PDA

View Full Version : How to make videos legal



electrauke
04-02-2013, 02:20 PM
Hi guys, I have been confused lately. I want to make my YouTube videos legal. I have seen some UUers put references to US copyright law. Does that do he trick? Or are the videos legal as long as you do not monetize them?

Thanks

OldePhart
04-02-2013, 02:47 PM
There is nothing you can do to make a video of a copyrighted song legal except getting the copyright owner's blessing (and they pretty much always want money).

The trick is to fly under the radar so you don't attract their attention. This means avoiding songs owned by artists and companies that are known for vigorously protecting their copyrights to the point of being a little ridiculous, avoiding putting the song title or original artists name in the thread, and so on.

I run two youtube channels - one for covers and one for originals and public domain songs.

John

Stevelele
04-02-2013, 02:57 PM
The answer is to not use the title of the song and play so poorly that the song is unrecognizable, a technique I have perfected.

OldePhart
04-02-2013, 02:58 PM
The answer is to not use the title of the song and play so poorly that the song is unrecognizable, a technique I have perfected.

BWAAAA-HAAAA - I can relate to that!

Cornfield
04-02-2013, 03:01 PM
The answer is to not use the title of the song and play so poorly that the song is unrecognizable, a technique I have perfected.

I resemble that remark

Newportlocal
04-02-2013, 03:14 PM
The answer is to not use the title of the song and play so poorly that the song is unrecognizable, a technique I have perfected.

Hahahahah. Love it......

electrauke
04-02-2013, 04:58 PM
I think it is a little ridiculous that playing a song on the internet and not making money from it is illegal.

BlackBearUkes
04-02-2013, 05:14 PM
I think it is a little ridiculous that playing a song on the internet and not making money from it is illegal.

Really? Let's look at it this way. Say you wrote a song and sang it on the internet on youtube and you even had a copyright for that song. Since you are not a well know singer, someone comes along, hears your song and steals it and makes a bunch of money off of it. Its your song but someone else has taken it. Is it ridiculous now?

uke4ia
04-02-2013, 05:32 PM
I think it is a little ridiculous that playing a song on the internet and not making money from it is illegal.

It's not illegal. You won't go to jail, you won't be arrested, you won't be fined. But you may violate the policies YouTube required you to agree to when you started your channel. And YouTube may therefore delete the offending video.

Most musicians and their labels will allow you to play covers of their songs on YouTube without any problem. Occasionally, one will be flagged as "matched third party content". All that means is that the copyright owner identified it, and they will get some tiny fraction of a penny from YouTube in ad revenue when your video is played. Most musicians and labels realize that it is in their benefit for fans to like their songs and want to play them.

Most, but not all. Every now and then there is some musican (or label, or company given the job of looking after the copyright) who won't allow their songs to be covered. They will tell YouTube they want your video removed. If they control the copyright to that song, YouTube will do as they ask. YouTube will delete your video and give you "a strike" against you. If you get three strikes, YouTube will delete your entire channel. Remember, it is not your song, and you do not control the rights over what use you can make of the song.

The hard part is knowing ahead of time where you might have a problem. I've heard of people having Jimi Hendrix and Supertramp videos deleted, and that Sony doesn't want covers of artists on its label. I've got over 100 cover tunes on video, and I haven't had YouTube delete any. Yet. I self-deleted two Supertramp covers when I heard that was a potential problem. Personally, I don't think the quotes people post about copyright law make any difference, but some people feel that posting that language will protect them.

electrauke
04-02-2013, 06:56 PM
Really? Let's look at it this way. Say you wrote a song and sang it on the internet on youtube and you even had a copyright for that song. Since you are not a well know singer, someone comes along, hears your song and steals it and makes a bunch of money off of it. Its your song but someone else has taken it. Is it ridiculous now?

No but I said NOT making money off of it, if you are making a profit then that is a whole different story.

electrauke
04-02-2013, 06:58 PM
It's not illegal. You won't go to jail, you won't be arrested, you won't be fined. But you may violate the policies YouTube required you to agree to when you started your channel. And YouTube may therefore delete the offending video.

Most musicians and their labels will allow you to play covers of their songs on YouTube without any problem. Occasionally, one will be flagged as "matched third party content". All that means is that the copyright owner identified it, and they will get some tiny fraction of a penny from YouTube in ad revenue when your video is played. Most musicians and labels realize that it is in their benefit for fans to like their songs and want to play them.

Most, but not all. Every now and then there is some musican (or label, or company given the job of looking after the copyright) who won't allow their songs to be covered. They will tell YouTube they want your video removed. If they control the copyright to that song, YouTube will do as they ask. YouTube will delete your video and give you "a strike" against you. If you get three strikes, YouTube will delete your entire channel. Remember, it is not your song, and you do not control the rights over what use you can make of the song.

The hard part is knowing ahead of time where you might have a problem. I've heard of people having Jimi Hendrix and Supertramp videos deleted, and that Sony doesn't want covers of artists on its label. I've got over 100 cover tunes on video, and I haven't had YouTube delete any. Yet. I self-deleted two Supertramp covers when I heard that was a potential problem. Personally, I don't think the quotes people post about copyright law make any difference, but some people feel that posting that language will protect them.

Ok, that is good to know, are there any specific companies not to do cover songs of?

ukeofcarl
04-03-2013, 01:30 AM
Never, ever do any Coldplay songs.

bonesigh
04-03-2013, 02:13 AM
Sometimes I don't understand it completely. Just recently I had to take a parody of "Whiskey in the Jar" off my site. It's a "parody". I thought that was okay. It's funny but the same parody taped at a different time and named "Leprechaun in a Jar" is still up. Wonder if I'll get in trouble for the IZ song I just put up (:

Cornfield
04-03-2013, 02:52 AM
Never, ever do any Coldplay songs.

Is that for legal issues or do you just not like Coldplay? Kind of like "Never do LIberace songs".

ScooterD35
04-03-2013, 03:44 AM
The simple solution is to post only Grateful Dead songs. They not only don't mind, they encourage covers of their tunes and reward the best ones.


http://www.dead.net/dead-covers-project



http://youtu.be/hNc8Hqo7yXI


Scooter

electrauke
04-03-2013, 06:16 AM
Ok, Grateful Dead are good. And no Coldplay.

OldePhart
04-03-2013, 07:14 AM
Sometimes I don't understand it completely. Just recently I had to take a parody of "Whiskey in the Jar" off my site. It's a "parody". I thought that was okay. It's funny but the same parody taped at a different time and named "Leprechaun in a Jar" is still up. Wonder if I'll get in trouble for the IZ song I just put up (:

You should have challenged that because Whiskey in the Jar is a very old traditional song and thus in the public domain (it was ancient long before the "cool" bands recorded it). You can do the original, you can do a parody, whatever, it's fair game.

Unfortunately, due to changes in US copyright law, there are a lot of companies with questionable ethics that go around trying to "enforce" copyrights that don't exist. Don't bend over and let these jerks get away with it. Challenge bogus claims with YouTube. Maybe if enough people challenge bogus claims YouTube will get wise and start blacklisting the worst offenders who build a long history of rejected claims.

I've taken to mentioning right in my description when a song is an original (in which case I also include a copyright notice) or a public-domain traditional song. Since I've been doing that I haven't had any more bogus claims against my stuff.

John

Newportlocal
04-03-2013, 08:16 AM
Hi guys, I have been confused lately. I want to make my YouTube videos legal. I have seen some UUers put references to US copyright law. Does that do he trick? Or are the videos legal as long as you do not monetize them?

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. I am sure this is a common concern for many of us. Myself included.

austin1
04-03-2013, 09:01 AM
I write them a nice letter with my videos. You know, Dear The Record Company That Owns This Song, I really like this song so I covered it. If you could, please go fry some bigger fish. Unless of course you have a fish allergy, in which case stick to the chicken. Much love, Tina.

It probably doesn't help, but it entertains me.

austin1
04-03-2013, 09:27 AM
in other news, the other day I went looking for the chords to a song (THE CHORDS, mind you), and found that the music company behind them had claimed copyright infringement on their post to ultimateguitar.

electrauke
04-03-2013, 09:30 AM
in other news, the other day I went looking for the chords to a song (THE CHORDS, mind you), and found that the music company behind them had claimed copyright infringement on their post to ultimateguitar.

Oh my God this is getting more then a little ridiculous, this is getting OBSURD.

austin1
04-03-2013, 09:40 AM
Oh my God this is getting more then a little ridiculous, this is getting OBSURD.

Totally. That's why I just try not to worry about it. Covers are a grey area as others have said!

electrauke
04-03-2013, 09:52 AM
Totally. That's why I just try not to worry about it. Covers are a grey area as others have said!

I just worry about building up a huge channel with a bunch of subscribers, then "POOF" it is all gone like that. That has happened to some people.

mds725
04-03-2013, 10:01 AM
Not to hijack the thread, but this past weekend when my ukulele meetup group got to the cafe where we always meet, there was a sign on the door from the cafe owner saying that the cafe could not host live music for the time being. it seems that an entity called BMI discovered that music with copyrights was being performed live at the cafe without a license and informed the cafe owner that for $328 a year, it could obtain an umbrella license that would permit copyrighted live music to be performed. The owner is applying for the license (we're going to reimburse her for the cost of it), but BMI reminds me of organized crime with its "if you don't give us money, we're going to get you into trouble" tactics. My theory, which may also apply to the pressure some in the music business are putting on YouTube, is that with mp3s and digital copying, it's harder to make money in the music industry and some people in it are exploiting rights they're entitled to but haven't previously bothered to enforce. In my case,the cafe owner isn't the bad guy, and I'm not sure YouTube is the bad guy either. I think they're both just protecting their own interests from threats made against them.

austin1
04-03-2013, 10:01 AM
I just worry about building up a huge channel with a bunch of subscribers, then "POOF" it is all gone like that. That has happened to some people.

I think--and please don't quote me on this--you have better luck doing instrumental covers. I don't know if that's true, but I'm pretty sure I read it someone. Someone chime in if you know more about this than I do.

austin1
04-03-2013, 10:03 AM
Not to hijack the thread, but this past weekend when my ukulele meetup group got to the cafe where we always meet, there was a sign on the door from the cafe owner saying that the cafe could not host live music for the time being. it seems that an entity called BMI discovered that music with copyrights was being performed live at the cafe without a license and informed the cafe owner that for $328 a year, it could obtain an umbrella license that would permit copyrighted live music to be performed. The owner is applying for the license (we're going to reimburse her for the cost of it), but BMI reminds me of organized crime with its "if you don't give us money, we're going to get you into trouble" tactics. My theory, which may also apply to the pressure some in the music business are putting on YouTube, is that with mp3s and digital copying, it's harder to make money in the music industry and some people in it are exploiting rights they're entitled to but haven't previously bothered to enforce. In my case,the cafe owner isn't the bad guy, and I'm not sure YouTube is the bad guy either. I think they're both just protecting their own interests from threats made against them.

...

WOW.

That's all I have to say.

gyosh
04-03-2013, 10:09 AM
Not to hijack the thread, but this past weekend when my ukulele meetup group got to the cafe where we always meet, there was a sign on the door from the cafe owner saying that the cafe could not host live music for the time being. it seems that an entity called BMI discovered that music with copyrights was being performed live at the cafe without a license and informed the cafe owner that for $328 a year, it could obtain an umbrella license that would permit copyrighted live music to be performed. The owner is applying for the license (we're going to reimburse her for the cost of it), but BMI reminds me of organized crime with its "if you don't give us money, we're going to get you into trouble" tactics. My theory, which may also apply to the pressure some in the music business are putting on YouTube, is that with mp3s and digital copying, it's harder to make money in the music industry and some people in it are exploiting rights they're entitled to but haven't previously bothered to enforce. In my case,the cafe owner isn't the bad guy, and I'm not sure YouTube is the bad guy either. I think they're both just protecting their own interests from threats made against them.

The town of Los Gatos was coming down on the Los Gatos uke club with the same licensing argument for "Live Music" which included group music lessons. It wasn't BMI, but the town wanted a take in the "action." The local paper picked up the story, and then a larger network news station and the site hosting the LG Uke club has been giving a one year moratorium so they (the town) can figure out what to do. The pettiness riled up a lot of the locals.

Stoopid!

uke4ia
04-03-2013, 10:32 AM
Not to hijack the thread, but this past weekend when my ukulele meetup group got to the cafe where we always meet, there was a sign on the door from the cafe owner saying that the cafe could not host live music for the time being. it seems that an entity called BMI discovered that music with copyrights was being performed live at the cafe without a license and informed the cafe owner that for $328 a year, it could obtain an umbrella license that would permit copyrighted live music to be performed. The owner is applying for the license (we're going to reimburse her for the cost of it), but BMI reminds me of organized crime with its "if you don't give us money, we're going to get you into trouble" tactics. My theory, which may also apply to the pressure some in the music business are putting on YouTube, is that with mp3s and digital copying, it's harder to make money in the music industry and some people in it are exploiting rights they're entitled to but haven't previously bothered to enforce. In my case,the cafe owner isn't the bad guy, and I'm not sure YouTube is the bad guy either. I think they're both just protecting their own interests from threats made against them.

This has been going on for a while. Here's a link to a Boston Globe 2010 article about it. My favorite open mic shut down because there's three of these copyright management companies, and each one wanted about $400 a year, when without a cover charge they weren't making any more money on open mic nights.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/06/09/pay_to_play/

garyg
04-03-2013, 10:45 AM
That is true but a cover that I did of "Ripple" got flagged but I left it up because the flag was just "matched third party content". I think that the youtube guardians frequently don't know what they're doing for example "Whiskey in the Jar" is a traditional song that's been around much longer than copyright (although I've heard of unscrupulous companies trying to copyright traditional songs) and no one should be forced to take a cover of it down. Like lots of unscrupulous behavior it's not illegal unless you fight for it. So far I've had no problems with traditional songs and Dead songs. I've heard multiple folks say never cover an Eagles song either. cheers, g2



The simple solution is to post only Grateful Dead songs. They not only don't mind, they encourage covers of their tunes and reward the best ones.


http://www.dead.net/dead-covers-project



http://youtu.be/hNc8Hqo7yXI


Scooter

UkeyDave
04-03-2013, 10:46 AM
What an extremely interesting and educational thread this is. It is however, extremely depressing reading in places. Excellent initial question though electrauke. Right I'm off to post some more covers. Ssssshhhhhh, don't broadcast it. :rulez:

OldePhart
04-03-2013, 11:01 AM
in other news, the other day I went looking for the chords to a song (THE CHORDS, mind you), and found that the music company behind them had claimed copyright infringement on their post to ultimateguitar.

What they are usually protesting as an infringement is the presence of the lyrics. The way around that (and this is showing up more often) is you post just a couple of words to show where chord changes occur, with a lot of ellipses, xxx's or what have you for the rest of the words. Of course, then somebody has to find the lyrics elsewhere if they don't know the song but at least it protects the person publishing the chords.

John

Tootler
04-03-2013, 12:17 PM
You should have challenged that because Whiskey in the Jar is a very old traditional song and thus in the public domain (it was ancient long before the "cool" bands recorded it). You can do the original, you can do a parody, whatever, it's fair game.

....

I've taken to mentioning right in my description when a song is an original (in which case I also include a copyright notice) or a public-domain traditional song. Since I've been doing that I haven't had any more bogus claims against my stuff.

John

I agree wholeheartedly with the first statement. I've had "Matched third party" notices on a number of traditional songs and I've always challenged them and the Matched third party notice has disappeared fairly quickly sometimes with an acknowledgement but mostly without - no one likes to admit they're wrong, especially large corporations.

I'm not sure what you put in the description makes a lot of difference because I've had matched third party notices on songs where I've stated in the description they were traditional. In one case even on Greensleeves would you believe. I think a lot of these copyright management organisations use web crawlers which simply latch on to keywords.

On one occasion, I had a Matched third party notice on a song that was definitely in copyright but when I followed the link to check what they were claiming, I found they were claiming for a different song entirely. So I put in a challenge saying that I acknowledged that the song was in copyright but that the claim made was for another song altogether. The Matched third party notice disappeared. Figure that one out.

Brad Bordessa
04-03-2013, 01:38 PM
Itʻs easy to hate on BMI and ASCAP for shutting stuff down due to copyright infringement, but youʻve got to realize that those companies exist to keep track of this kind of thing for artists. Itʻs a way musicians can actually make money (I hear it can be done!). Granted, guys like John Mayer and the Eagles are in good shape already, but you hope that the same policies that keep their royalties coming in also work for the smaller artists who could actually use the money for paying rent, buying strings, etc...

Realistically, I donʻt think the ʻukulele community is losing anybody any money by covering songs. But weʻve got to understand why and how the law works. If they start making exceptions where does the line get drawn? Iʻm glad for the copyright laws. It makes sense to be able to benefit from your original work. If copyright freaks you out because you canʻt cover a certain song, think about what the music industry would be like without it. We probably wouldnʻt even HAVE many of the songs we know today.

Just my 2 cents.

OldePhart
04-03-2013, 01:47 PM
I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if not for the most recent changes in US copyright law, enacted a few years ago. What they did was completely bizarre and illustrates that our so-called government was firmly in the pockets of the corporations. What they did...and I know this sounds crazy but you can check it out...they authorized ASCAP, BMI, etc. to collect royalties even if the copyright owner cannot be identified or contacted. They are then supposed to make a "good faith effort" to identify, contact, and pay the copyright holder but if that fails they get to keep the money. Neat, huh!

Let's say you publish an original on YouTube and somebody else copies it and so on...these companies can now file a claim and try to collect royalties from others who use the song...and all they have to do is make a "good faith" effort to identify you as the copyright holder, contact you, and pay you the royalties collected. Yeah...right...guess how often that happens. I've never once heard of ASCAP, BMI, etc. contacting someone to say, "gee, do you own the copyright on this song? We've got some money for you..."

It was also just after this law was signed that the bogus claims against traditional songs and originals and so on started spiking...I can't imagine why...oh...wait...maybe it's because if they can get a "Matches copyright" on as many YouTube videos as they can and monetize them it's easy money.

We definitely have the best government money can buy...

John




Itʻs easy to hate on BMI and ASCAP for shutting stuff down due to copyright infringement, but youʻve got to realize that those companies exist to keep track of this kind of thing for artists. Itʻs a way musicians can actually make money (I hear it can be done!). Granted, guys like John Mayer and the Eagles are in good shape already, but you hope that the same policies that keep their royalties coming in also work for the smaller artists who could actually use the money for paying rent, buying strings, etc...

Realistically, I donʻt think the ʻukulele community is losing anybody any money by covering songs. But weʻve got to understand why and how the law works. If they start making exceptions where does the line get drawn? Iʻm glad for the copyright laws. It makes sense to be able to benefit from your original work. If copyright freaks you out because you canʻt cover a certain song, think about what the music industry would be like without it. We probably wouldnʻt even HAVE many of the songs we know today.

Just my 2 cents.

electrauke
04-03-2013, 04:12 PM
not to hijack the thread, but this past weekend when my ukulele meetup group got to the cafe where we always meet, there was a sign on the door from the cafe owner saying that the cafe could not host live music for the time being. It seems that an entity called bmi discovered that music with copyrights was being performed live at the cafe without a license and informed the cafe owner that for $328 a year, it could obtain an umbrella license that would permit copyrighted live music to be performed. The owner is applying for the license (we're going to reimburse her for the cost of it), but bmi reminds me of organized crime with its "if you don't give us money, we're going to get you into trouble" tactics. My theory, which may also apply to the pressure some in the music business are putting on youtube, is that with mp3s and digital copying, it's harder to make money in the music industry and some people in it are exploiting rights they're entitled to but haven't previously bothered to enforce. In my case,the cafe owner isn't the bad guy, and i'm not sure youtube is the bad guy either. I think they're both just protecting their own interests from threats made against them.

infuriating, how petty!

electrauke
04-03-2013, 04:19 PM
I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if not for the most recent changes in US copyright law, enacted a few years ago. What they did was completely bizarre and illustrates that our so-called government was firmly in the pockets of the corporations. What they did...and I know this sounds crazy but you can check it out...they authorized ASCAP, BMI, etc. to collect royalties even if the copyright owner cannot be identified or contacted. They are then supposed to make a "good faith effort" to identify, contact, and pay the copyright holder but if that fails they get to keep the money. Neat, huh!

Let's say you publish an original on YouTube and somebody else copies it and so on...these companies can now file a claim and try to collect royalties from others who use the song...and all they have to do is make a "good faith" effort to identify you as the copyright holder, contact you, and pay you the royalties collected. Yeah...right...guess how often that happens. I've never once heard of ASCAP, BMI, etc. contacting someone to say, "gee, do you own the copyright on this song? We've got some money for you..."

It was also just after this law was signed that the bogus claims against traditional songs and originals and so on started spiking...I can't imagine why...oh...wait...maybe it's because if they can get a "Matches copyright" on as many YouTube videos as they can and monetize them it's easy money.

We definitely have the best government money can buy...

John

Wow, that is crazy, what a scam.

Brad Bordessa
04-03-2013, 04:37 PM
I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if not for the most recent changes in US copyright law, enacted a few years ago. What they did was completely bizarre and illustrates that our so-called government was firmly in the pockets of the corporations. What they did...and I know this sounds crazy but you can check it out...they authorized ASCAP, BMI, etc. to collect royalties even if the copyright owner cannot be identified or contacted. They are then supposed to make a "good faith effort" to identify, contact, and pay the copyright holder but if that fails they get to keep the money. Neat, huh!

Let's say you publish an original on YouTube and somebody else copies it and so on...these companies can now file a claim and try to collect royalties from others who use the song...and all they have to do is make a "good faith" effort to identify you as the copyright holder, contact you, and pay you the royalties collected. Yeah...right...guess how often that happens. I've never once heard of ASCAP, BMI, etc. contacting someone to say, "gee, do you own the copyright on this song? We've got some money for you..."

It was also just after this law was signed that the bogus claims against traditional songs and originals and so on started spiking...I can't imagine why...oh...wait...maybe it's because if they can get a "Matches copyright" on as many YouTube videos as they can and monetize them it's easy money.

We definitely have the best government money can buy...

John

Wow. That's disappointing. Hooray for supporting music.

Stackabones
04-04-2013, 04:15 AM
The simple solution is to post only Grateful Dead songs. They not only don't mind, they encourage covers of their tunes and reward the best ones.


http://www.dead.net/dead-covers-project



Scooter

Though the Dead played "Beat It On Down The Line," it isn't a "Dead" tune. It's by Jesse Fuller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlLqVIB3M7s

So ... it's okay to cover tunes that the Dead covered. ;)

Macmuse
04-04-2013, 05:38 AM
So ... it's okay to cover tunes that the Dead covered. ;)

How about all the others who covered a ton of stuff that came well before they or their bands hit fame? (like: Zeppelin (a bunch of blues stuff - to quote Wikipedia: The material on the first two albums was largely constructed out of extended jams of blues standards), Foghat (Muddy Waters stuff), etc... )

Stackabones
04-04-2013, 06:43 AM
How about all the others who covered a ton of stuff that came well before they or their bands hit fame? (like: Zeppelin (a bunch of blues stuff - to quote Wikipedia: The material on the first two albums was largely constructed out of extended jams of blues standards), Foghat (Muddy Waters stuff), etc... )

My comment was snarky and not intended as legal advice! :cool:

I think the Dead, Led Zep, etc follow the old adage: Good artists borrow, great artists steal.

Macmuse
04-04-2013, 06:46 AM
My comment was snarky and not intended as legal advice! :cool:

I think the Dead, Led Zep, etc follow the old adage: Good artists borrow, great artists steal.

Hahaha. Very true.

This is why the "legalities" swirling around some of this is just mind boggling these days. I'm quite sad at times that many people have no clue as to the origin of a work ... they only know of them once someone becomes famous and is known for their version of it. :\

23skidoo
04-04-2013, 07:20 AM
From what I understand, all of the YouTube copyright enforcement flags are based on an automated screening system that analyzes the audio and video looking for similarities to known copy-written material.... it's the same software that commercial CD and DVD duplication companies use to make sure that new album from a local band they're pressing 10,000 copies of isn't going to stick them with 10,000 cases of copyright infringement. When posting a cover on YT, trying to be clever by changing the title, adding a disclaimer in the information, etc. does absolutely no good - if it's picked up by the automated screening, it's going to get flagged. Some acts like the Eagles and Jimi Hendrix seem to intermittently stomp on people for putting up covers of their material, but there are plenty of Hendrix and Eagles coversout there - go figure. I always put the full title and artist's name (along with the word 'cover') in my video titles and I've never had a 'strike' on my YT channel, though I've gotten lots of those 'matched third party content' notices.... most publishers are pretty pragmatic about it and would rather put an advertising link on your video than make you delete it.

As far as general copyright protection goes - as Brad pointed out, it's great for the smaller acts out there.... even if they're a little creepy and heavyhanded about it, I think it does more good than harm. There are a lot more average joe musicians out there than rock stars and they're the ones who really benefit from it, I think.

23skidoo
04-04-2013, 07:26 AM
So electrauke - I wouldn't worry about it - put up what you want. You get three 'strikes' before they close your channel. Just make sure you keep a back up of all the videos you might want to repost in case your channel disappears or you accidentally delete it.

philpot
04-04-2013, 08:42 AM
I have a lot of "matched third party content," but nothing has ever come out of it. I had one flagged and they told me to take it down, I contested it and copy/pasted the entire "fair use" law into the comment box. The flag went away. The video is still up. Don't worry too much about it.

glass
04-04-2013, 08:45 AM
...snip... your channel disappears or you accidentally delete it.

who would do that.........;)

Raygf
04-04-2013, 09:12 AM
who would do that.........;)

It can happen when folks delete a Google account. I know of two people that it has happened to. All it takes is one wrong click.

electrauke
04-04-2013, 10:44 AM
It can happen when folks delete a Google account. I know of two people that it has happened to. All it takes is one wrong click.

Yep, that is what happened to Eugene Ukulele.

austin1
04-04-2013, 10:57 AM
I have a lot of "matched third party content," but nothing has ever come out of it. I had one flagged and they told me to take it down, I contested it and copy/pasted the entire "fair use" law into the comment box. The flag went away. The video is still up. Don't worry too much about it.

I have one matched third party content video, but as it's an unlisted video and as all of about 7 views, I'm fairly certain money is not being made off it.

Can I be the first to say that Youtube in Germany is the devil? They block everything.

mm stan
04-04-2013, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=ScooterD35;1232073]The simple solution is to post only Grateful Dead songs. They not only don't mind, they encourage covers of their tunes and reward the best ones.


http://www.dead.net/dead-covers-project



http://youtu.be/hNc8Hqo7yXI
Oh boy.....I'm a Scooter Fan now.....wow wow :)

electrauke
04-04-2013, 12:34 PM
[QUOTE=ScooterD35;1232073]The simple solution is to post only Grateful Dead songs. They not only don't mind, they encourage covers of their tunes and reward the best ones.


http://www.dead.net/dead-covers-project



http://youtu.be/hNc8Hqo7yXI
Oh boy.....I'm a Scooter Fan now.....wow wow :)


I am too. Awesome video, I subscribed.

PeteyHoudini
04-04-2013, 12:46 PM
I've taken to mentioning right in my description when a song is an original (in which case I also include a copyright notice) or a public-domain traditional song. Since I've been doing that I haven't had any more bogus claims against my stuff.

I do the same. I've only had one 'matched third party content' claim against my channel and it was for "We Three Kings" that is from the 1800s. I was surprised to see it, I contested, and it was removed.

When I started doing uke vids back in 2009, I wanted to do covers of my favourite quirky songs. However, I was just learning the uke and learning covers took a long, long time. I was also aware of potential copyright issues and I did not want to waste my time learning a song that might be taken down. Especially, when I was a beginner! I did do a few covers but I got afraid as a virtual member of the German ukulele club and the German YouTube started blocking tons of songs. So, I got afraid early on and I deleted my covers and started doing folk songs and writing my own. I wasn't really in the mood to write new songs since I had only written a handful since my 20s.

I had lived through the early days of Napster so I was now stuck with writing my own songs. That was never my best course of action, but I can only see this getting worse.

I've always said there should be a way to pay 99 cents so you can upload your cover (if from an approved list of available covers). That would generate revenue and avoid legal issues.

Petey

electrauke
04-04-2013, 02:42 PM
I do the same. I've only had one 'matched third party content' claim against my channel and it was for "We Three Kings" that is from the 1800s. I was surprised to see it, I contested, and it was removed.

When I started doing uke vids back in 2009, I wanted to do covers of my favourite quirky songs. However, I was just learning the uke and learning covers took a long, long time. I was also aware of potential copyright issues and I did not want to waste my time learning a song that might be taken down. Especially, when I was a beginner! I did do a few covers but I got afraid as a virtual member of the German ukulele club and the German YouTube started blocking tons of songs. So, I got afraid early on and I deleted my covers and started doing folk songs and writing my own. I wasn't really in the mood to write new songs since I had only written a handful since my 20s.

I had lived through the early days of Napster so I was now stuck with writing my own songs. That was never my best course of action, but I can only see this getting worse.

I've always said there should be a way to pay 99 cents so you can upload your cover (if from an approved list of available covers). That would generate revenue and avoid legal issues.

Petey

That would be a great idea.

PeteyHoudini
04-04-2013, 03:14 PM
That would be a great idea.
Yes, it could be a kind of micro short-lived license, only available for the life of the uploaded video cover for a limited period of time (i.e every 2 years subject to renewal, etc.). That makes real sense. When musician/uploaders know what they should do for a buck to two, it would work.

It's so easy to come up with a profitable model like that and the copyright holders just need to make a deal with YouTube and create a list of approved covers.

cheerio!

Petey

electrauke
04-04-2013, 06:15 PM
Yes, it could be a kind of micro short-lived license, only available for the life of the uploaded video cover for a limited period of time (i.e every 2 years subject to renewal, etc.). That makes real sense. When musician/uploaders know what they should do for a buck to two, it would work.

It's so easy to come up with a profitable model like that and the copyright holders just need to make a deal with YouTube and create a list of approved covers.

cheerio!

Petey

Exactly, this should be implemented, I would be willing to pay.