Copyrighted Music on Youtube

First off. I used to use copyrighted music. No more. It's one of the first things i tell brides or anyone else. So this is not a thread to begin any arguments about using it. What I'm wondering is this. It seems that's all I see on Youtube is videos with copyrighted music...however the ones I used to attempt to put up would be taken down. I would get a little nasty e-mail about it ...and now recently I received an e-mail from them stating that a certain video of mine does contain copyrighted music however they will allow it as long as they can place an ad on it. So then are they telling me it is ok to violate copyright law as long as they can make money off of it?

If they own the rights to the music and are free to license the use of it, what copyright law is being violated?

It's one of those situations where the Dinosaurs are slowly evolving into something else. Honestly, putting copy-written music into a video on YouTube will more often than not, help sell more copies of that song.

I think that as long as it's an original video with the copy-written music used appropriately to add to the story, the copyright holders should be totally stoked to be getting more promotion, because if that video goes viral (Like Harlem Shake) then they will make a lot of money off ad revenue.

The one instance I can think of where it should not be allowed is when people just upload the song and the album cover so people can just listen to an album on YouTube. But with Spotify and all these other ways to get music, everyone just needs to chill out and enjoy the free publicity, I mean it's not like any of us can make ad revenue off a video when it has copy-written music in it.

Julian makes a good point about promoting the music. It would be nice to hear from the actual artists & how they feel about their song being showcased. Unfortunately the money machine separates you from that kind of contact. (Have you seen Searching For Sugar Man yet?)

Youtube uses some kind algorithms to listen to your soundtrack & determine if copyrights are violated or if they can make more money off you. Some people of a more avant-guarde ilk prefer not to be party to Google's greed (you know they own Youtube, right?), so they employ various little tricks & tactics to thwart the Googlebots listening to their music.

Ironically there are tutorial videos on Youtube teaching you how to do this. One technique is to pitch shift the music an imperceptible amount. The song still sounds the same to our ears, but the bot gets bamboozled.

I've had two of my compositions stolen about 14 years ago. The thief made a good bit of money, but at that time unsigned artists had very little recourse, unless you had a very rich uncle. Saying it will promote the composer's music is theoretical. They still don't get paid for it, and you as a wedding videographer have made money off of it.

On the other hand, there are royalty free clips in SoundTrack Pro and FCP X that YouTube will flag for copyright. That's because a couple of rap artists, and Rihanna used them in a few of their songs.

It is a complex issue, there is no black and white. I think, as a composer who gets paid for my work, if a wedding videographer who is obviously making money with the music, uses my work, they own me money, or at least my written consent to use it. Any thing else is blatant theft. I don't care what theoretical case one can state, I still got ripped off, and you made money off my back, period.

"Free publicity" is often bandied about by people after the fact. Its not like they actually contact the person who wrote the music and asked them would they agree to the free publicity.

"Free publicity" is just a quicker way of saying: "I want to take something of yours that you spent time and money creating, and I want to use it for my own gain without asking you. Now go and fuck-off because I'm part of a new crowd of wankers that feels I'm entitled to what I want for free, and whats more I want it now, without getting any permission, and If you don't agree with me then you must be some sort of dinosaur asshole that need to get with the program, because YOU are the problem, not me."

Incidentally, as explained above, Youtube has worked out deals with some (but not all) of the music publishers. However, while your video might be allowed on Youtube with unlicensed music, it would not be legal to show in a Film Festival (or broadcast) without the proper release forms and licenses. Something to think about in case a video is meant to have a life beyond youtube.

An interesting article from the New York Timesabout the DJ that made the "Harlem Shake" and some of the blow back his use of samples that he didn't clear is causing:

www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/arts/music/ba...?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and another from the Guardian that takes a look at sampling in music and the uneasy relationship musicians and rights holders have with each other:

www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/13/har...net-killing-sampling

I'm with Simon and Ben on this. Like i said...i used to use whatever I want until I saaw the light. I as a musician as well would be delighted that someone would want to use my music for whatever. however i would be pissed if they just took said music without asking first...i wouldn't care if it was the coolest film or video ever made. So as i said I get permission and pay for the music to be used in projects now...have been.

To reinforce my decision to get permission was the instance that a local cable access channel took one of my commercials for a local bar and reedited the footage to it and added a voiceover. I was a bit miffed and it taught me a lesson there as well.

