* from Serendip LLC about JS Bach – Goldberg Variations #5 BWV 988 HD 1080p – DosDog
Video ID: huxy1S67_Zw

is in no way derived from your work.
the music was created with PG Music’s “Band in a Box” and driven by keying files included with their product (and they give permission for usage).
don’t you know your own work?
or have you copy-written Bach himself?

a/r the second one

* from Serendip LLC about Bach’s Little Prelude in C 1080p HD redone – DosDog
Video ID: qnZJ0FLORds

the midi file that drove this was out there on the web, since I can’t verify just who played it (it certainly isn’t your caliber of playing anyway), I’ll take it down.
but I must insist the first is not yours (neither is the second, but…)
I work hard to produce these videos on youtube an have maintained my channel for years with no problem, but you know how they are, if you complain, they’ll delete all my work.
How do you do this when your not even right? did you listen to it? did you compare it with anything you’ve ever done?
or are you useing that alogrithmitly driven copright search thing to find maybe violators and fireing away?
this is like calling the cops on anyone you don’t like the looks of.
not nice.

And Lasse should put her synths back up because they are Lasse’s interpretation of public domain works. Wendy Wotsit doesn’t have any rights to the “idea” of playing old music on synths. The only rights Wendy has are to Wendy’s “expressions” of these tunes made by Wendy, and compositions that Wendy made and recorded. And the mention of Wendy’s name in a discussion about the work of Wendy is completely allowed under Fair Use and Freedom of Speech.

It sounds to me like a case of a music/text-recognition bot crawling YouTube and issuing automatic takedowns without a human involved in the decision making. You need to appeal to a real human.

Also check out http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/blogs/future_of_public_media/fair_use_question_of_the_month_using_copyrighted_material_for_commenting_an/

And, yes…my video got pulled by Serendip LLC as well, even though my purpose was to explicitly show how to use this material legally, and correctly!

*Sigh*

Because remixes may borrow heavily from an existing piece of music (possibly more than one), the issue of intellectual property becomes a concern. The most important question is whether a remixer is free to redistribute his or her work, or whether the remix falls under the category of a derivative work according to (for example) United States copyright law. Of note are open questions concerning the legality of visual works, like the art form of collage, which can be plagued with licensing issues.

There are two obvious extremes with regard to derivative works. If the song is substantively dissimilar in form (for example, it might only borrow a motif which is modified, and be completely different in all other respects), then it may not necessarily be a derivative work (depending on how heavily modified the melody and chord progressions were). On the other hand, if the remixer only changes a few things (for example, the instrument and tempo), then it is clearly a derivative work and subject to the copyrights of the original work’s copyright holder.

The Creative Commons non-profit group created the ccMixter website to provide remixers with creative material licensed for remixers to use with permission. A number of netlabels similarly have used liberal licensing to facilitate remixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix#Copyright_Implications

An example of the intent of copyright, based in the United States Constitution, is simply to promote the progress of science and arts by securing for limited times the exclusive right of the creator.

Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author’s death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate authorship. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.

Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing “fair” exceptions to the author’s exclusivity of copyright, and giving users certain rights. The development of the Internet, digital media, computer network technologies, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law’s philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copyrights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright