 6 here. You can't pretend the content belongs to you or is public domain, but you can say it's used within the boundaries of what is allowed by Id Software/ZeniMax & co. 1, 2, and 3 are obviously traps to file counterclaims in the "morons who don't know IP law" folder and be done with them.

Too bad there's not an "8. The content does not belong to the claimants." option. It does seem like it is a valid strategy to create a bullshit company and write a YouTube bot that claims ownership of content everywhere so as to rack in ad money for things you didn't create.

Actually, it might be a good idea to contact ZeniMax legal about it.

Nomad said:

Well E1M1 was based loosely off of "Master of Puppets" by Metallica, which was released on one of many labels that has been owned by Universal. So if they are putting out copyright claims on the music now, Bobby Prince needs to have a word with them in a lawyer setting since that's what he did prior to making game music.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Universal has no right to the music.

You can't claim a copyright on music "loosely based" off another piece of music. If the notes are different enough (which they are in this case, and only based off of one of the riffs), I don't see how this could be a reason.

I'll go for #6, which was my first instinct, but it's quite wrong to not have a "The content does not belong to the claimants" option.

But how would I go about contacting ZeniMax legal?
Would I just send them a message here?

Archy said:

My "Final Doom Plutonia Experiment Map 31 "Cyberden" UV-MAX" says:

Where does it say that message?! You're simply linking to the video.

Archy said:

But how would I go about contacting ZeniMax legal?
Would I just send them a message here?

I suppose. Use the "general feedback or other" category. Explain that other companies like Universal or whatever are claiming ownership of Id Software/ZeniMax content on YouTube.

printz said:

Where does it say that message?! You're simply linking to the video.

The message only appears on my account in my video manager, unless you log in as me, you don't see it nor should you.

Those yt detectors are fails. It detected copyrights on hr2's map 12 music - the one with broken down car midi - and though it's some rap junk song. And if I want to get rid of it, I should bother writing messages to yt and also potentially get closed account if they won't feel like bothering with the message. Lols.

GoatLord said:

You can't claim a copyright on music "loosely based" off another piece of music. If the notes are different enough (which they are in this case, and only based off of one of the riffs), I don't see how this could be a reason.

Precisely why I said Prince should have a word with them. He knew that fact fully before he made the music, since as I said he used to be a music copyright lawyer. I was just offering my best guess of why the claim was being made.

The whole youtube system is fucking broken. Basically, any copyright claim made by a partner or such is accepted in an automated system and takes effect almost immediately. Counter-claims, on the other hand, are handled by people and the process takes about six weeks.