Julian wrote:
I think that as long as it's an original video with the copy-written music used appropriately to add to the story, the copyright holders should be totally stoked to be getting more promotion, because if that video goes viral (Like Harlem Shake) then they will make a lot of money off ad revenue.

That is one of the most vapid justifications for theft; but the tragedy is that this arrogant and self-serving mindset is becoming the norm these days.

They should be stoked that someone has stolen their music? Why? Because it might become a viral video? And then what? Everyone else copies the video? And they get paid what from whom exactly? Or did you only think it through as far as the part where you got what you wanted (for free, without permission)?

No. The correct way would be to write to the person (or their agent) and ask them would they be stoked to have their music featured in a video. And then wait for a reply. What ever happened to common decency?

In these types of threads, someone inevitable posts the 'Everything's a remix' video to somehow justify theft without having to explain it. Pathetic.

simonpwood wrote:

Julian wrote:
I think that as long as it's an original video with the copy-written music used appropriately to add to the story, the copyright holders should be totally stoked to be getting more promotion, because if that video goes viral (Like Harlem Shake) then they will make a lot of money off ad revenue.

That is one of the most vapid justifications for theft; but the tragedy is that this arrogant and self-serving mindset is becoming the norm these days.

They should be stoked that someone has stolen their music? Why? Because it might become a viral video? And then what? Everyone else copies the video? And they get paid what from whom exactly? Or did you only think it through as far as the part where you got what you wanted (for free, without permission)?

No. The correct way would be to write to the person (or their agent) and ask them would they be stoked to have their music featured in a video. And then wait for a reply. What ever happened to common decency?

In these types of threads, someone inevitable posts the 'Everything's a remix' video to somehow justify theft without having to explain it. Pathetic.

Really? Did I only think it through as far as getting what I want? No, I actually know how YouTube works and if the artists and their label are smart, the will license the track on YouTube's content ID system so they can collect a portion of the ad revenue.

Here are some examples of how well this worked out for DJ Baauer with the Harlem Shake, and these are old numbers from an article posted on Feb 14th based on numbers from Feb 10th before the video really exploded on Feb 11th.

The late-week media spree was enough to boost sales of the Baauer single on iTunes to 12,000 for the week ending Feb 10th. Based on iTunes taking 30% of $0.99 that's about $8,400 BEFORE THE VIDEO REALLY WENT VIRAL ON THE 11TH. So yeah, totally stealing...

For four weeks, the Harlem Shake has been the #1 song on the Billboard top 100. This is only because there are 12,000 videos on YouTube where people "stole" this song and used it in their own video.

I could go on, but I don't need to, just read those two links. This is the future, people can complain about it all they want, or they can take advantage of it and everyone gets what they want. Would anyone even know of the Harlem Shake right now if they just decided to prevent anyone from using it on YouTube? No, and this guy's career would not have exploded.

Now, not every video is going to go viral, but what's the harm in letting someone put it in a video that only gets 100 views? Nothing as long as the video isn't douchey or they are making a profit and not paying you, and if it is happening the content owner can tell YouTube to take it down.

The problem isn't people "stealing", it's copyright owners not licensing it to make a profit, after all, that's the whole reason they are in business.

Stealing is torrenting whatever you want, creating an interesting video and using a song you love is not stealing because there are things in place to pay the artists through ad revenue. If the video really blows up, then it will also boost sales on iTunes. But yeah, call it stealing.

"No, I actually know how YouTube works and if the artists and their label are smart, the will license the track on YouTube's content ID system so they can collect a portion of the ad revenue."

But what if the artist doesn't want the track to be used by anyone period without their permission? The expectation should be that people aren't going to break the law, not that the artists should have to compromise when someone decides to.

"The problem isn't people "stealing", it's copyright owners not licensing it to make a profit, after all, that's the whole reason they are in business..."

Does this logic extend to other mediums? Should corporations have to get permission to use intellectual property that they don't own? Should studio films and commercials be able to use whatever music (or media) that they want and after the fact pay a reduced license to the license holder?

"Here are some examples of how well this worked out for DJ Baauer with the Harlem Shake, and these are old numbers from an article posted on Feb 14th based on numbers from Feb 10th before the video really exploded on Feb 11th."

