HAAWK for 3rd party keeps copywright claiming music I have licenses to.


This is completely normal, as most music is now protected by YouTube’s ContentID system. The license you purchased from AudioJungle is the tool that allows you to clear the claim and use the music.

For HAAWK’s Identifyy, you can go to this page and provide your license certificate. The claim should be released within a few hours.

You can find more info there:


This haawk is just another capitalizing ### group of unemployables that are preying on every video so they can feed their ## $@#@ children.

Why was my video hit with copyright at 3:50 to 7:00 in the video I uploaded to youtube?
Because I uploaded a video to youtub of a laptop being repaired so my customer that owns the laptop can see the graphics are working fine. Simply due to a middle-portion of the video showing a table, a wall, a laptop playing a crappy song on complicit youtube was apparently enough for the haawk vulture to cleverly avoid getting gainful employment as opposed to trolling for pennies from heaven.

Clearly my video ought to be obvious to a duck that it falls under the copyright clause of (I won’t bother to link the video here because once again I’ll just have to use yandex or dailymotion or one of the less-constrictive video sites.


107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of upper-class copyright racketeering. Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)


p.s. purple frog, the fact that I was manipulated to do ANYTHING with the moments of my life other than what I wanted to do is an insult to me. Telling me I can do this and I can do that (to defend against perpetrators) is ridiculous. We should not be constantly on guard for those that make a living off of other people’s videos, being coerced into filing appeals and begging for the scavengers to back off is demeaning in itself.

What is the point of your post, besides insulting people?

1 Like

Claim forces monetization, it does not delete it. So what is the problem?

Even more, you can make a dispute and claim must be cleared.

What is the point? Imagine this, you work hard (have you ever owned a business or served anyone other than yourself and an hourly paycheck?), and take the extra time to show the customer your handiwork, but instead of seeing that the customer saw the video 15 minutes later, a vulture flew in and pooped a copyright warning of something that just happen to be playing on the stupid laptop.
DO WE NEED TO BE IN SOUNDPROOF ROOMS TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY HAS TO GIVE US PERMISSION TO INCLUDE THEM OR THEIR VOICES OR THEIR SONGS THAT MIGHT BE PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND TO COMMUNICATE (all for the protected industries, like the privileged music industry and movie industry and tobacco and alcohol industry (and the rest of us are on our own to those industries and their vultures.
Give me a break about being polite right now. The losers just altered my life and the customer that had to wait for me to re-make the stupid video (I’m not in the movie business).

I could just follow your lead and what?

1 Like

Apparently you missed the point, there was no right to claim in the first place. The fact that this haawk entity altered my life is damages.

And not to just me either.

I challenge you to go to youtube and search " haawk for a 3rd party ". How many people will you tell to do this and do that (to defend their “right” to include utterances or sounds?


Is that enough proof for you? 90k pages deep of videos (and that’s just people complaining in youtube about haawk and the illegitimate claims, many of whom ARE the copyright owner’s of their own work).

So why is it okay to manipulate the entire planet for the profit of the few?

1 Like

Guilty till you prove your innocence. phhhtt…that’s the best advice here?

Actually I know a lot about this, I even wrote a guide about it here which I recommend you to read.

Claim is an automatic, fully algorythmic kind of inquiry made by CID which asks you for the proof of legal use of the song, e.g. a license.

Even if there is a fair use, algorhythm will make this inquiry. If you make a dispute, human from CID will solve the claim without loosing a cash from monetization.

Millions of Youtubers solve claims, it’s very easy.

I know it’s inconvienient but you may not know how music piracy is huge in the internet. Without CID there would be no stock sites, because everybody would use music illegally.

And one more thing. Youtube should place an info about CID during the video upload process to avoid confusion. And they should alllow to upload a license before the claim. They don’t do that because it’s a kind of strange conflict of interest and politics. Even though CID was made and is managed by Google/Youtube. Haawk is only an operator, one from many.


I will go to the guide you wrote after a shower, but wanted to state one thing here.

