Copyright question

U

ukefett

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, Oregon
Hi, I keep seeing people getting deleted from youtube for copyright violations for covering songs. What are the laws on this? I always thought that it was legal to do that, I want to start posting videos but don't wanna get yanked.

P.s. sorry if this has been covered before, I tried to do a search through the forums but just kept seeing stories about people getting yanked but no details about the rules and how to protect yourself.

Thanks!
 
Unfortunately, it isn't legal, and record companies are within their rights to ask YouTube to take down covers. I still think it's ethically wrong of them to do this, and posting covers is ethically justifiable, but it IS illegal. :(

Sparky
 
Does anyone know if they're pulling jazz standards or is it just pop music?

PS. I would have thought cover vids might even stimulate interest in the original songs which might lead on to sales for the evil record companies.
 
Mostly, it's been songs owned by Warner Music Group that are getting cut (as far as I know -- WMG's hassling has gotten the most coverage, anyway).

I don't know if EMI or Sony BMG have been as aggressive on the 'Tube about covers, but Warner is really going at it now.
 
SparkyUkulele said:
Unfortunately, it isn't legal, and record companies are within their rights to ask YouTube to take down covers. I still think it's ethically wrong of them to do this, and posting covers is ethically justifiable, but it IS illegal.
Click to expand...

To be precise, posting covers without coming to some sort of agreement with the copyright holder is illegal.

IANAL, but my understanding is that YouTube has actually negotiated deals with many of the big publishers. So a lot of the cover videos are legal. (The trick, of course, is figuring out which songs are okay and which aren't.)

JJ
 
One reason that the copyright cops are hammering right now is that the early years of rock and roll are starting to go into the public domain realm. For instance, the first Beatles album has only 14 years before it goes into public domain. Their catalog is one of the few that is actually profitable for parent company, EMI. you better believe that EMI will do everything they can to protect their rights for the the 25 or so years they have left to make money on this catalog.
 
SparkyUkulele said:
...record companies are within their rights to ask YouTube to take down covers.
Click to expand...

nomis said:
...the evil record companies.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. :rolleyes: Can you all stop villifying record companies?

As JJ pointed out, it is only the copyright holder who can request a takedown. So if you used the copyrighted version of a Madonna recording in your video, the record company would have that right. But if you're doing a uke cover of a Madonna song, it is only the publisher (representing the songwriter) that could request a takedown.

Granted, sometimes things get confusing. WMG owns not only Warner Brothers Records, but also Warner Chappell Music (a publisher) and an artist could be affiliated with both.

But this whole hate on the record companies/R.I.A.A. over takedown notices for cover tunes is unfounded. I worked for a major record label for ten years, so I happen to know a little bit about how it works.
 
nomis said:
Does anyone know if they're pulling jazz standards or is it just pop music?

PS. I would have thought cover vids might even stimulate interest in the original songs which might lead on to sales for the evil record companies.
Click to expand...

Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain and is no longer copyrighted, so if your jazz standards fall before that date, go to town.
 
itsme said:
Can you all stop villifying record companies?
Click to expand...


nope. :)

no, I don't think they are evil, I just think that they make really bad decisions when it comes to stuff like this. They are shooting themselves in the foot when they get youtube to take down covers, I have heard a lot of covers that made me interested in the original artists song.
actually now that I think back to hearing stories of how they make up the contracts for a lot of artists I think they might be kinda evil, or maybe I'm still just holding a grudge from a tribe called quest breaking up.
 
ukefett said:
nope. :)

no, I don't think they are evil, I just think that they make really bad decisions when it comes to stuff like this. They are shooting themselves in the foot when they get youtube to take down covers, I have heard a lot of covers that made me interested in the original artists song.
actually now that I think back to hearing stories of how they make up the contracts for a lot of artists I think they might be kinda evil, or maybe I'm still just holding a grudge from a tribe called quest breaking up.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any clue how copyright works?