Did you read the articles I posted earlier? Its doesn't look like its actually going to "work out" for Bauer because he didn't get permission before sampling the material he sampled. Its exactly because he got paid that he's in legal trouble now. Sure, he made some money from ad revenue but guess what? He didn't share any of that with the people whose music he used. Had he ASKED ahead of time, its likely that he'd be in a much better place.

grailz wrote: But what if the artist doesn't want the track to be used by anyone period without their permission? The expectation should be that people aren't going to break the law, not that the artists should have to compromise when someone decides to.

Then YouTube's content ID system which it uses to pay people will take the song down if that's what the content owner wants. Also, what world do you live in? When it comes to media content, the expectation should be that people are going to steal it because it's easy and most people do it. That's the reality of the situation and there is nothing that can be done to change it, so with that being the reality, what can be done to make sure that the content owners have some control over their music? YouTube content ID is a pretty good solution. After all, it's the Internet and being able to have even just a little control over your content is a good thing.

"Does this logic extend to other mediums? Should corporations have to get permission to use intellectual property that they don't own? Should studio films and commercials be able to use whatever music (or media) that they want and after the fact pay a reduced license to the license holder?"

No, the subject of this thread is specifically about YouTube. YouTube has a specific process in place to make sure the content owner gets money for their music if they want it.

"Did you read the articles I posted earlier? Its doesn't look like its actually going to "work out" for Bauer because he didn't get permission before sampling the material he sampled. Its exactly because he got paid that he's in legal trouble now. Sure, he made some money from ad revenue but guess what? He didn't share any of that with the people whose music he used. Had he ASKED ahead of time, its likely that he'd be in a much better place."

That's not the point. The point is, if you follow the rules, YouTube has a system in place that will pay ad revenue to copyright holders. This conversation is specifically about using music in a video, not loops of someones music in your music, these are two different issues that have completely different solutions.

You say that you 'know how youtube works', but the fact is no one really knows which publishers have signed on to youtubes content agreements - some have and some have not.

So when you place a video with copyright music on youtube you actually have no idea if the video will be monetized, or blocked, until it happens. Thats no way to run a business. What if your video goes viral (you wont make any profit)? What if your wedding video customer doesn't want ads all over her ceremony? What happens if the video is subsequently placed on Vimeo or any of the hundreds of other video hosting sites that do not have a monetizing option? What if the video plays in a film festival?

No. The whole idea that I can just place someone else's music on my video and hope that someone, somewhere somehow will just take care of it and pay somebody is a flawed and lazy way of going about your business.

The ironic fact that your 'example' of how it works well (the Harlem shake), turned out to be the subject of other copyright issues just shows how ingrained this problem is across the board (this goes beyond just youtube). This sense of entitlement will not help you in the long run.

Take the model (and your justifications) and apply it to any other industry; and see how ridiculous and immature they sound. For example; the auto industry:

I can steal a car from GM and drive it around for free. GM should be stoked because now they are getting free publicity as I drive around my neighborhood with a car that has a 'GM' badge - free publicity! Perhaps some 3rd party can come on board this project and 'monetize' the stolen cars by putting ads on the doors - that way GM will make ad revenue off all the stolen cars.
GM should get on board and start giving out free cars to everyone - because if one of the recipients becomes famous then even more people will see the car.

Etc.

If we use copyrighted music purchased on ITunes for private videos just for showing of our "private vacations" and so on - what do you say about that?

Technically you are using copyright material, so technically its illegal. If no one else is going to see it then you have to make a moral choice.

Some people have had huge success with holiday videos, like this one:



Now, he used his own music and so he was fine. If he had used copyright music he would have had issues.

Its useful to just get in the habit of using royalty free music for everything you do. That way no matter what happens to your video you will always be in the clear and avoid any unforeseen circumstances.

There are lots of legal and morally correct options out there.

I completely agree with Simon here. And I do not understand why it would be so difficult to ask the copyright holder for permission to use his or her music (or video). Quite interesting for those who need some hints on "fair use":

www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/re...air-use-online-video

simonpwood wrote: You say that you 'know how youtube works', but the fact is no one really knows which publishers have signed on to youtubes content agreements - some have and some have not.

So when you place a video with copyright music on youtube you actually have no idea if the video will be monetized, or blocked, until it happens. Thats no way to run a business. What if your video goes viral (you wont make any profit)? What if your wedding video customer doesn't want ads all over her ceremony? What happens if the video is subsequently placed on Vimeo or any of the hundreds of other video hosting sites that do not have a monetizing option? What if the video plays in a film festival?

