To Contest Holders

CountryMouse

CountryMouse

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
80
Location
Loveland, OH, USA
Please don't ask people to do songs that are later than 1922 or otherwise copyrighted material, unless it's their own original works. This is just asking people to make videos that will jeopardize their YouTube accounts or wherever else they might upload their videos.

Thanks.

Mousie
 
There have been many contests held with 100+ entries, all covers with no issues that I can recall... Most of us post covers of our own accord regardless of contests. If someone chooses to participate in a contest knowing that YouTube sometimes gives grief over covers of songs (Ridiculous, considering some of the most popular YouTube channels consist of ALL covers), that's their choice.
 
Songs after 1922 can be covered.

It is important to understand Fair Use and how it relates to music and YouTube.

Here are sites I have found helpful.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

There are four basic tests used to determine if copyrighted work can be used under the protection of Fair Use.

This site offers a good summation of those tests.

http://socialtimes.com/fair-use-youtube_b61891

So here's the thing. Most songs are originally intended as either entertainment, art, or biography.

So if your recording doesn't change the nature of the work, then you're in trouble.

But by TRANSFORMING the nature of the work into something else such as educational is covered as fair use.

So I highly encourage everyone to describe the transformational nature of their videos in the video itself AND in the video info.

Another easy way to stay off Youtube's radar is to NOT put the song name and artist in the video's title. Put something like Ukulele Underground Cool Cat Contest as the title.

Hope this helps.
 
After having 163 entries for my last contest, all covers BTW, I see the "laws" as total crap. By doing it I am asking people to "Break the law" to prove a point. No law shall be created that can not be enforced. If people are making money on it, sure, shut them down, but screw the system for trying to stop people from making music. Honestly the recording industry has too much power and the more we decent the more likely they are to get the message.
The song writer, singer, or bands are not sending the notices, it is the greedy record companies that are too slow to realize that the market has changed and that all of us that play and record the music do it for the love and are really showing our apriciation for it.
 
itsscottwilder said:
Songs after 1922 can be covered.

It is important to understand Fair Use and how it relates to music and YouTube.

Here are sites I have found helpful.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

There are four basic tests used to determine if copyrighted work can be used under the protection of Fair Use.

This site offers a good summation of those tests.

http://socialtimes.com/fair-use-youtube_b61891

So here's the thing. Most songs are originally intended as either entertainment, art, or biography.

So if your recording doesn't change the nature of the work, then you're in trouble.

But by TRANSFORMING the nature of the work into something else such as educational is covered as fair use.

So I highly encourage everyone to describe the transformational nature of their videos in the video itself AND in the video info.

Another easy way to stay off Youtube's radar is to NOT put the song name and artist in the video's title. Put something like Ukulele Underground Cool Cat Contest as the title.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the useful information. :)

Mousie
 
ukeeku said:
After having 163 entries for my last contest, all covers BTW, I see the "laws" as total crap. By doing it I am asking people to "Break the law" to prove a point. No law shall be created that can not be enforced. If people are making money on it, sure, shut them down, but screw the system for trying to stop people from making music. Honestly the recording industry has too much power and the more we decent the more likely they are to get the message.
The song writer, singer, or bands are not sending the notices, it is the greedy record companies that are too slow to realize that the market has changed and that all of us that play and record the music do it for the love and are really showing our apriciation for it.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, getting one's videos flagged and eventually losing one's channel and all the videos is the upshot. I'll just quote a song that I'm NOT going to do, as it's not within the "safe" time frame: "I stood for the union, I walked in the line, fought against the company. I stood for the UMW of A, now who's gonna stand for me?" ("Coal Tattoo") In other words, who's gonna help us out when they "come for us"? You? Are there really enough of us to fight them? Or do we have enough money to fight them in the courts?

Mousie
 
Every cover on You Tube of copyrighted material is there 'illegally' - unless you have permission from the copyright holder. It's up to the owner - not YouTube - to enforce their copyright. This obviously doesn't happen very often, but it is their right - it's their intellectual property.

I've had a couple of videos flagged - instead of removing the video, they 'monetized' the page, placing an add to the original artist on the video page. This is a win-win situation.

I've also had several videos fraudulently flagged by a group calling itself the "Music Copyright Collection Society". This is a scam - they're just trying to place adds on the video page to generate revenue. I've used the YouTube dispute process to have these third-party content matches removed - it's quick and easy.
 
23skidoo said:
Every cover on You Tube of copyrighted material is there 'illegally' - unless you have permission from the copyright holder. It's up to the owner - not YouTube - to enforce their copyright. This obviously doesn't happen very often, but it is their right - it's their intellectual property.

I've had a couple of videos flagged - instead of removing the video, they 'monetized' the page, placing an add to the original artist on the video page. This is a win-win situation.

