Copyright Music on Youtube
 

Just a note about using copyright music on the web. I just happened to be checking out a couple of old youtube videos I had up there and 3 of them were flagged for copyright violations because I used commercial music in them illegally.

2 of the three were personal/public ones I did for friends, and one of them was for a client who insisted that I use the song. I warned him that it was illegal and that I may have to pull it down if there's trouble.

Here is the message from youtube:
_________________________________

Your video, Nosara, Costa Rica - Live the Dream , may include content that is owned or licensed by these content owners:

* Content owner: Sony Music Entertainment Type: Audio content

What should I do?

No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.
What can I do about my video's status?

Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. You may want to check back periodically to see if you have new options available to you.

Under certain circumstances, you may dispute this copyright claim. These are:

* if the content is mistakenly identified and is actually completely your original creation;
* if you believe your use does not infringe copyright (e.g. it is fair use under US law);
* if you are actually licensed by the owner to use this content.

I need more information. I want to learn more about the dispute process.

Please take a few minutes to visit our Help Center section on Policy and Copyright Guidelines, where you can learn more about copyright law and our Content Identification Service.
______________________________

Welcome to the 21st Century, where now these content sites will be scanning for copyrighted music as you post the clips! Facebook and YouTube both are doing it now - it's only a matter of time before Vimeo and others do too.

The days of videographers just using any music they want is about to come to a screeching halt. I'll be the first to say that I've been guilty in the past, but lately have tried very hard to use only music I pay for the rights to use. It makes me frustrated tho, because it puts me at a competitive disadvantage when trying to create compelling demos when my competition is using the Brides favorite top 40 hit to woo her in. I do think that it's okay to put the couple's favorite song on their wedding DVD as that is considered a private (not public) use within the context of their wedding video - but as soon as you put that on the web (or use it in your demo for commercial purposes), it's a whole different can of worms.

I think one of the biggest roots of this problem for us as videographers is that using popular music that already evokes emotion and familiarity makes a mediocre video into a better one, or a good video into a great one. The problem is, it's the song that is the magical ingredient, and if you don't have it, it isn't near as powerful. So, if you try to go the legal route to using it, you'll find yourself in a maze of legal crap trying to get permissions from the label, EACH AND EVERY publisher, and anyone else claiming to have some portion of rights to that song and/or recording. And even if you use a clearing house to clear a song, you'll pay hundreds of dollars and they still don't guarantee that everyone who has legal claim to the recording and/or publishing has been compensated.

Soon tho, with YouTube and the others, you won't just get deleted off the service, but ASCAP and others are trying to make it so you will be fined if they find any instances of it on the web - and possibly multiple fines for multiple websites and/or multiple plays. Failure to pay could bring criminal charges. And, at that point, they can name their price, too.

I think it's time that we all start realizing just how thorny and serious this problem is going to become - very soon.

Hi Ken,

How long would say those have been available? I've only actively been uploading to a YouTube channel for a few months and out of a dozen or so clips only one has received a copyright notice and and now appears with an ad. Seems like from what you're saying that even though they didn't recognize it at the point of upload that doesn't mean it may not have an ad eventually.

Yep - YouTube paid 1.6 million to ASCAP and letters were sent out to a few high profile youtube content providers. YouTube told its members to send all the information to them and they would handle it. In my opinion the system it too vast to regulate in pay-per-use way. The ads for the music seems like the best way to account for the use and to make sure that new artists still have a way to get noticed.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...27454934.shtml

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC will try to get as granular as they can when dishing out fees and fines, so don't be surprised when any clip posted on a big service is tracked right down to the individual who uploaded it.

The best way to avoid all of this crap is to use library music, or write and produce your own soundtrack music for your clips if you can. There are lots of music creation programs out there now that can help you create good sounding background stuff with little or no talent! ;)

As a sometimes songwriter/producer living in Nashville I'm hyper-sensitive to this issue - especially because it reflects negatively on me in this town when I have copyrighted music in my stuff on the web that other music industry peeps see. It's really a taboo around here. So, I try to be sensitive to it, but then get railroaded by all the other videographers who couldn't give a crap about it, period. They will just use anything and think it's okay to do so. It makes their stuff stand out, and my stuff seem bland in comparison - and that's not fair, and it sucks, and I hate it. So, I for one will be glad when the day comes when we ALL start to think about using stuff we don't own.

Joel, I think their scanning system works periodically (it would crash the servers if they scanned everything all the time I suppose). Once we had created a short video, horror-themed by using a piece from a well-known horror soundtrack and also from an acclaimed composer. The video was done for non-profit reasons by the way. Some months later, the video was down and we received a message that we violate copyright laws. Strangely enough, some other videos with equally known soundtracks, never stopped playing.

But in the case that wedding videos will be hunted down, it will be a huge problem for the industry. Ok, it's a violation of the law, and there is royal free music around, but I have yet to find music there to fit into what we try to edit. Bill got it right, good music may turn an average video into a good one, but also bad music may turn the nicely edited stuff into junk. I wish I could book weddings with 10-15 thousands of euros so I can spend the two thousand on buying an amazing cinematic piece, but this happens only to few top names of the wedding industry. I think there should be some way of a humane annual fee that we should pay in order to use the music we'd like to. In Greece, radio stations and cafes pay fees in order to use copyrighted fees. I wouldn't mind paying them too for my wedding videos, as long as I won't have to pay astronomical numbers for a single piece. It would be great. Composers will get more money and we'll have our peace of mind.

