Vimeo alternatives

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Can you not do a path trace from where you are to where the nearest server is? That might show you where the holdup is??

If neither my provider not vimeo can tell me what the issue can be then I won't either, it's not like I have a problem all the time but I often get feedback from my clients that the video stalls or stutters, I see that too sometimes or like yesterday the playbackquality looked quite poor, when I went to YouTube to play a 4k video that played fine.

There don't seem to be so many alternatives, I have seen videographers use wistia but they are very expensive at 99dollar per month.

[Eugen Brinzoiu]

You're absolutely right about that,Noa.
Vimeo is slow...all the time.
And I'm in Canada.
But unfortunately we have no alternatives.
And by the way all my friends are complaining about Vimeo,also.

[Andrew Smith]

Left Vimeo years ago, ditching my subscription.

Aside from the player/deliverability issues, the telling sign for me is that they can'r even keep up with taking down videos clearly in breach of their guidelines (and they've been notified of them for a few months). It's as if internally they have given up. Hearing about their forum only support mechanism doesn't surprise me.

Andrew

[Kyle Root]

I've never noticed any playback issues on Vimeo - but right now I'm more concerned about the complete account take downs that have been going on for music violations etc with no warning.

[Noa Put]

Is this for films that are private with password or films that are publicly viewable?

Where did you hear about this?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Saw this article a couple weeks ago and was thinking about posting here, but figured you guys already knew about it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ool/848216002/

"My friend David Medill got the shock of his life this week when he was banned from the Vimeo video service for copyright violation. His sin: He makes wedding videos, and he sets them to the tunes of Ed Sheeran, Marvin Gaye and Father John Misty."

[Noa Put]

All my music that I use online in my short highlights to promote my business has music in it from artlist.io and I have a yearly subscription to use their music. Those videographers who think they can use Ed sheeran songs in their online videos without paying for a license know what the riscs are, if their account gets deleted it's their fault and they should consider themselves Lucky that this is the only thing that is done. I"d say it's about time Vimeo takes action, if getting rid of all videos that have no licensed music would mean my films would play better then I gladly would stay with them. :)

[Mark Williams]

I agree with Noah. I pay for a music license or use an Attribution Noncommercial license if allowed by the owner. It is the right thing to do. A couple of years ago I had a Vimeo and Youtube user steal 24 video clips of mine. I filed DMCA complaints with both services for each clip stolen. It was a tedious process. When the user wouldn't pay for use of my videos I notified Vimeo and Youtube that the complaints were not resolved and his time ran out. They deleted over a 100 user videos and closed both his account. Then the belly-aching by the user really began but to late for him.

[David Peterson]

Originally Posted by Cary Knoop

That is not due to Vimeo but due to a slow internet connection.

By the way, how do you not have full control over videos as an owner when using YouTube?

YouTube has been down right draconian lately in banning people off YouTube, and demonetizing and even outright hiding many of those who remain.

[Andrew Smith]

David is right. We need to have backup / alternative sources of video hosting should the need arrive.

Andrew

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by David Peterson

YouTube has been down right draconian lately in banning people off YouTube, and demonetizing and even outright hiding many of those who remain.

This is what worries me, it’s not the first time I have heared from a weddingvideographer that their video was flagged for copyright violation eventhough they had payed for a license to use the song, youtube doesn’t ask 3 times before acting like vimeo does, they just mute your video, place adds on it or remove the video. Then it’s up to you to prove them wrong which can take a while before your videos are up and running again, something I cannot have as a business.

This at least has been the general impression I got from youtube based on many reactions I read over the past years in facebook groups, I was also a bit surprised when Cary claimed I do have full controll over my films but it looks like not everyone agrees :)

[Cary Knoop]

Originally Posted by David Peterson

YouTube has been down right draconian lately in banning people off YouTube, and demonetizing and even outright hiding many of those who remain.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This is what worries me, it’s not the first time I have heared from a weddingvideographer that their video was flagged for copyright violation eventhough they had payed for a license to use the song, youtube doesn’t ask 3 times before acting like vimeo does, they just mute your video, place adds on it or remove the video. Then it’s up to you to prove them wrong which can take a while before your videos are up and running again, something I cannot have as a business.

This at least has been the general impression I got from youtube based on many reactions I read over the past years in facebook groups, I was also a bit surprised when Cary claimed I do have full controll over my films but it looks like not everyone agrees :)

If you dispute a Content ID claim the video and audio are restored immediately (it used to be that it was restored only after the dispute ended), while during the dispute possible monetization monies are "in escrow" by YouTube until it is determined who has the rights.

If you have a license, dispute the Content ID and provide license information immediately. It is not up to YouTube to accept it but it is up to the rights holder, if it takes a while it is the rights holder who is to blame for the delay, not YouTube. Also if you license music many of the rights holders have a secondary way to notify them if your content gets flagged like AdRev for Rights Holder.

YouTube obviously does not know if you have licensed music, and rights holders who license music obviously still want YouTube to content ID their footage.
I think YouTube's current model is a win-win situation, I really do not understand the criticism. If you have a license you have full control, and if you have not then in most cases the rights holder still allows you to post your video witch the catch that they want to be paid advertising revenue, a more than fair proposition if you ask me.

[Noa Put]

There is only one way to find out and that’s to upload one of my videos to youtube and embed on my website, my portfolio is vimeo only for now but I can make seperate posts on my website that are only accesible if you know the link so it won’t affect my website if something would not go as planned.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Cary Knoop

If you dispute a Content ID claim the video and audio are restored immediately (it used to be that it was restored only after the dispute ended), while during the dispute possible monetization monies are "in escrow" by YouTube until it is determined who has the rights.

Does that mean youtube will place ads on the video during the dispute? If so, that would alleady be unacceptable for me, I would expect to be notified first with a deadline for providing the licencing info so that my films remain untouched while I provide proof. But that I guess is one of the disadvantages of a free service like youtube.

[Cary Knoop]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Does that mean youtube will place ads on the video during the dispute? If so, that would alleady be unacceptable for me, I would expect to be notified first with a deadline for providing the licencing info so that my films remain untouched while I provide proof. But that I guess is one of the disadvantages of a free service like youtube.

That would depend on the rights holder. It's the rights holder that enables content id, and it is the rights holder that enables ads. If you use music and get a license from a rights holder I would ask 3 questions:

1. Do you enable content id for your footage on YouTube?
2. If so, what is the process for me to indicate I have a license and how quickly do you respond?
3. During the dispute process do you monetize the video?

If you absolutely do not want the client to see ads publish the video unlisted first, resolve the possible content id dispute (should be no longer than one or two days for reputable rights holders who license music on YouTube, and once the dispute is resolved, make the video available to your client,

There is an issue though, mostly with single instrument classical music, if the content id is wrong and you dispute you may have to wait up to 30 days to get a response, and sometimes rights holders simply disagree (often out of laziness) and you have to appeal, after that they will look carefully at the footage because they would be required to issue a DMCA takedown and this could open the rights holder to litigation if the takedown is not warranted.