Vimeo shut down my account

[James Hollingsworth]

I concur with Steve's final paragraph regarding people using my own work. I would bet if we were able to offer a link to buy any used tracks on itunes, the artist would make more money, in fact I believe something like this used to exist.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I'm sure some artists would be flattered to have their music used. I actually met a singer who has had their music used for Marryokes and he loved the idea and the videos. Shame no one has requested me to use his music for my Marryokes as I could have asked for permission. ;)

Like I said, Sabam, who represents the artists don't care what youtube allows you to use or if you are best buddies with the artist, if that artist is connected with a music rights organisation, Sabam will go after you if they receive a complaint and if they find unlicensed music on your site they will invoice you.

The same applies with Vimeo, they also don't care if a singer likes their music in a Marryoke video you produced, you either are guilty of a third party copyright infringments or you are not, they only won't invoice you but just terminate your account.

I agree that music licensing is not black and white but that is the music rights organisations fault as they make it much more complicated then it needs to be, it often is like opening a can of worms even if you buy licensed music it's always important to read the fine print, I always contact Sabam if I am in doubt.

I am more then happy to pay whatever is needed to secure that everyone that has contributed to the money I made with my film receives their part and as it stands today I do. I do follow Sabams guidlines and pay whatever is owed to use the music in my films on- or off line, they not only represent singers but also writers so vows or readings is also included.

[James Hollingsworth]

With this said: "In the UK we can purchase a license to use music in our videos for DVD distribution, something not available in other countries and where the money doesn't go to the artist," as I had already paid for this licence and the online film was password protected, do you think I should challenge the decision? If not, I have no videos online and will have to start again with an other host such as animoto or wistia, anyone have any experience with those?

[Noa Put]

Isn't that license for off-line use only? I"m sure it doesn't cover the use of commercial music online so Vimeo won't take that into account.

I"m also still looking for alternatives to vimeo but mainly for playback issues.

[Dave Farrants]

Originally Posted by James Hollingsworth

With this said: "In the UK we can purchase a license to use music in our videos for DVD distribution, something not available in other countries and where the money doesn't go to the artist," as I had already paid for this licence and the online film was password protected, do you think I should challenge the decision? If not, I have no videos online and will have to start again with an other host such as animoto or wistia, anyone have any experience with those?

If you're referring to the LM licence (https://www.prsformusic.com/licences...ed-manufacture) - it does not cover Internet use.


3.7.1 This Licence covers the supply by you of the Product for private use but not any of the
following with respect to Repertoire Works:
(a) copying for the purposes of broadcast or public performance;
(b) acts of public performance;
(c) broadcast or other communication to the public; or
(d) use on the internet.

[James Hollingsworth]

Well it's a shame that it doesn't extend to password protected online use.

[Dave Farrants]

If they made it for any Internet use - you'd have to pay a substantial amount more for it. As it is, it's a very good price for the use it's designed for.

[Chris Harding]

Hey James

Australia has actually introduced a password protected licence BUT you have to realise that the licence for the Australia one is only valid in this country and Vimeo couldn't care less about UK or Australia copyright when it's based in the USA!! Under USA law you violate copyright regardless of what UK licences you hold. I had someone make a claim on YouTube on a 5 year old video cos they had licensed the rights to the wedding march ...nothing is sacred any more!!!

[James Hollingsworth]

It is all a bit of a mess really. Chris' point illustrates that much perfectly. Just imagine trying to explain all this to a client, most of whom no longer want DVDS but do want their first dance song in the film. One thing is clear though, using a song purchased through iTunes in an online video is no longer viable, although countless companies are still finding a way to do it.

[Noa Put]

If the couple wants their first dance song in their film that goes online to share then just say no and explain why. That's what I do and nobody so far has complained about that and if they would they can go shop somewhere else.

This might not be a good example but just to give an idea how much money could be involved and I have told this story here before, a few years back I was asked to make a 15 second animation to start of a business event, it was just some text and images made in after effects and the organisation wanted 15 seconds from "start me up" from the rolling stones to be used in that trailer.