I think the interesting part of this is that the copyright owner (in Ken's case anyway - I'd expect the "solution" to depend on the IP holder, and could range from an ad being added to having the video yanked, and in theory a suit filed...) has chosen some sort of revenue model by which they are compensated by the ad every time the video is viewed - this is an elegant solution really... providing it holds.

Only concern I see would be if the policy changes and they decide to start cracking knuckles, but after the backlash from the "sharing wars", maybe at least SOME IP holders have realized that creating a different revenue stream is more effective in the long run? Far better to monetize than litigate! I suspect Dimitris that in your case, the IP holder didn't want to or hadn't yet negotiated acceptable terms with YouToob... different IP holder, different policies.

If having an ad on the video that promotes the artist (or someone else who pays to be advertised so the IP holder gets compensated) was all it took to satisfy the compensation and use, heck, I think that would be agreeable! And if I'm reading that right, that's what they (at least Sony) has decided to do - seems like a good and fair "solution"!

I'm guessing if that model works, within a few months, they'll have boilerplate agreements you (and of course the IP holder) can agree to (that message looks like a "provisional agreement" temporarily setting acceptable terms for continued use, until "final terms" are worked out), accept the advertising (without getting any compensation for it yourself), and you're "good" (and not a "criminal" anymore - yea!). If the video service is handling the tracking, paperwork, and revenue sharing, should work for them AND the IP holder, not to mention the video creator who can now display (not SELL the finished work mind you) a work without being in violation of copyright law.

While there are still in theory "sync rights" issues, perhaps they fade away once the IP holder agrees that the advertising compensates for the intended/actual use. I'd presume an IP holder would retain the right to revoke if they objected to YOUR specific use, but you'd probably be violating other terms of use of the site anyway if your video was that objectionable!

Joel, one has been up for about 6 months and the other 2 have been up for almost exactly a year. I don't check them frequently, but I'm sure I looked at them a couple of weeks ago and there was no notice. I'm surprised that they haven't either pulled them or muted them.

Personally, I'm moving to legal music for online content. For the DVD.... technically it's just as illegal - though far, far, harder to track. Ideally, I'd find some musicians who play the kind of music I'm looking for - and provide them some exposure and pay them a fee. I've been shopping for some good stock sources though there is not a lot out there that are really what I'm looking for - that are somewhat affordable.

Granted, I'm no attorney - but I think the case could be argued that the content on a couple's DVD is private and not for public use - and if they actually bought the music that was used in the DVD (or own a copy) than it could be considered fair use under private use laws. In any case, it definitely is harder to track, and I don't think anyone is concerned about the DVDs, since wedding DVDs (unless made for demo purposes) are not mass-distributed or accessible to the public. I don't think ASCAP or BMI will start raiding homes to start watching wedding DVDs, but I guess you never know. ;)

It's when we as videographers want to share our work, or when the B/G wants to share their clips publicly on the web that it becomes a problem.

It will only be a matter of time before they start crawling every website looking for unlicensed use of music. Getty Images is already doing that with their stock photography. If you pull one of Getty's images off another site and use it on yours, they will eventually find it and send you a bill (typically several thousand dollars.)

I'm just peeling numbers out of the air here, but I'd think that if YouTube deleted every little film that had copyright music attached they'd remove something like 92% of their uploads. Not that it would matter much with 37000 new ones being added every day (more peeling), but there you go.

can't you remove the info/ "metadata" so the software can't even see that your using a song?

I agree. It seems like a possible added source of revenue for artists. Much like ringtones & iTunes. If someone is using Taylor Swifts "Best Day" it seems the option is given to her (well probably not HER but her management) saying this song is being used on youtube with 70,000 hits so far. It can either be removed or you can receive a % of advertising revenue from this clip.

I guess that's going to be youtubes revenue model. Sell advertising, myb $10 for every 1,000 hits. Then if the song in it is copyrighted, CR holder receives 50% of ad revenue.. or something like that.

I wish having good music on a wedding video was simply a matter of downloading a 99 cent copy for every time the song is burned on a DVD. 10 wedding DVD's distributed X 5 good songs, net expenditure $50.00.

I am also a composer/musician. This subject always gets me going so I'll try to be nice.

Wedding video companies and photographers do have a legal way to use copyrighted music for demos on their sites. The forms are on BMI, and ASCAP's web sites and there is a cost but nowhere near what truly licensing the music would be. I have done that kind of work and total costs for a well known piece range from..."yeah...use it!" to tens of thousands of dollars for a 13 week, one market run.
I'm glad to see some action being taken by YouTube and the publishers. What will probably happen is they will find a major abuser of the law and absolutely destroy them publicly as a message to the rest of the world. This happened several years ago to a lady who had downloaded tons of music illegally and was distributing it. I believe her fine was around the $250k range and her life is changed forever. It's only a matter of time before it happens to a small business which very likely will be from our industry.
Please do the research and get legal with your music usage. It's just not right to rip off musicians and composers like Bill and me!