When I first heard this issue about Rumblefish from my royalty free music distributor Shockwave Sound couple of years ago. At the time in 2010 it appeared AudioMicro / GoDigital started to add "fingerprint" and started sending music to GoDigital Media Group which then claimed a new ownership and/or administrative rights to the original music. There is no copyright transfer if you send any music for sale. It´s your music and it is never owned by the music distributor.
Such sites that sell royalty music with ridiculously low price will kill the market and will make the producers of royalty free music artists soon another spoon fed poor beggars. There must be a clear division between consumer music and professional music. First one which is called "consumer music" does not have to be expensive but affordable where professional music should have clearly higher price tag because it´s been used in mass market of mechanical items such as DVDs or corporate presentations.
But what´s the problem?
The real problem arises when your "fingerprinted" (copyright stolen) music is uploaded and used in Youtube.
The article says that some user had uploaded his track and then had a claim that he does not have the copyright anymore because it´s owned by Rumblefish. So for example artist named John Boydston, from the band Daddy A Go Go had released a song on a cd and then uploaded the same track in a music video in Youtube. Later artist got a message from YouTube saying that music in that video "may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish.
I think the artist should read FAQ very clearly because it appears that one gives all music exclusively to Rumblefish when opting in via CDBABY. CD Baby FAQ:
You are also granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls (and similar controls) on YouTube and other so-called “User-Generated-Content” Networks,
Article shared from: Techdirt
A few years back, we wrote about the company Rumblefish claiming copyright on public domain works on YouTube and getting them taken down. Recently, the company got a lot of attention for claiming copyright on someone's video because it had some birds chirping in the background, and a very mistaken Rumblefish process not only believed it owned the birdsongs, but then an employee doubled down and refused to back down when challenged on this. The company did eventually admit a big mistake after this received a ton of publicity -- but many of us were still worried about the process that allowed Rumblefish to make such a bogus claim in the first place.
from: Boing Boing
Rumblefish, a company notorious for sending copyright takedown notices to YouTube alleging copyright violations in videos' soundtracks, demanded removal of a video whose audio consists entirely of ambient birdsong recorded during a walk in the woods. When the video's creator objected, Rumblefish repeated its accusation, and Google added the notation "These content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Sound Recording."
Read at Boing Boing