I've also had several videos fraudulently flagged by a group calling itself the "Music Copyright Collection Society". This is a scam - they're just trying to place adds on the video page to generate revenue. I've used the YouTube dispute process to have these third-party content matches removed - it's quick and easy.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm going to put back the videos that were flagged. I'm hoping for ads and not worse. How did you dispute the "Music Copyright Collection Society" stuff? And by the way, there is a very little box to write in, on the dispute page. How can you have more room? I contested the flagging of "Flight of the Bumble Bee" (written in 1899 by Rimsky-Korsakov).

Mousie
 
There is a bunch of good threads on this forum about the recen YouTube upheaval.
I have a couple of submissions with MATCHED content, YouTube states that they might attach ads to these vids and remunerate the copyright owners. We realy need to make a distinction between covers for fun and blatant violation by uploading movies/shows or other originals.
 
chrimess said:
There is a bunch of good threads on this forum about the recen YouTube upheaval.
I have a couple of submissions with MATCHED content, YouTube states that they might attach ads to these vids and remunerate the copyright owners. We realy need to make a distinction between covers for fun and blatant violation by uploading movies/shows or other originals.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the recent threads about YouTube, only the ones back in early 2010. Could you please point the way?

I'm making a separate channel for anything that's questionable. My main channel will contain only my originals, anything before 1922, and covers of friends' songs. On the secondary channel, I'm going to put back the ones that might get ads on them.

Thanks!

Mousie
 
This link garyg posted on the Main Forum Board just last Saturday covers the subject pretty well.

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id

Having a video flagged as "Contains copyrighted material" does not mean you are in trouble or about to be banned by YouTube. If YouTube thought that video was unacceptable, they would have just deleted it rather than flagging it. It just means a recognition software they use identified it as a copyrighted song. Having a song flagged that way does not count as one of your three strikes before your YouTube account is deleted.
 
uke4ia said:
This link garyg posted on the Main Forum Board just last Saturday covers the subject pretty well.

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id

Having a video flagged as "Contains copyrighted material" does not mean you are in trouble or about to be banned by YouTube. If YouTube thought that video was unacceptable, they would have just deleted it rather than flagging it. It just means a recognition software they use identified it as a copyrighted song. Having a song flagged that way does not count as one of your three strikes before your YouTube account is deleted.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks so much! :)

Mousie
 
as a youtbe channel holder, you are very unlikely to incur anyone's wrath if you are careful. That is, draw attention to the fact that it is a cover in the title and state who the original artist is. Or, alternatively, as Scott said, don't say anything at all.

Intellectual property is intellectual property fullstop. Anyone who flouts this law is asking for it and should not complain if a song is removed or a channel terminated as a consequence of doing something which is illegal - however we might disagree with such a law.

To simply throw one's hands up in the air and say "well I'm not making any money put of it" is a cop-out in my book. You are, by definition stealing someone else's property. If my channel were to be shut down tomorrow I would have to wear it and there is every reason it should or could be as I have covered many many songs withoput permission.

I have an added interest in these matters as, several years ago, a friend of mine with whom I used to perform in an acoustic duo, put out a solo record. On the record he included a cover of one of my original songs. He did not ask me if this was OK and I only found out when the album had been released. My nose was sure out of joint...he wasn't a superstar and I never took it anywhere, but it was the principle of the matter...it was MY SONG and he recorded it on his record without asking me. This was when the issue of copyright and intellectual ownership started to mean something to me. So, as someone who now does lots of youtube covers I well realise I am on shaky ground and fully prepared to face whatever consequences may arise.

The backyard argument of 'I'm not making anything out of it' just doesn't hold water with me...you must be promoting something...your own ego, sense of self-esteem, musical ability, desire to share...something...or you wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Just my 2cents
 
eugene ukulele said:
as a youtbe channel holder, you are very unlikely to incur anyone's wrath if you are careful. That is, draw attention to the fact that it is a cover in the title and state who the original artist is. Or, alternatively, as Scott said, don't say anything at all.

Intellectual property is intellectual property fullstop. Anyone who flouts this law is asking for it and should not complain if a song is removed or a channel terminated as a consequence of doing something which is illegal - however we might disagree with such a law.

To simply throw one's hands up in the air and say "well I'm not making any money put of it" is a cop-out in my book. You are, by definition stealing someone else's property. If my channel were to be shut down tomorrow I would have to wear it and there is every reason it should or could be as I have covered many many songs withoput permission.

I have an added interest in these matters as, several years ago, a friend of mine with whom I used to perform in an acoustic duo, put out a solo record. On the record he included a cover of one of my original songs. He did not ask me if this was OK and I only found out when the album had been released. My nose was sure out of joint...he wasn't a superstar and I never took it anywhere, but it was the principle of the matter...it was MY SONG and he recorded it on his record without asking me. This was when the issue of copyright and intellectual ownership started to mean something to me. So, as someone who now does lots of youtube covers I well realise I am on shaky ground and fully prepared to face whatever consequences may arise.

