Music used without permission: document the issue

Identify the issue without deciding the outcome

Start with the exact release, video or other item you found and what you believe needs review. Distinguish something you observed from an explanation you have not established. The same artist name, a similar musical style or an unfamiliar claimant name does not by itself determine whether rights were infringed.

• Possible reuse of a particular recording: identify the source recording and the specific material you believe was used.
• Possible imitation of your voice or identity: record the item and what appears to be represented, without assuming it is the same audio recording.
• Wrong artist association: a release may be linked to the wrong profile without using your recording or voice.
• A claim on a video you uploaded: record the actual platform notice and the recording or segment it identifies.
• A formal removal or strike notice: keep the notice and case details separate from an ordinary automated match.

These categories can overlap, but they do not all use the same support or legal process. This guide helps prepare a factual record; it does not determine infringement, identify a wrongdoer or authorise a legal filing.

Preserve a useful private incident log

• The platform, exact public item URL and date you observed it.
• The recording, musical work, voice or artist identity you believe is affected.
• Your own relevant release link, title, version and ISRC where available.
• The specific part of the item at issue, such as a time range or displayed artist association.
• What you directly observed and which points remain uncertain.
• The relevant rights, territory and authority you hold or represent, with supporting records retained privately.
• Any notice text, case reference, response already made and relevant date shown by the actual platform.
• The clarification or review you need, the responsible contact and the next agreed follow-up.

Keep screenshots of the relevant display or notice, with enough context to identify it. Retain original agreements and files privately; do not post a public folder of contracts or another person’s private details. For an initial support enquiry, provide the release and case references and a concise description. Supply additional evidence through the appropriate process only when needed. Do not send passwords, verification codes or unrelated identity or payment documents.

Separate a copied recording from a profile mismatch

Spotify provides different guidance for music uploaded without the rightsholder’s permission and for unrelated music appearing on the wrong artist profile. A shared name is therefore a reason to identify the actual recordings and profiles before choosing a complaint route. Do not state that an unrelated recording copies your master just because it appears beside your releases.

Use the artist-profile correction guide for misplaced release associations. If the question concerns possible reuse of your recording, retain the original release and supporting authority. Use the recording-rights record to separate master authority from the underlying song. An ISRC helps identify a recording; a code alone does not prove every right or resolve a dispute.

Treat suspected voice impersonation as its own question

Spotify’s voice-impersonation policy describes a platform route for an artist, or someone acting on the artist’s behalf, to report unauthorised replication of that artist’s voice. That is different from correcting a name field or asserting ownership of a particular master. Its policy also recognises exceptions; this guide does not decide whether any exception applies.

Keep the exact item, the identity affected and the factual basis for the concern. Do not infer a universal legal result from a resemblance, an AI label or the tool someone may have used. Copyright, identity or likeness rights, consent, contractual authority and platform rules can raise different questions depending on the facts and jurisdiction. Obtain suitable advice where the basis or your authority to act is uncertain. DistroBolt distribution does not appoint the team as your legal representative.

Read the notice before responding to a claim

If you received a notice about your own uploaded video, first identify whether it concerns a Content ID match, another platform-policy issue or a formal copyright removal process. YouTube explains that Content ID claims can affect monetisation, tracking or visibility, including by territory; they are different from copyright removal requests and strikes.

Use the Content ID and notice-type guide to collect the matched recording, claimant, segment and stated action. Check who administers the recording before assuming an unfamiliar name makes the notice invalid. Do not automatically dispute a match, send repeated claims or reupload material to bypass a restriction. A distribution agreement, a platform match and authority to respond are separate records.

Keep formal legal processes with the authorised person

YouTube describes a copyright removal request as a legal process, distinct from an ordinary Content ID claim. A formal response may require declarations, supporting details and disclosures through the actual platform process. Read what that process asks for and understand the consequences before making a submission.

If you receive a formal notice, preserve its reference and the dates it states and seek timely qualified guidance for the actual circumstances. This page does not provide a universal response deadline, accusation template, completed declaration or recommendation to submit a counter-notification. Do not treat deleting a video, changing a credit or contacting a distributor as proof that every formal issue has been resolved. The actual platform record and applicable arrangements determine what remains open.

Send DistroBolt one clear distribution question

If DistroBolt delivered or administers a relevant recording, tell the team which release, recording and item are involved, the type of concern and any existing case reference. Explain whether you are asking about our delivery, a profile association, Content ID administration or a separate rights concern. Mark missing facts as unknown. Avoid separate conflicting requests to several people about the same case.

The team can help identify the relevant distribution or administration question. It cannot promise to edit another provider’s delivery, act as every rightsholder, settle ownership or obtain a particular platform decision. Ordinary support is not a Marketplace purchase or a guarantee of removal, restored revenue or a completion date. Keep earlier distributor and platform references if another party handled the affected period.

Record the next step and recheck the actual item

Keep the response, case reference and the action actually agreed. After a reported change, check the exact platform URL and note what changed and what remains. A profile correction is not necessarily removal of the recording everywhere; a resolved video claim does not decide the song’s ownership; an unavailable link does not by itself prove a particular cause.

Hypothetical example: an artist finds an unfamiliar single on their profile but cannot identify their recording in it. They record both profile and release links and request a mapping review, rather than sending an allegation that their master was copied. If separate evidence later concerns their voice, they add that distinct issue to the record. This illustrates careful classification, not a legal conclusion or a promise about a platform’s response. For removal of your own intended delivery, use the catalogue-removal guide instead of treating an ordinary takedown request as an infringement complaint.