Ukulele covers on Youtube being removed by Warner Music Group

sebi

sebi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Location
Switzerland
Yesterday, two of my ukulele cover videos on Youtube were removed as a result of a third-party notification from WMG claiming that the material is infringing their copyrights under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act. The weird thing is that one of the videos was a REd Hot Chili Peppers cover for the Flea Bass Competition, which was initiated by Flea, the RHCP bass player himself, encouraging fans to cover a RHCP song and post it in the respective Youtube group. So, why was my video removed from Youtube?

Honestly, I'm now very afraid that they will shut down my channel because I have almost 100 ukulele covers. I quote Youtube, "Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account."

Has anyone here ever have the same problem with Youtube and WMG? If you were in my position, what would you do? Stop making covers? Fight it? I enjoy making music for all the great people who support me and I couldn't bear NOT doing what I do.

This is my cry out for help.
 
This is why a lot of people are looking for alternatives to GreedTube. If you don't like it, your options are to deal with it or delete your account. However, try posting some fair use clauses in the video description. By doing this you are telling them exactly what your intentions are so there is no confusion that you might be trying to profit from it. I've seen copyrighted material and broadcasts stay up because of this. You have the right to do covers for non-profit educational purposes and criticism.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Click to expand...

MATERIAL IS USED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF "FAIR USE" IN TITLE 17 § 107 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. SUCH MATERIAL REMAINS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL HOLDER AND IS USED HERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF EDUCATION, COMPARISON, AND CRITICISM ONLY
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
soccerward said:
This is why a lot of people are looking for alternatives to GreedTube. If you don't like it, your options are to deal with it or delete your account. However, try posting some fair use clauses in the video description. By doing this you are telling them exactly what your intentions are so there is no confusion that you might be trying to profit from it. I've seen copyrighted material and broadcasts stay up because of this. You have the right to do covers for non-profit educational purposes and criticism.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the great input. I'm aware that it's not right to take someone else's work and put it on my own channel, but I thought that covers don't infringe copyrights. I will for sure include a disclaimer from now on. Thanks again!
 
Check out this open letter from the band OK Go, who are famous because of YouTube. Their record company, EMI, won't allow you to embed OK Go's videos on message boards or blogs. You can link to 'em, you can watch 'em, but you can't post 'em here.

A little extra commentary from Boing Boing.
 
RevWill said:
Check out this open letter from the band OK Go, who are famous because of YouTube. Their record company, EMI, won't allow you to embed OK Go's videos on message boards or blogs. You can link to 'em, you can watch 'em, but you can't post 'em here.

A little extra commentary from Boing Boing.
Click to expand...

WOW!! I had no clue that the music industry is THAT MESSED UP! (OoO) Thanks for the great link.
 
I figured it was a matter of time before this started happening. The material is copyrighred and you have to get permission first or pay a royalty on every impression. A disclaimer is not sufficient.

But it's interesting you are blaming YouTube. You just said they received third party notification of the infringement and are reacting. Sounds like they were being generous for allowing it up there in the first place, exposing themselves to risk. They're not making a dime off closing you down, how is that greed?

You are lucky that Warner is not suing you guys for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some record company did that to a parent whose kid was downloading MP3's illegally. The proof is all there, there's no question about it.

One thing I'm assuming, but haven't checked on, is the agreement you made with YouTube when you sign up, you probably agreed not to post copyrighted material, which you immediately did. So you can't blame them for deleting your videos, in fact, you're lucky if they haven't deleted your account.

Great opportunity to write your own stuff and give that away.
 
Never confuse morals or logic with the law. The law doesn't have to be moral, and it doesn't have to make sense.

Nobody is ever going to not buy Sleepwalk by Santo & Johnny because of my performance on YouTube. On the other hand, someone just might see "Santo & Johnny" in the sidebar and say, "I always wondered where that song came from. I need to go buy it!" But that has no bearing on the law. The law says I shouldn't have it up there in the first place.
 
clayton56 said:
I figured it was a matter of time before this started happening. The material is copyrighred and you have to get permission first or pay a royalty on every impression. A disclaimer is not sufficient.

But it's interesting you are blaming YouTube. You just said they received third party notification of the infringement and are reacting. Sounds like they were being generous for allowing it up there in the first place, exposing themselves to risk. They're not making a dime off closing you down, how is that greed?

You are lucky that Warner is not suing you guys for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some record company did that to a parent whose kid was downloading MP3's illegally. The proof is all there, there's no question about it.

One thing I'm assuming, but haven't checked on, is the agreement you made with YouTube when you sign up, you probably agreed not to post copyrighted material, which you immediately did. So you can't blame them for deleting your videos, in fact, you're lucky if they haven't deleted your account.

Great opportunity to write your own stuff and give that away.
Click to expand...

I see your point. Nonetheless, I wouldn't compare peer-to-peer piracy to covering a song. The content we create is first of all not for profit and secondly, produced entirely by ourself. We make the video and the music ourself. The record company does not invest one cent into our amateur productions. I also write my own songs and have been touring playing original songs. Still, I know many people who rather watch creative interpretations of popular songs than originals they don't know. And maybe I just suck at writing my originals. So, covering songs is all I got.
 