No. The whole idea that I can just place someone else's music on my video and hope that someone, somewhere somehow will just take care of it and pay somebody is a flawed and lazy way of going about your business.

The ironic fact that your 'example' of how it works well (the Harlem shake), turned out to be the subject of other copyright issues just shows how ingrained this problem is across the board (this goes beyond just youtube). This sense of entitlement will not help you in the long run.

Take the model (and your justifications) and apply it to any other industry; and see how ridiculous and immature they sound. For example; the auto industry:

I can steal a car from GM and drive it around for free. GM should be stoked because now they are getting free publicity as I drive around my neighborhood with a car that has a 'GM' badge - free publicity! Perhaps some 3rd party can come on board this project and 'monetize' the stolen cars by putting ads on the doors - that way GM will make ad revenue off all the stolen cars.
GM should get on board and start giving out free cars to everyone - because if one of the recipients becomes famous then even more people will see the car.

Etc.

You keep turning this discussion into something it's not even about. I never said anything about running a business. If you're trying to make money off the video then you need to have original music, but if you're just uploading something for fun it doesn't matter because the copyright holder of the content will collect the ad revenue and everyone is happy.

The "ironic fact" about the Harlem Shake video has nothing to do with his copyright issues, my point that I've already explained was that there is a system in place that deals with copy-written work.

You're really stretching with the car analogy, it's not the same thing and you know that, nobody is stealing this music, torrenting is stealing. When you see an ad on YouTube someone pays for that and other people get paid according to their agreements with YouTube, there is a whole system in place that makes this work. A car is a material object and every car made costs money to manufacture, a song is recorded once and then made infinite on the Internet and basically costs nothing to continue using so it generates revenue in a completely different way.

Dealing with music on the Internet can't be compared to any other industry because you can't just download a car into your garage from your bedroom in the middle of the night.

Once again, YouTube has a whole system in place so that people are actually allowed to place a song on their video and post it on the Internet, some people don't want that to happen so they shut that down. What's so hard to understand about that system? There's no entitlement, this is an actual business model that lots of artists and companies participate in. Musicians have never made a living off album sales, touring is where all the money comes from, so the more people that are exposed to your music, the more people will buy tickets to your shows and buy merchandise.

If it's an important video then you need to make sure it follows the rules. If it's just a video for fun then it doesn't matter because it's not taking revenue away from anyone and in fact if there is a tag on your YouTube page with the song and artist name, then you are actually helping them create revenue. Not much, but $2 for every 1,000 ad views doesn't sound like stealing, especially considering that they have a system in place for exactly this reason.

I see the point. From now on I'll use royalty free music!

Here some tips: www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-resources-royalty-free-music/

I try to make a living from music. use my stuff without asking I will pursue for recompense, I'll do that through my collecting agencies, my union and all the registered means that I have taken the time and effort to put in place. One of my videos which I monetized on youtube as soon as that was possible has generated me very little income and I discovered that someone had downloaded it and then uploaded the copy to their own channel. the many 1000s of views that copy is holding will generate no funds for me but because they mention me and make no claim to copyright they are doing nothing wrong according to the 'rules'. However, I am being blocked from rightful revenue. BTW, they are a fan. F+**'ing ouch!

All use without permission is theft, well intentioned or not and I am no corporate enterprise, I am a solo artist in this brave new world trying to make a living, feed, cloth and house a family. PAY UP OR HANDS OFF.

This shit makes me furious:)

and another thing...there exist scavenger agencies with bots that trawl youtube for possible infringements and lay claim to material with cease and desist orders and threatened shut downs. youtube actively works with these agencies and their bots. I have had to lay claim on six occassions to MY OWN ORIGINAL MATERIAL! That takes time and effort and results in revenue loss. Youtube I'm sure takes a kick back for opening their systems to these agencies (they are principaly based in S E Asia and Australia the ones who have caused me grief). I have had the weight of corporate injunctions levied on me and I have had to prove provenance to my own stuff, I am never recompensed for this process and there is no punitive measure taken against the accuser as they are validated by the googleplex. It all stinks to high heavens and the systems of revenue generation that are being held up in this thread as the solution to artist protection are most certainly not artist focused. BTW, CD sales post gigging are the highest CD sales I get, not the ones in the venue but the post sales 1/2 and 3 weeks later.