Pertaining to what you mentioned, “MILLIONS of Youtubers solve claims, it’s very easy.”

Let me ask you something, if the entire world (or MILLIONS) vs 30k, which group should prevail?

Just because SOME industries are protected (alcohol, tobacco, oil, music, movies, etc.) doesn’t make it right to manipulate the masses to do anything.

Here’s a scenario, let’s say I watch and record a murder. The murderer vocalized a jingle as he was puncturing your child, but the video was inadmissable to youtube because I didn’t get the murderer’s permission for the jingle.

Okay that was a stupid example…I just woke up. I’ll re-read your post a little later and edit or remove this early morning comment .

WAIT A MINUTE! I just thought of a PERFECT real-life example of why this copyright manipulation ought to be illegal, it’s something that is documented!

*If you go to the aforementioned link, look for the youtube links within the motions. Thanks to copyright, the links go nowhere when it was time to go to court (simply because a song happen to have been playing in the background…phhhhtt…).

So, to summarize:
I recorded damages AS THEY WERE OCCURRING in a commercial building I rented.

The owner of that building later took the previous lease holder (and not me) to court.

I uploaded the videos that prove that the owner of the property is knowingly taking the wrong party to court.

Youtube kept pulling the videos and eventually suspended me!!

Why was the evidence being denied by youtube ? Because one of the computers in the background of one of the rooms was playing music!!!

But here’s the real deal, I was making videos of the damages for my own sanity and never once thought this issue would go to court in some future date so I didn’t know to park myself in a soundproof room while making the videos.

So a 73 year old woman that had nothing to do with nothing was found guilty (no kidding…she wasn’t even the tenant).

What would have brought justice is maybe for the plutocrats to be able to click the link and watch the video I made…instead the links went nowhere thanks to the youtube monopoly, haawk vultures, copyright protections, etc).

You can read more about that form of justus here: https://springfieldohiopost.com/legal/

Now keep in mind that I did not fathom or understand why youtube had pulled my videos.

I thought it was the property owner’s son-in-law, the cop (because “our” new laws enable the judicial system and their minions to pull anything that they deem as offensively… (pick your word).

So I was hating on a cop illegitimately when I should have been hating the created system that caused my evidence to be obfuscated.

It’s complicated and involves a girl that was drugged and raped.
More about the rape/drugging is here:

To date, that girl has not had justice, the cop still has his job, and an old woman was tricked out of her money and more BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT!

copyright? right
If the industry want to copyright something then seal it up in a bottle and leave the rest of us to our peace.

I just went to the link you sent concerning CID

cid is an invasion of privacy at very least.

If I own a server (and I do) it should not be alright for any group to destroy my ability to also be creative by invading my house for malicious covert or clandestine actions by the guise of profit-eering for the benefit of the few.

I need to finish reading your writ and maybe delete or edit this comment at a later date.

We, composers, do not manipulate masses (?!). We are only able to do it by emotions from our music.

But… Why would anybody upload proofs or any other kind of documents on the Youtube? I would never go to a court with videos on Youtube. I would simply use online server, cloud, usb drive etc. Youtube is not a standard data storage service, even though some use it this way. Youtube has been made for mass entertainment and education and it works like a charm, even with claims which have to be solved. And that’s why it has such tools like CID - to semi-automatically manage huge public data base which has been used for a wide commercial purpose often illegally. You don’t even imagine how big is audio piracy.

I am little disappointed that you’re talking with me in a such offensive way. Besides in your rude scenario video would be banned by youtube (why don’t you call it “cenzorship” and attack on a privacy?). But let’s say that it wouldn’t be banned but only catched by CID. In this scenario it would be probably visible but monetized with forced few seconds ads. And even more - everyone, even murderer has his right to privacy. And this is why you do not upload proof on a public service like Youtube but you keep it in a safe private cloud.

  1. But if you bought license for using music, your claims will be cleared. You only have to upload the license to CID. Are you sure you understand this system correctly?

  2. And if you’re using it as a fair use, your claims will be cleared as well. You only have to describe it in a dispute so a human employee of CID can clear automatic algorithmic claim.