I ended up being quoted by EMI who I had to contact for permission to use that song, so 15 seconds once to be used as a projection with a trailer on a cinemascreen in front of 500 businessmen and that was it, no online or any other use and EMI said "it's 13000euro..."

Businessevents and weddings are different so prices asked would be different as well but just to give an idea how ridiculous high prices can be asked for commercial music.

Just because youtube allows you to use this music and the musician eventually gets paid for the use doesn't mean you are safe, as long as you stay under the radar the chances of getting caught are very small but if your video goes viral, like some years back with Joe Simon when he shot the wedding of a celebrity then big companies like EMI will start asking questions. Joe was lucky they made him an example to the rest of the community and he got a "cheaper" fine but still a lot of money, if they really wanted they could have ruined his business.

[Steve Burkett]

Most of my videos going viral is unlikely. 95% of those i upload these days are password protected and if they get 300 clicks I call it a high number. I do small Weddings not lavish celebrity versions. Videos that are more likely to get higher clicks are my Trailers and that I use royalty free or license music.

Even my Marryoke are mostly password protected. Often as families want to limit their exposure to close friends and family.

I have some older videos on Vimeo and YouTube I need to look into over winter unless matters are taken out of my hands. I'm also looking at other sites to post my videos. Or even just to deliver them. My days of chasing clicks are behind me. Nowadays I just want to get the videos to the couple as quickly and easily as possible. My full lengths contain copyright music which I want couple's to preview online. I've used Vimeo on password protect this year but next year I want something different as I'm not sure how long even password will protect my videos from copyright notice.

[James Hollingsworth]

All my recent videos on vimeo were on password protect and they shut me down on old videos that I had already taken down some time ago so be aware that they are on the prowl Now! They probably have a vested interest in the likes of Fyrfly. Subscription is taking over the world!

[Steve Burkett]

If they cancelled you on videos you had already removed, then there's not much I can do. They're there and even if i delete them I still get canned, means my account is at risk whatever I do. It's not the end of the world mind. Clients will contact me if they want their videos Online again. If not they don't need to be. They all have their DVDs.

[Steve Burkett]

Well you learn something new everyday.

It seems copyright doesn't just extend to music, video and Photographic works, but also artwork (obviously) and less obviously, certain buildings.

So I'm filming a Wedding in London and I include The Shard prominently in shot. Copyrighted. Thankfully, we enjoy a flexible copyright clause 'Freedom of Panorama'. Which allows me to film such buildings for commercial use. However if placed online, it only allows me such use in places like the UK where the rules are quite relaxed. If my video is viewed in Countries like France where rules are stricter, I could apparently get sued according to one website I read.

Of course if I had a video online with copyrighted music of places like the Shard, I could be in real trouble. And I've done a few Marryokes in London.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This might not be a good example but just to give an idea how much money could be involved and I have told this story here before, a few years back I was asked to make a 15 second animation to start of a business event, it was just some text and images made in after effects and the organisation wanted 15 seconds from "start me up" from the rolling stones to be used in that trailer.

I ended up being quoted by EMI who I had to contact for permission to use that song, so 15 seconds once to be used as a projection with a trailer on a cinemascreen in front of 500 businessmen and that was it, no online or any other use and EMI said "it's 13000euro..."

Businessevents and weddings are different so prices asked would be different as well but just to give an idea how ridiculous high prices can be asked for commercial music.

"Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones was used by Microsoft in a commercial during the launch of Windows 95. The possibly apocryphal story goes that Bill Gates got the idea from the “Start button” feature on the launch screen. Gates was said to have personally asked Mick Jagger how much it would cost to use the song. Jagger wasn't really interested in their music being used in such a way so quoted $10 million hoping to dissuade Gates. Retired Microsoft chief operating officer Bob Herbold is on record as saying that it was actually $3 million.