Record companies have absolutely NOTHING with sending takedown notices for cover tunes. Please get that thru your head.
 
Why worry? Just bang on your efforts & if it get taken off so what? No great loss. You surely will not be the only one. Life's too short.
 
itsme said:
Record companies have absolutely NOTHING with sending takedown notices for cover tunes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, itsme's right.

There are, arguably, plenty of reasons to vilify many major-label record companies (sharecropper-style contracts, a history of dubious promotional tactics, lack of concern with the artistic merit of their product, unwillingness to evolve, etc.).

But removal of YouTube cover songs is quite simply not one of those reasons.

JJ
 
@ itsme

Record companies are evil - period. They are, and always have been big business just like any other. They have existed purely to make profit, normally through the exploitation of both the artiste and the listening public. Truly creative, non-commercially motivated material had been disseminated despite, rather than because of them. Modern technologies have rendered their industry completely obsolete and in their final death throws they are striking out indiscriminately against the public that once payed their wages.

Music is back in the hands of the people who make it, and who listen to it:

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

guevara.jpg




P.S. Vilify only contains one L.
 
Last edited:
itsme said:
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any clue how copyright works?

Record companies have absolutely NOTHING with sending takedown notices for cover tunes. Please get that thru your head.
Click to expand...

I was just joking around, hence the smiley face and the joke at the end that I am probably just holding a grudge from a tribe called quest. Calm down, no harm intended.

oh, and no, I don't know how copywrights work, thats why I started this thread =)
 
nomis said:
Modern technologies have rendered their industry completely obsolete and in their final death throes they are striking out indiscriminately against the public that once paid their wages.
Click to expand...

I don't know if their industry is completely obsolete. I still see room for record labels in the future, but they really have to change and adapt. Maybe become more of a consultant and service type of business. Doing the things in the realm of marketing/promotion, tour support, financing, legal dealings, etc. that are still needs.

Could an independent musician or band do that sort of stuff on their own? Sure. But wouldn't there be value in outsourcing that work to a company that A) does it better than you, because they specialize in it, and B) frees you up to spend more time creating music?

That's just one way it might shake out. I don't know. In any case, the labels that are still around in a couple decades will be the ones who have figured out how to quit doing the thing that are now irrelevant, and how to focus on doing really well the things that still are.


P.S. Vilify only contains one L.
Click to expand...

I used to gripe about spelling too. Now I usually just fix people's mistakes when I quote their posts. :cool:

JJ
 
Touché Monsieur JJ (Nicely done, I bow to your greater command of my mother tongue. lol)

throes |θrōz|
plural noun
intense or violent pain and struggle, esp. accompanying birth, death, or great change : he convulsed in his death throes.

ORIGIN Middle English throwe (singular); perhaps related to Old English thrēa, thrawu [calamity,] influenced by thrōwian [suffer.]
 
An interesting developement today. Inspired by the absolutely fantastic We are the Word colab video, I started to learn this song last night. I found the tabs on another ukulele tab site. When I went back today to continue playing the song, there was this announcement:
Quote:
"Music Publishers Association Limited took action to remove copyright infringing material on behalf of music publishers based in the UK. We're trying to clarify what permissions are needed. In time, all tabs have been put offline"

It seems that they are not only going after actual songs on Youtube, but now they are going after the tabs.

This just seem so short sighted to me. Where are their next generation of performance artists going to come from if we can't even learn how to play in the first place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

23skidoo
Copyright Question
Replies
5
Views
803
23skidoo
23skidoo
AcousticMonster
Copyright question...Anyone know?
Replies
13
Views
2K
jddennis
jddennis
J
Ed Sheeran Copyright Lawsuit
2
Replies
24
Views
976
Jan D
Jan D
Vespa Bob
Is there such a thing as ukulele design copyright?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Michael N.
M
Dougf
Season 146 - The Copyright Patrol
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
9K
Dougf
Dougf
Top Bottom