Just about the Flea thing. Strangely, he likely wouldn't have the right to let people upload his songs for a competition. If Warner owns the rights, then it's their call.

And to the other poster, YES THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS THAT MESSED UP! And worse. Anytime some technology comes along to which the reply is, "That will destroy the music industry," I usually think "Hurray!" They seem to believe that if the music industry is destroyed, people will stop making music. Human history tells us that is silly. People have written music when to do so would get them hated, ostracised or even killed. I don't think we as a community are going to stop playing because EMI isn't going to give one of us £1 million.

Of course, the Warner Music Group will likely find a way to get this post banned. Read it. Quick! :)
 
pulelehua said:
Just about the Flea thing. Strangely, he likely wouldn't have the right to let people upload his songs for a competition. If Warner owns the rights, then it's their call.
Click to expand...
That is a complete mystery to me, why they would hurt one of their major artists like that!

And to the other poster, YES THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS THAT MESSED UP! And worse. Anytime some technology comes along to which the reply is, "That will destroy the music industry," I usually think "Hurray!" They seem to believe that if the music industry is destroyed, people will stop making music. Human history tells us that is silly. People have written music when to do so would get them hated, ostracised or even killed. I don't think we as a community are going to stop playing because EMI isn't going to give one of us £1 million.
Click to expand...
Check out this link by RevWill on Boing Boing: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/20/ok-go-explains-the-s.html

Of course, the Warner Music Group will likely find a way to get this post banned. Read it. Quick! :)
Click to expand...
I'm sure that will happen :) So, be quick!!
 
Yes, I've had trouble with Warner Bros., but not with music. DC Comics, owned by WB wouldn't allow Cafe DNA to do any projects based on their characters, even while we were still a part of Wizard Entertainment. Marvel, Image and all others encouraged us to use their characters. Marvel even hired three of our members. But DC would not budge.
 
in the ok go case, there are pretty easy work arounds to embed videos. download it from YouTube and reupload it somewhere else (not YouTube) easy peasy lemon squeezie.

in regard to alternatives to "greedtube" does vimeo have the same copyright restrictions as YouTube? I made a vimeo as I want to start using it instead of YouTube bc I like the format of the site better, but haven't checked into copyrights. all but two of my three videos on YouTube are covers, fortunately I haven't had any problems with copyrights so far.
 
YouTube is getting the heat from the record companies because they are the biggest, easiest target. They will allow your covers to stay up until they get a complaint from the record company - that's pretty cool. But once they start getting complaints we become major headaches, because once the record companies have complained and ID'd the material, YT has to take it down or be exposed to litigation.

The catch is - if we switch to one of the competitors, as the popularity grows so will the attention from the record companies on the new venue. It's kind of a cycle.

Anyway, YouTube isn't to blame for what's going on - if they don't take the stuff down once they've been made aware of an infringement claim by a copyright holder, then they can be in business-jeopardizing trouble.
 
Captain_Lovehandles said:
Yes, I've had trouble with Warner Bros., but not with music. DC Comics, owned by WB wouldn't allow Cafe DNA to do any projects based on their characters, even while we were still a part of Wizard Entertainment. Marvel, Image and all others encouraged us to use their characters. Marvel even hired three of our members. But DC would not budge.
Click to expand...

And I thought it only happens in music, but apparently this problem is omnipresent.
 
bbycrts said:
Anyway, YouTube isn't to blame for what's going on - if they don't take the stuff down once they've been made aware of an infringement claim by a copyright holder, then they can be in business-jeopardizing trouble.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don't mean to blame Youtube, even though I think they shouldn't let major record corporations dictate them how the new economy has to be managed.
 
homEsick said:
in the ok go case, there are pretty easy work arounds to embed videos. download it from YouTube and reupload it somewhere else (not YouTube) easy peasy lemon squeezie.

in regard to alternatives to "greedtube" does vimeo have the same copyright restrictions as YouTube? I made a vimeo as I want to start using it instead of YouTube bc I like the format of the site better, but haven't checked into copyrights. all but two of my three videos on YouTube are covers, fortunately I haven't had any problems with copyrights so far.
Click to expand...

I'm really happy for you that you haven't had any trouble yet, and I hope you'll never have. Believe me, it gives me a bad headache!
 
lol, and i thaught goverment was bad. well thats a story for another post. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Ukulele Instrumental Channel, Fequent High Quality Covers
Replies
3
Views
430
RaRandy
R
Captain_Lovehandles
Eugene Ukulele covers a song I wrote
Replies
3
Views
344
pabrizzer
pabrizzer
CountryMouse
Eddie Vedder covers "Ukulele Anthem", gifts uke to AFP!
Replies
4
Views
2K
iamesperambient
iamesperambient
Youkalaylee
Sheet music says C#m, all ukulele covers skip it?
Replies
9
Views
913
ksiegel
ksiegel
H
Some ukulele covers!
Replies
0
Views
336
henriquemff
H
Top Bottom