Vimeo vs YouTube in Montana

[Chuck Spaulding]

While taking care of my niece and nephew for 10 days I shot this video with a GH4 in 4K just to share with their parents when they returned. My niece was driving me nuts wanting to watch Frozen all the time so I edited this to one of the songs from the movie. After posting it on Vimeo they pulled it because of copyright infringement, I applied for a waiver under fair use, there's nothing commercial about this video. They denied it.

MONTANA 2014 - YouTube

So I posted it on Youtube and had to apply for a waiver there too but they acknowledged the fair use. This is what I received regarding this from YouTube.

"Hi Av8Chuck,

After reviewing your dispute, AVEX GROUP HOLDINGS.INC, INgrooves, and UMG has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video.
Video title: MONTANA 2014

- The YouTube Team"

Help center • Email options • Report spam
©2014 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

Normally I'd just appreciate that it was hosted somewhere I could share this with family and friends. But then I cam across this video hosted on Vimeo using the exact same song:

Frozen, Let it Go at Burning Man on Vimeo

I'm not saying that this video doesn't deserve a fair use consideration but its the hypocrisy that angers me.

[Noa Put]

its the hypocrisy that angers me

Ever since vimeo changed their policy in regard to not licensed songs I feel not much has changed as I still see weddingvideos appear that can be viewed publicly and which have popular top 50 songs. I would ask vimeo why that other video can have the song you are denied to use, would be curious to see how they respond.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I applied for a waiver under fair use, there's nothing commercial about this video.

You are apparently unclear as to what constitutes "fair use".

I'm not saying that this video doesn't deserve a fair use consideration but its the hypocrisy that angers me.

It's not really hypocrisy though. This video is a parody. It's a lip-sync with visuals that belie the original source material. Yours is simply background music to a home video. It's nice that Universal decided not to pursue you in this, but that's all that happened. You are still in violation, you just skirted by.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Ever since vimeo changed their policy in regard to not licensed songs I feel not much has changed as I still see weddingvideos appear that can be viewed publicly and which have popular top 50 songs. I would ask vimeo why that other video can have the song you are denied to use, would be curious to see how they respond.

I guess I felt its a bit hypocritical not because they allowed the other video but because they denied mine when as you mention there are a lot of other's using commercial music for things such as weddings.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You are apparently unclear as to what constitutes "fair use".

It's not really hypocrisy though. This video is a parody. It's a lip-sync with visuals that belie the original source material. Yours is simply background music to a home video. It's nice that Universal decided not to pursue you in this, but that's all that happened. You are still in violation, you just skirted by.

Fair enough point about 'Fair Use" but I didn't try to skirt by, I asked permission to use the music through both YouTube and Vimeo, I received it through Youtube but not Vimeo. I suspect that my request was denied at Vimeo whereas YouTube either has a better mechanism for passing the request along or the authority to make the decision internally.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I guess I felt its a bit hypocritical not because they allowed the other video but because they denied mine when as you mention there are a lot of other's using commercial music for things such as weddings.

For now. They are running the risk just as much as you are, and they may end up getting pulled in the end as well.

Fair enough point about 'Fair Use" but I didn't try to skirt by,

You did "skirt by". You did not get permission, don't misunderstand that. They decided simply to not pursue the matter. At any time the copyright holder could up and sue you over this, and that YouTube let you kepe your video up would not be protection for you. You are protected simply because it's a home video and you probably don't have any money worth sending their legal department after at this time.

I suspect that my request was denied at Vimeo whereas YouTube either has a better mechanism for passing the request along or the authority to make the decision internally.

YouTube has been at this game for a long time, so I would agree. Vimeo will eventually get there, but a backend like that is quite sophisticated and costs money. So if you'd like to have such a backend, perhaps you should continue to cough up some subscription money for a Plus/Pro account?

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You did "skirt by". You did not get permission, don't misunderstand that. They decided simply to not pursue the matter.

Actually I think your wrong about this. YouTube provides a form where you can request permission to use copyrighted music and this is the response that the copyright holder sent to me.

"Hi Av8Chuck,

After reviewing your request, AVEX GROUP HOLDINGS.INC, INgrooves, and UMG has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video. However, there may be additional copyright claims on this video.

Video title: MONTANA 2014"

I have had a paid subscription on Vimeo since they began, Im thinking of canceling my Vimeo subscription, they're not the community it was when it started.

[Gary Huff]

Well, it sounds like if you want to enjoy the use of copyrighted music then you should cancel your subscription and go strictly YouTube.