PDA

View Full Version : Copyright question



ukefett
03-16-2010, 09:19 AM
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!

SparkyUkulele
03-16-2010, 09:30 AM
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

nomis
03-16-2010, 09:54 AM
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.

StereoJoker
03-16-2010, 10:29 AM
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.

Ukulele JJ
03-16-2010, 10:42 AM
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.

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

fhorndog
03-16-2010, 03:33 PM
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.

itsme
03-16-2010, 03:55 PM
...record companies are within their rights to ask YouTube to take down covers.


...the evil record companies.
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.

Brad Bordessa
03-16-2010, 04:07 PM
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.

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.

tad
03-16-2010, 04:34 PM
...Imagine the words, "IANAL, BUT..." before pretty much every response you get, here, dude.

ukefett
03-16-2010, 08:11 PM
Can you all stop villifying record companies?


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.

itsme
03-16-2010, 08:51 PM
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.
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.

henry
03-17-2010, 12:35 AM
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.

Ukulele JJ
03-17-2010, 03:12 AM
Record companies have absolutely NOTHING with sending takedown notices for cover tunes.

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

nomis
03-17-2010, 04:39 AM
@ 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

http://www.rjgeib.com/about-me/faq/guevara.jpg



P.S. Vilify only contains one L.

seeso
03-17-2010, 05:21 AM
Everybody chill out. Sheesh.

BobN
03-17-2010, 05:55 AM
There are major problems with copyright since the DMCA. There is a good explanation (in comic book form) of some of the issues here:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html

ukefett
03-17-2010, 06:55 AM
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.

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 =)

Ukulele JJ
03-17-2010, 07:40 AM
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.

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.

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

JJ

nomis
03-17-2010, 08:26 AM
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.]

shaunhuk
03-18-2010, 04:17 AM
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!

Ukulele JJ
03-18-2010, 08:06 AM
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!

The same place they came from before there was an Internet.

I'm old enough to remember those dark and dreary days. We would actually purchase commercially-available sheet music! From physical stores that we would go and visit in person!

If they didn't have what we were looking for, they'd do something called "ordering", where you'd go back home empty-handed and then get a phone call (at your house--we didn't even have cellphones) weeks later once they got it in stock.

Of course, sometimes the sheet music wasn't very good either. Or we didn't feel like going and buying it, or waiting for them to order it. This is where things would really get crazy. Believe it or not, we would try to figure out how to play the music ourselves, by listening to a recording of the song.

And then we'd go out and kill a mastodon or two for supper back at the cave.

JJ

ukeyermind
03-18-2010, 12:00 PM
One solution is to simply ask for permission from the copyright holder. I've asked for and gotten permission a few times. I've got a few requests pending. I dunno if you're gonna get the fast reply from Lady Gaga, but there are still songwriters who read their mail and who see the benefit of their fans spreading their name. One of the better newgrass bands working today is Hot Buttered Rum and they go so far as to post their favorite fan covers right on their website.

salukulady
03-18-2010, 01:10 PM
You wanna post a ukulele cover? Get an invitation from Sebi's site "We Are Ukulele".

itsme
03-18-2010, 02:56 PM
The same place they came from before there was an Internet.

<snip>
Ha ha, JJ! You must be as old as me. :p

I remember when there were no internets. I can't begin to calculate how many thousands of dollars I spent on sheet music (and don't even want to know). I did manage to fill two large filing cabinets with it and then some.

Nowadays there's a real sense of entitlement among the younger generation that they should be able to get anything they want, for free, on the net. And that includes copyrighted recordings and sheet music.

"Damn, kids! Get off my lawn!" :p