YouTuber Has Song Stolen, Her Original Copyright Claimed

Nini Music is a musician known for performing modern music on traditional Chinese instruments. With over 900K followers across various platforms, she has been featured on America’s Got Talent and plans a North American tour with her band, NiNi, later this year.
She performs a mixture of original works and popular rock and metal song covers. This includes a cover of the 1994 Cranberries’ song Zombie that she uploaded three months ago. Currently, Nini’s cover has over 2.5 million views.
According to her recent video, she wasn’t surprised when she received a copyright claim on the video. She figured it was a member of the Cranberries or their publisher claiming the legitimate right to the original composition.
However, what she found was much more disturbing.
The copyright claim wasn’t for the composition. It was for the sound recording. Someone using the name “Lisa Liv” had downloaded the audio from Nini’s video and submitted it to Ditto, an online distribution company. Ditto then filed the copyright claim on Nini’s version of the song.
To be clear that this wasn’t an accident or a case of mistaken identity, the “Lisa Liv” version of the song also featured the dip in the music and the outro, in which Nini thanks her Patreon supporters.
As of this writing, all of the “Lisa Liv” presences online appear to be down, including the YouTube video in question. According to Nini’s latest update, Ditto is responsible for that.
However, this is far from a new problem. It’s been an issue for years. What makes Nini’s case is not the theft but its brazenness.
Turning Piracy into Profit
To be clear, this has been an ongoing problem. In July 2024, we discussed how pirates profited off YouTube by registering “music” with online distributors and then slipping the songs into pirated films uploaded to the site.
A few months later, in November, several record labels filed a lawsuit against Tunecore, a similar music distribution service. The labels alleged that TuneCore had not taken adequate steps to prevent misuse, and fake versions of popular tracks were being uploaded to YouTube, Spotify and other platforms.
The issue is straightforward. Though DIY music distribution services are a boon to independent artists, they are also ripe for exploitation. Despite many of the major players in the field creating the “Music Fights Fraud Alliance,” progress has not been significant. In fact, the Tunecore lawsuit came over a year after Tunecore and others launched the MFFA.
However, this case differs slightly from the ones outlined in the lawsuit. Though Nini Music is undoubtedly popular, she’s an independent artist, not one represented by a label. Second, the goal wasn’t to impersonate her and generate new views. Instead, it seems to have been targeted at claiming revenue from her previous videos.
This should concern independent artists. For them, DIY music distribution services are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are a great way to distribute their music across multiple platforms. On the other hand, they allow nefarious parties to try to claim those royalties as their own.
Fixing the Problem
As of this writing, the lawsuit against TuneCore is in its early stages. However, its outcome could significantly impact the DIY distribution industry, and even a settlement could affect other players in the space.
So, that is something to watch. In the meantime, the music industry must find ways to control this issue.
To that end, the MFFA has some good ideas, including information sharing between companies. Combined with tightened “know your customer” rules, this could prevent bad actors from simply hopping from service to service.
However, not every DIY distribution service is a member of the MFFA, including Ditto. It is unclear if this would have helped them in Nini’s case, but it certainly wouldn’t have hurt.
But the lawsuit points to other issues. One is that Tunecore did not remove artists from other platforms after they were found to be fraudulent on another. This means an artist booted off Spotify for fraud could still earn royalties on YouTube. Addressing this issue would also help.
Ultimately, the solution will have to come from the streaming platforms. They need to require a certain level of due diligence from the DIY distributors they work with and hold those with high levels of fraud accountable.
Until the distributors face consequences, there will be no change. Right now, both the streamers and the distributors are motivated to tolerate the fraud. It’s simply profitable for them to do the bare minimum and not spend the resources to chase down the issue, as they aren’t the ones impacted.
Bottom Line
In the end, the real challenge is simple: How do we keep these services useful and accessible to independent artists while fighting fraud and other bad behavior?
It is an incredibly difficult challenge. Music licensing is complicated. It is difficult for laypeople to navigate this space, and companies like Ditto provide a valuable service.
If the standards are too stringent, the complexity and cost could drive away artists. If it’s too low, fraud becomes a serious issue, eating away at the very concept of self-distribution.
Ultimately, nothing will change until the streaming platforms put more pressure on distribution services. Establishing a code of conduct, offering tools to detect infringing work proactively, and requiring specific standards could help.
It’s worth noting that Amazon Music, Spotify and Soundcloud are all members of the MFFA. However, that hasn’t helped the problem of fraud go away. As Nini’s case shows, it’s getting more brazen than ever.
Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?
If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.