The backyard argument of 'I'm not making anything out of it' just doesn't hold water with me...you must be promoting something...your own ego, sense of self-esteem, musical ability, desire to share...something...or you wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Just my 2cents
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's the music companies who never actually did a lick of work on the "rights" they hold that just want money. It's not about art to them. It's about money.

Mousie
 
CountryMouse said:
It's the music companies who never actually did a lick of work on the "rights" they hold that just want money. It's not about art to them. It's about money.

Mousie
Click to expand...

Mousie - I used to think the same thing, but then realized that the people whose rights they are protecting are mostly normal people - there aren't a whole lot of superstars out there. Most copyright holders being protected by ASCAP and BMI are small. independent artists - and they deserved to be compensated for the use of their property. Sure, the big companies are in it to make a buck, but the principle is valid, I think. Like most laws, I always consider how it effects the little guy - in this case, I think it's a good thing, helping to allow small artists to actually make a little money.

That being said - what we do here should be permissible and, for the most part, it is.

Regarding a dispute - I just clicked on the link on the 'Third Party Content' match page that said something about 'Dispute this claim' or some such. It was pretty straightforward, although there wasn't really an option for 'The person claiming the match isn't the actual copyright holder' - I just picked whichever option seemed closest and described briefly (yes, the box is tiny) that they weren't, in fact, the holders. The 'match' on my video manager disappeared immediately and I've never heard a word since. This happened several times and I've never had an issue.
 
23skidoo said:
Mousie - I used to think the same thing, but then realized that the people whose rights they are protecting are mostly normal people - there aren't a whole lot of superstars out there. Most copyright holders being protected by ASCAP and BMI are small. independent artists - and they deserved to be compensated for the use of their property. Sure, the big companies are in it to make a buck, but the principle is valid, I think. Like most laws, I always consider how it effects the little guy - in this case, I think it's a good thing, helping to allow small artists to actually make a little money.

That being said - what we do here should be permissible and, for the most part, it is.

Regarding a dispute - I just clicked on the link on the 'Third Party Content' match page that said something about 'Dispute this claim' or some such. It was pretty straightforward, although there wasn't really an option for 'The person claiming the match isn't the actual copyright holder' - I just picked whichever option seemed closest and described briefly (yes, the box is tiny) that they weren't, in fact, the holders. The 'match' on my video manager disappeared immediately and I've never heard a word since. This happened several times and I've never had an issue.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining things, and thank you VERY much for the information on how to dispute that particular collection agency!

Mousie
 
eugene ukulele said:
I have an added interest in these matters as, several years ago, a friend of mine with whom I used to perform in an acoustic duo, put out a solo record. On the record he included a cover of one of my original songs. He did not ask me if this was OK and I only found out when the album had been released. My nose was sure out of joint...he wasn't a superstar and I never took it anywhere, but it was the principle of the matter...it was MY SONG and he recorded it on his record without asking me. This was when the issue of copyright and intellectual ownership started to mean something to me. So, as someone who now does lots of youtube covers I well realise I am on shaky ground and fully prepared to face whatever consequences may arise.
Click to expand...

I had a similar situation - I played with a woman very casually several years ago, and with another friend as well. My friend and I were much better musicians than her, but she could really sing. She would bring original tunes in and we would rework them - lyrics, music, arrangements, even retitling them. She later released a self-produced CD with a few of the tunes on it - no credit to me or my buddy. Like you, I didn't really worry about - kind of thought it was funny, actually.....

And I agree - we should all be making these YouTube covers knowing full well what we're doing. I always include the original artist and the word 'cover' in my video titles and in the tags. I may be inviting catastrophe by doing this, but I sleep better......
 
I use Flickr if I want some photos to go with an old song. You can pick up
quite good photos if you trawl through the commons. However people do get
touchy if you use their photos without permission.

I well remember a case a few years ago where a woman who had uploaded
some old photos of her father had found out that they had been used without
her permission in a project that had glorified war, and she strongly felt that
this was a dishonour to her fathers name.

And I think that is quite relevant to music as well. Musicians often reinterpret
songs to fit their own style, and it may not sit very well with the original
creator of the music.

Recently I was asked if some youtube music I had made could be used as
a soundtrack for a student movie. There was a long exchange of emails with
me trying to find out the precise nature of the project, because I did not want
the music I had created to be used for something that I might morally object to.
Since lending your music is often seen as an endorsement.

There are many artists out there who will not allow their music to be associated
with certain products even though the deal might be quite lucrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UkingViking
Ukulele contest: For Your Ears Only!
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
chris667
chris667
therealsimon
Next UU contest?
Replies
7
Views
310
UkingViking
UkingViking
D
12th Street Rag student contest entry
Replies
0
Views
126
DJ Mango
D
kissing
Csardas - instrumental - I performed this at a talent contest
Replies
4
Views
176
kissing
kissing
joo
John Prine song contest
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
4K
Eggs_n_Ham
Eggs_n_Ham
Top Bottom