Please continue the discussion in a more polite way.


Sorry if I sound confrontational (as a heads-up, my mind is not “normal”), I don’t mean it to sound that way. You have chosen to comment on only the few topics I mentioned to usher your point of view and left the other comments I’ve made un-responded to (should I find this offensive?).

We should not be viewing comments as offensive. Get over it, emotions over intellect are folly and of no good use to evolution (in my opinion).

I merely brought up the murderer thing as an extreme example (nobody was implying that your children were going to be bludgeoned and I’m sorry if you are somehow taking it that way…it’s words, not reality…it’s an extreme example, not prophesy).

Thanks for letting me continue this (probably baseless and useless) banter, as I think I might be on to something.

Not to throw more crap into the mix but I can hardly leave the bible out of anything I might think (because it’s what may have molded my best thinking believe it or not).

Now the bible says to share, the capitalists say to monetize and not share freely.
The bible says to “shout truth from the rooftops”, the capitalists say “you better get a license and pay off the racket”.
The bible called capitalists (fishermen, bankers/moneychangers, and even prison guards and attorneys) away from their jobs and to follow blah blah blah.

Having those tenets in mind, whether right or wrong, still is not beyond discussion (which is why I thank you for not suspending me or banning my comments … because that is usually what happens to me along the way).

I’ve been suspended on every single social site you can imagine (no kidding, I even document those suspensions on my website and can post links here if you are interested). I’ve been added to 13 blacklists SIMULTANEOUSLY (because of words that others found hurtful).

So I thank you for mentioning and opening that door and hope you will not find anything I’ve said as intentionally hurtful.

And commenting on your correction to me in my uploading to youtube evidence. The link of the legal matter that I included in this discourse explains that YOUTUBE was not my only means to show the court that they are damaging innocent people. I actually submitted to the court record DVD copies of the uploaded videos. Since the Court Record accepted those videos, along with the motions, one might think that would be enough to get truth in their courts.

But this was not to be the case and all evidence was kept from the court simply by keeping me out of the court.

In case you are not aware of the “laws”, the courts will not allow me to present evidences to the court of my own accord because I was not named as a defendant or the Plaintiff, so my 18 motions accompanied by links to youtube videos I created had to be submitted in the person’s name that they were taking to court (illegitimately).

So my whole argument is that if the videos were able to stay up on youtube my evidence would be seen by the community. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE A RADIO WAS PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND was enough to make falsehood as fact, truth as fiction (because the stupid song was copyrighted…phhhtt…we’re stuck as a human species).

Copyright as a right? That’s like saying if I build a wall for you at your house that you must pay me royalties every year. Where’s my protected industry?
p.s. I want only a few pennies every year from you for that wall for every year you have it and for every passerby and visitor that my glance at it.

I see that you’re mad at one specific issue of cid: the unintended use which is a real problem. I just have read about it and yes, there is a problem with rules regarding unintended use. But the one who is setting the rules is the Youtube. In most cases copyright holders simply ignore it and even if automatic algorithmic claim finds such video, they clear claims when the unintended use is obvious. But it happens that some CID partner acts hard, usually because of the lack of manpower or stupid internal rules. It happens rarely, very rarely and I haven’t heard about anyone from AudioJungle doing this.

Keep in mind that this problem happens because of the inefficient YouTube rules which allow such a behaviour.

Even though, I am not sure if you ever did the claim dispute in this case which is in most cases accepted.

You wrote that Youtube has blocked you after some number of unsolved claims. And again, it is hard policy of Youtube, not CID. Or maybe you had other Youtube sins which had summed up?

And please do not ignore all the good CID makes for us. Imagine that someone downloads from torrent my track and uses in his video. This is what CID exterminates. Or imagine guys who steal our music and sell it as theirs. Thanks to CID we can find them. And we find them. We don’t care for the unintended use.


Firstly, I would really like to thank you for your patience with me.

Also, I’m sorry for my spontaneous combustion (it’s something I’m working to reduce).

The more I think about this gripe of mine…uggghhh…let’s forget I was here because I’m probably wrong about everything anyway.

I have apple, cherry, and pear trees being delivered here soon so I will not be able to respond anymore for a few days… that will keep me busy and this whole issue will be wiped from my limited memory soon enough.

Thanks again for your patience and not banning my intended or unintended harshness.


Haawk keeps putting claims on videos that have already been disputed, and I have to keep sending them the same license. I suppose their business is to keep putting claims on the same videos until the owners grow tired of disputing, miss the claim email or abandon the channel. It’s a scam.

1 Like

I wrote the last post 9 days ago while I was disputing a repeated claim on one of my videos. The claim was released some minutes later. Today they have made the SAME CLAIM AGAIN.

Is there a way to identify which authors are using HAAWK on their music? I think it’s best to avoid them until YouTube bans Haawk from their platform for this scam.


AppPrototypingBarcel Thank you good idea. We need start focusing on some of this songs so that we dont have to use it.

I read this whole thread after having a video I uploaded flagged for music I legally purchased license. I simply stated in my dispute the date and transaction number of the purchase. It took a couple minutes to do and within the hour, it was cleared. But your conversation has me wondering how you feel artists such as musicians and other content creators should earn a living? Should anyone be allowed to use any song, video, movie, photo, drawing, logo, software, game, etc they want anywhere any time with impunity?

You seem very upset that you were flagged for unintended use, and like the world is being manipulated by some evil cabal when all you had to do was explain in your claim that the use was unintended background audio. That hardly seems like the level of imposition and burden that your reaction suggests. Frustrating to get that “Claim” notice, yes, a little, especially the first time, but it’s not world-ending.

Further, your examples of physical things like building walls make no sense to me. Copyright is a concept and set of laws intended to protect creators from other persons using their creations without permission. That doesn’t even necessarily mean compensation - just permission. It’s certainly not about corrupt profiteering. Should I be able to take your stuff without your permission? You like physical real word examples… here’s a terrible one that only slightly parallels the copyright issue: should I be able to take you car without your permission? Isn’t the lock on your door one of the mechanisms by which you prevent this from happening? If someone stops me because they see me fiddling with the lock, you’d be happy they did before I took your stuff. And if it’s legitimate use, I’d likely need to prove it to them that you’re letting me take your car.

The automated mechanisms of CID are simply gatekeepers, there to help creators detect possible theft - i.e. usage without permission. Hearing a song somewhere is not infringement. Taking a song without permission and using it to enrich yourself is. The algorithms aren’t smart enough yet to know that your unintended use was simply part of proof to your client of a working device. It literally took only a few minutes to explain my use, as it would take to explain yours. And that’s certainly not the sort of action that should even get a video removed, let alone a whole user blocked. Was there something bigger going on in the instance you alluded to?

Unfortunately copyright can be very confusing to many people. I have encountered industry professional, creators, who don’t understand it well. But in the end, it’s a good thing. The tools used to support it and defend against infringement aren’t perfect, but they’re important to protecting creators, which in turn enables them to continue being able to create the stuff we enjoy.


I totally agree as it happens to me all the time by Hawk taking my work away by claiming it and I have to prove it’s mine. I purchased the music, own the rights and YouTube just give it to them every time without question then I have to prove it’s mine repeatedly and this is So unfair. For three months I lost moneysization and a lot of personal revenue because of Hawk 3rd Party and it hurts and that money has not been returned after it was cleared. Considering I am white listed it still happens for a time while I dispute it and causing delays in my production and sharing. My videos take me a week to produce with many Man hours of sweat on the field and home with substantial personal expense but with one click it’s all GONE. Shame on Hawk 3rd party and a note of disappointment that YouTube don’t have a better work practice of for example making them prove first that it’s theirs in the first place, it’s very tiering. Regards Neil…

This is how Youtube works. When you use copyrighted material on Youtube, you have to have a license for it. You buy licenses for music precisely so that you can clear copyright claims.

1 Like