youtube will remove a video on just a request. No proof of any sort is needed. This isn't a great policy, but it is a compromise and allows a lot of copyrighted songs to stay online.

If the video is removed incorrectly you can get it reinstated and possibly receive compensation from the one demanding it be removed. Of course that takes time, energy, and money.

That being said, the song should be illegal for trademark reasons if nothing else.

You can't say this is a song written by John Lennon (or any other celebrity) from heaven and then publish it. That is just basic law, not to mention perfectly reasonable.

What do you think John would say if he was alive and someone posted a song, generating publicity and money because he claimed that it was written by John Lennon? Obviously John would demand that the song be removed or at least remove all fictitious, deceptive, and downright scam/con claims that it was written by John Lennon.

Even removing the claims may not be enough if the scam got enough publicity.

youtube is weird...the things that are deemed significant enough to post vs. the things that are not is sometimes curious.

How important, do you think, is Arnold Schwarzenegger's father?

I ask because there was a bit of a to-do for some about other notable fathers that have had their entries...removed.

You're joking, right? An artist has every right to claim influence by another artist, and state their name in promoting that claim, whether the inspiration be in the waking or sleeping mind.

The only person with any copyright infringement claim on a song, in your scenario is "Dream Lennon," presumably in some sort of Imaginary Court in the author's mind.

The only infringement I noticed in the video was possibly the copyrights of certain photographs of Lennon, and Gandhi, which belong to the individual photographers, unless given over to public domain, and possible "public personality" trademarks of the images of Gandhi and Lennon, which no one's going after unless some money's been made. Waste of time.

To prove copyright violation, one has to produce proof that the original song itself was fixed in a tangible medium prior to that of the defendant. I doubt "Dream Lennon's" estate would be able to do that.

But claiming that John Lennon sang it to you in a dream, while a punishable crime in the imaginary Supreme Court of "not being an tricep-faced folk-Ricky Martin," is perfectly legal in the dull, real world.

If he had actually claimed "Real Lennon" wrote it, and achieved Youtube fame, Lennon's estate would issue a press release. If he went on to make scads of money from the claim, then they would likely bring suit, but neither of those things happened.

What probably happened was some 13-year-old kid went "Hey, that's not Lennon," clicked a link, and Youtube removed it.

Just a horsey-faced Idoucherod through the white tundra of "Please make me famous."

except his claim is not that it was inspired by Lennon, but that it was actually written by John Lennon. At least that is his implication. That is the scam he used to get the publicity for the song. That is the con he used to get people to click on his video out of the millions of others.

Big difference between "inspired by" and "written by"

Where are you reading he claimed Lennon wrote the song? What I'm seeing is:

"'Need a Little Love' is indeed a song John Lennon might have written. But he didn't (except in Austin's dream!)"

Also, if he claimed Lennon had written it, for publicity, and Lennon's camp could not prove Lennon had written it down before, the case would still be the same.