Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: I got a little warning on YouTube

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    11,334

    Default

    Here's some info straight from YouTube:

    Quote Originally Posted by George from YouTube
    These are claims to musical compositions made on behalf of Collecting Societies which represent music publishers in certain territories.

    YouTube has agreements in place with various CSs around the world that license the public performance of musical compositions embodied in YT videos. This includes musical compositions that are prominently featured as well as incidental background music.

    For the most part, the composition claims do not create a conflict but rather represent an additional rights holder in certain territories.

    To clear up a major misconception, the claims are made on behalf of the composer/writer by an entity that controls the publisher rights.

    For instance, in the US, Warner Chappel could claim a cover of the song "Vogue" for any YouTube performance on behalf of the writers Shep Pettibone and Madonna.

    In the Australia the claim could be made by APRA. APRA is a Collecting Society.

    Almost none of these claims will block videos, but ultimately that's up to the publisher to decide.

    We always strive to do better at YouTube. We will try to monitor any possible overclaiming, especially for music that may be in the public domain.

    George
    The best information that I could dig up comes from rewboss, a German YouTuber:

    Quote Originally Posted by rewboss
    THIS IS NOT A SINGLE ORGANISATION. IT IS A GENERIC TERM FOR ALL COLLECTING SOCIETIES.

    A Collecting Society is an organisation which collects royalties on behalf of artists and performers. They are not content owners.

    Organisations like ASCAP, BMI, GEMA, PRS and so on are collecting societies.

    This is related to copyright, but isn't the same thing: we're talking here about performance and broadcasting rights. Basically, if you publicly perform or broadcast any music or virtually any sort, some sort of fee has to be paid. The exact rules vary from country to country, and very often royalties are payable on performances you wouldn't expect, sometimes even things that you would think were public domain. Quite often, even the composers and performers don't have much say in the matter and local collecting societies are authorized to collect fees for pretty much every public performance even if the artists don't see a penny of it. Sometimes it can get ludicrous: in Britain, one shopkeeper was once threatened with a massive fine because she would sing while she was working and this was deemed a public performance (the PRS backed down eventually).

    Here's the important thing to understand, and why this is a case of "bad messaging": Whatever it looks like YOU ARE NOT BEING ACCUSED OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. You are not being accused of anything. What this is is a notification that certain collecting societies are receiving royalties for broadcasts of your video.

    How do these societies collect royalties? Two possible ways:

    1. a "per performance" fee; or
    2. a flat rate licence.

    Here's the next thing to understand: THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES IS NOT YOUR CONCERN. If you have a live band and you perform at a concert hall, the concert hall will usually be licenced for any public performances of music. You don't need to worry: the organisers of the concert hall pay several thousand dollars per year for this licence (and part of the cost of booking the venue goes to pay for the licence), so it's taken care of.

    It's the same on YouTube: You don't need to worry about getting a broadcasting licence, because YouTube has taken care of that on your behalf.

    It may be that some collecting societies might want to be paid on a "per view" basis. If that's the case, then they would need to track videos that use content on which royalties are payable. As I understand it, then, this is just formal notification that your video is being tracked for the purposes of royalty payments.
    I have also read about other cases in which the notice was dropped and the ads were removed upon filing the Dispute Claim Form, sometimes within seconds.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Loveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveVisi View Post
    Parody is covered, but I doubt covering someone else's parody is. This is your own creation, right? Except for the title which could be imagined by anyone with even a small amount of brain cells, there's nothing else that links you to his song, right?

    I'd say you're safe doing nothing, as long as you don't mind them advertising someone else's song over yours. Otherwise if you wanted to push it you might be able to prove "independent creation" and that yours and his has nothing in common. Probably not worth pursuing though...
    This is my own creation (lyrics--the melody is an old hymn-tune written in the mid-1800's)--I still have no idea what is in Nick Cave's song or what it sounds like--first I heard of it was in this thread today.

    Still scared, though.

    CountryMouse
    Flukes: Island Design custom; Red Cowboy | Fleas: Denim concert; Grape soprano | Enterline CBU #7
    Lanikais: LB6-S banjolele; LU-21 | Eleuke Mahogany | aNueNue U900 pineapple | Luna Great Wave pineapple
    Kalas: Purple Paisley Ukadelic; Watermelon | Red Hilo soprano | Dolphins: Pearl White; Pink Burst; Green Burst;
    Blue Metallic | Mahalos: Blue Tr Fruit; Smiley Face; Hearts; Black Les Paul | Tom Pocket Uke | Plastic: Woodi; TV Pal

    Twitter | Blog | Facebook | YouTube | YouTube Too

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Loveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeso View Post
    Here's some info straight from YouTube:
    (snip)
    The best information that I could dig up comes from rewboss, a German YouTuber:
    (snip)
    I have also read about other cases in which the notice was dropped and the ads were removed upon filing the Dispute Claim Form, sometimes within seconds.
    This is what YouTube says about information about the dispute process:

    "There are very few valid reasons for disputing a claim. Please review the information below, because submitting an invalid dispute could result in penalties against your account."

    That's why I am very very reluctant to file a dispute claim.

