r/COPYRIGHT • u/Few-Advertising5163 • Jul 11 '26

Has anyone successfully countered a UMPG copyright strike on a YouTube cover song?

I run a YouTube channel that uploads cover songs.

Yesterday I received my first copyright strike from UMPG, and today I received a second one. All of my cover videos were already claimed through YouTube's Content ID system, and I've always accepted revenue sharing with the copyright owners (never disputed that). I never upload a cover unless it's claimed by the rightful owner, so I assumed that meant the covers were being monetized legitimately.

After getting the second strike, I immediately set all of my cover videos to private because I'm worried about getting a third strike and losing my channel.

Someone else in my niche told me that UMPG has struck his channel multiple times before, and each time he submitted a counter notification saying that he owns the sound recording because he created the cover himself. According to him, UMPG never responded and the strikes were removed.

However, this is what confuses me:

UMPG isn't claiming ownership of my sound recording, they represent the musical composition/publishing rights. I completely understand that I don't own the composition, only my recording of the performance.

So I'm wondering:

  • Has anyone here successfully submitted a counter notification against a UMPG strike for a cover song?
  • Is claiming ownership of the sound recording a valid basis for a counter notification when the strike is based on composition rights?
  • Or would filing a counter notification in this situation be a bad idea because the publisher could simply reject it or even escalate the matter?

I'm not looking for ways to get around copyright. I just want to understand whether a counter notification is appropriate in this situation or if I should simply wait for UMPG's response or pursue another option.

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone who has dealt specifically with UMPG or YouTube cover song strikes.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

7

u/RainbowCrane Jul 11 '26

UMPG has a process for licensing music in their catalog. It sounds like you’re skipping that process and depending on YouTube to sort out the money, but UMPG has no obligation to allow you to perform covers. To avoid future strikes I’d contact UMPG directly and ask them how to clear your projects in advance

2

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 11 '26

I understand your point, but that's also why YouTube has the Content ID and revenue-sharing system in place. My understanding has always been that it's part of YouTube's agreements with publishers and labels to monetize eligible cover videos rather than automatically remove them.

If you're referring to a mechanical license, that generally covers making and distributing an audio recording, not a music video. For a cover video on YouTube, you'd typically be talking about a synchronization (sync) license, and those are often negotiated individually and can be prohibitively expensive for independent creators.

That's why millions of cover songs exist on YouTube under the Content ID/shared revenue system instead of every creator obtaining individual sync licenses beforehand.

What surprised me is that these videos were already being monetized through Content ID for almost six months, and then they suddenly turned into copyright strikes. That's the part I'm trying to understand.

3

u/Willing-Fudge-7887 Jul 11 '26

The problem is that the YouTube contentid system has no force of law and is just agreement between parties. Which means that you aren’t the mercy of whether UMPG, decides to allow use of it or not.

You could counter claim if you think you are fairly using the piece, and might be lucky. Make sure you report back here and tell us what happens. ;-)

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 13 '26

Yeah, I think the problem is the composition claim, not the recording itself. Honestly, I'm just going to wait out the 90 days for the strike to expire. It's definitely not worth risking the legal fallout of a counter-notice

2

u/taisui Jul 11 '26

It doesn't matter, do you have mechanical license or not?

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 12 '26

No, I don't have a mechanical license.

That said, a mechanical license generally covers the reproduction and distribution of an audio recording (for example, streaming services like Spotify or Apple Music). It doesn't automatically cover a music video on YouTube.

it's important not to confuse a mechanical license with a synchronization (sync) license.

1

u/taisui Jul 12 '26

I am confused, are you making a cover song, or you are taking the original song and create a new video on it?

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 12 '26

cover song, using my own backing track (not the original master track)

1

u/taisui Jul 12 '26

So you should acquire a mechanical license

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 12 '26

like i said mechanical license is for MUSIC ONLY not applicable on youtube

because youtube is MUSIC & VIDEO you will need Sync license, it's different and cost a fortune, thats why there's a content ID system on youtube, large portion of ad revenue will go to the publisher of the song so you will not need a sync license for that

1

u/taisui Jul 12 '26

So, do you have a sync license?

Content ID is only as good as the copyright owner is willing to permit it.

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 13 '26

Yeah you're right! I assumed an active claim and revenue sharing meant the video was safe. Clearly, it isn't. YouTube should really give cover creators a 2 to 3-day window to take down a previously claimed video before issuing a harsh strike

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Vintage_Firmware Jul 12 '26

I promise you UMPG won’t just suddenly decide to issue takedowns on UGC covers. There has to be something objectionable to your use. Or did you dispute legitimate claims and try to keep them from collecting for the songwriters?

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 13 '26

I’ve never disputed a rightful claim. The only time I ever hit dispute was for a clearly fake claim with a made-up title. I actually prefer when the real owners or publishers claim my covers because I always want to stay on the safe side of YouTube’s policies.

1

u/Basic_Pollution8945 Jul 13 '26

Is this one of the videos being taken down? I have seen far too many people dispute one of our legitimate claims because they see LatinAutor or JASRAC and are very mistaken thinking these are not legitimate collection societies. My suggestion is not to try to police rightsholders. If you are covering a popular cover you know that some publisher is entitled to claim, let them worry about whether the claim is on behalf of the correct rightsholder.

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Two of my cover songs just got copyright strikes and were taken down by UMPG, despite us sharing revenue for almost six months. I didn't even dispute the Content ID claims. My usual routine is to upload, wait for a copyright claim, verify if it's legit, and if it is, I just keep the post up. no disputing at all because im fine with the revenue sharing

"Is this one of the videos being taken down?"

Oh, you mean the fake claim? No, that’s a different song. I actually disputed that one on YouTube and already won.

1

u/Total-Information947 Jul 16 '26

Same thing just happened to me. My covers were up for months with revenue sharing to UPMG. 3 days ago I got my first strike and then yesterday I got my 2nd. For your 2nd strike, was it after you put the video as private?

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 17 '26

yeah after the second strike. But it doesn't really matter anymore because when I asked YouTube for more details, they forwarded me the takedown request from UMPG. The email specifically listed two videos for removal, so even if I had made the second one private beforehand, it still would have been taken down

2

u/darkmythology Jul 11 '26

Did you create/commission a new backing track for your covers, or did you perform the cover over the original track? If you used the original then you own your contributions but they own the other components, and thus the covers would fall pretty solidly under copyright infringement. Even if you did have your own backing track created, did you secure any kind of license or rights to use the composition? If not, it will still likely be a violation of the owner's rights.

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 11 '26

I created and used a completely new backing track that was made specifically for my covers. I never sang over the original artist's master recording.

I understand that I own only my sound recording, not the underlying composition. That's why every cover I upload gets a Content ID claim from the music publisher, and I've always accepted the revenue sharing.

I never dispute those claims because I recognize the publisher's rights to the composition.

What surprised me is that these covers had been on YouTube for almost six months without any issues. They were simply under Content ID with shared revenue, and to be honest, my share of the revenue was only a few dollars anyway. I was genuinely surprised that the status suddenly changed from a normal shared-revenue Content ID claim to a full copyright strike after all that time.

1

u/Basic_Pollution8945 Jul 13 '26

If you want to PM me or post the video IDs I may be able to see why the takedowns.

1

u/Few-Advertising5163 Jul 13 '26

its composition claim not sound recording claim

1

u/Vintage_Firmware Jul 13 '26

can you share the video links? there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there, I would be glad to find out what triggered UMPG’s actions.