    CountryMouse
    Flukes: Island Design custom; Red Cowboy | Fleas: Denim concert; Grape soprano | Enterline CBU #7
    Lanikais: LB6-S banjolele; LU-21 | Eleuke Mahogany | aNueNue U900 pineapple | Luna Great Wave pineapple
    Kalas: Purple Paisley Ukadelic; Watermelon | Red Hilo soprano | Dolphins: Pearl White; Pink Burst; Green Burst;
    Blue Metallic | Mahalos: Blue Tr Fruit; Smiley Face; Hearts; Black Les Paul | Tom Pocket Uke | Plastic: Woodi; TV Pal

    Twitter | Blog | Facebook | YouTube | YouTube Too

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Smyrna, Georgia
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Nothing to be scared about. Its not like they throw you in jail, or even sue you for money. How many gazillion YT channels and videos have we seen removed now? I think the key is to back up all your stuff and be ready to start a new channel if need be. That seems like what everyone else has done. I do note that Ken Middleton now seems to be getting permission for a lot of his stuff lately, but he has Ohana behind him, so maybe they helped.
    Last edited by SweetWaterBlue; 07-31-2010 at 09:46 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sandia Mountains, NM
    Posts
    12,651

    Default

    We had two YouTube videos that WMG claimed were violating their copyright. Neither were music vids, just cool islandy stuff. The audio was ambient noise (no music AT ALL) and I added a bit from the sound effects that came with our iMovie software. Absolutely nothing in it was owned by WMG.

    YT removed the audio from them and sent us the notice. For months I didn't do anything (trying to stay under the radar), but eventually I decided to dispute it.

    The audio has been restored on those videos. I have no idea why they were tagged. We have dozens of covers on our channel and not peep about them.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    140

    Default

    It's your own fault. You should have known better.

    People who feel the need to express themselves creatively need to take one and/or the other of two options to avoid this kind of hassling:

    The first is, stop making art that has material that containing any influences or precedent. Hymn parodies?--Heard it. Beach noises?--Clearly copyrighted (Perhaps Public Domain--See option 2). Ukuleles being plucked, strummed or bowed?--Try thinking outside the box.

    The second option is to put a copyright lawyer on retainer and meet regularly. Especially when you are creating! Then you will know potential costs, necessary contract negotiations or if it is even feasible to express yourself in any particular instance.

    Option one is the cheaper option, but if used in combination with option two will (hopefully) keep you in the clear.

    I hope this helps.

    Yer Luvin',
    --Troy
    Chicago, IL USA

    PS--Welcome to the 21st century.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    11,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheekmeat View Post
    It's your own fault. You should have known better.

    People who feel the need to express themselves creatively need to take one and/or the other of two options to avoid this kind of hassling:

    The first is, stop making art that has material that containing any influences or precedent. Hymn parodies?--Heard it. Beach noises?--Clearly copyrighted (Perhaps Public Domain--See option 2). Ukuleles being plucked, strummed or bowed?--Try thinking outside the box.

    The second option is to put a copyright lawyer on retainer and meet regularly. Especially when you are creating! Then you will know potential costs, necessary contract negotiations or if it is even feasible to express yourself in any particular instance.

    Option one is the cheaper option, but if used in combination with option two will (hopefully) keep you in the clear.

    I hope this helps.

    Yer Luvin',
    --Troy
    Chicago, IL USA

    PS--Welcome to the 21st century.
    You're clearly being sarcastic, but your tone is coming across as mean. It's unjustified and unneeded.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    347

    Default

    ok, normally, i keep out of these discussions because i haven't done any covers on YT, but you never know, i may. the thing i don't understand is that the person from germany says "It's the same on YouTube: You don't need to worry about getting a broadcasting licence, because YouTube has taken care of that on your behalf", but people have videos taken down for copyright infringement. if what the german person said was true, this shouldn't be an issue because royalties from covers would be paid for by YT, right? am i totally wrong on this?
    Kani ke ō, he ihona pali
    Jason - the 'ukulele playing bassoonist punk!!

    Oscar Schmidt OU-4 Tenor 四弦 shigen
    Lanikai LU-8 Tenor 八弦 hagen
    EleUke Cutaway Jazz Concert 電弦 dengen
    1968ish Beltone Soprano 旧弦 kyuugen
    1950ish Dixie Banjo Uke 芋弦 imogen
    Makala Dolphin Red burst 赤弦 akagen --my son's uke

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    11,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arashi_nero View Post
    ok, normally, i keep out of these discussions because i haven't done any covers on YT, but you never know, i may. the thing i don't understand is that the person from germany says "It's the same on YouTube: You don't need to worry about getting a broadcasting licence, because YouTube has taken care of that on your behalf", but people have videos taken down for copyright infringement. if what the german person said was true, this shouldn't be an issue because royalties from covers would be paid for by YT, right? am i totally wrong on this?
    Royalties are paid by YT to the collection companies they have an agreement with, yes.

    It's pure speculation, but what I think you're seeing here is the beginnings of a new agreement with other collection companies. There was some other discussion by that German guy that went into this:

    You know how many videos are blocked from Germany? This is because YouTube and the German collecting society, GEMA, are in dispute over the terms of the licence. YouTube wants to pay a flat rate licence, GEMA wants YouTube to pay on a "per view" basis. GEMA says "per view" is fairer, YouTube says it's too expensive. Maybe, just maybe (and please please please don't quote me on this) this is the first sign that some compromise is being worked out? At least, I hope so.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    140

    Default

    I certainly did not mean to come off as mean to anyone except the RIAA, ASCAP et al, and the scaredy-cats at You-Tube hassling artists for no good reason. I apologize for coming on a little strong, but I am quite disgusted by the way people who express themselves are so often treated.

    I"ll watch it.

    Yer Luvin',
    --Troy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •