A member on this forum just send me Gary's reply, not sure why I feel the need to react but for the last time I will and then I"m out.

Gary was smart enough to leave a part of the conversation out so he can try to discredit me, the next part of that discussion he quoted was:

A particular song on songfreedoms site was only to be licensed once and exclusively with Songfreedom, later I found out that was not the case, the song had to be licensed a second time here in Belgium with Sabam, the Belgian, music rights organisation.

Regarding these so called problems in Germany, that has not much to do with Songfreedom, there is a GEMA lawsuite which is about German music used on youtube where no royalties where paid for. Songfreedom also referred to GEMA when I asked why the song I planned to buy from them was not exclusively licensed with them only and I don't see the connection with Gema.

I"m not touching anything from Songfreedom for sure.

I also talked about this on 13 of Februari 2018 (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/534558-music-licensing-basics-help.html#post1941316) and said this:

I have had issues with songfreedom a few year back, in their database was a song from a known band that I heard playing on the radio, think it was 20 dollar or so I had to pay for unlimited use and I found that a bit hard to believe so I checked with Sabam, the Belgian Association of Authors, Composers and Publishers and they told me "no way" and if I wanted to use that song I had to pay additional licensing cost which would be a lot higher.

Songfreedom kept on saying however I had nothing to worry about until I showed them the reply from sabam and then they said it had to do with GEMA in Germany and restrictions for use on youtube but that had nothing to do with my problem as I was using it on vimeo.

Basically they lied to me and that was the last time I used music from them, now I use artlist.io and strictly stay on vimeo, so far so good.

So the exact same thing I have been saying here so far, only in less words, I think we know by now when Gary gets involved in a discussion it derails in no time with Chris having to clean up the mess, only I"m am not going play his games anymore, bye, bye.

What I quoted is what I believe illustrates the issue...that you thought “streaming rights” meant live-streaming, and you didn’t need that because you were just going to upload to YouTube.

The same thing happend to someone else I know.

But its not random. They typically takedown videos after the copyright holder files a complaint. The problem is they can file a load of them in one go and Vimeo has a 3 strikes policy. And the holder could file 20 in one go. Thats an instaban.

Im writing a blog article on this as last year we switched to using licenced music from songfreedom. We were worried what our couples would say but the've all understood that if they want it online forever, they need to toe the line.

Also, with this new EU law being debated the chances are we could all see our librarys or accounts being hit.

Here's what I've figured out so far.

1) Just because YouTube let you, doesn't mean you won't be sued.
So, you uploaded to youtube, the copyright holder has agreed to let you use it but with ads (or no ads) and you think "Great, permission granted and it cost me 99p on the iTunes store". NOPE! While they choose to take a cut of your ad revenue they can still sue you! It is not permission to use the song.

2) Vimeo doesn't scan songs?
NOPE! They do, its just not as aggressive as YouTube. They scan them and it is reported to the copyright holder. They can then decide what to do about it.

3) But my country has a thing I can buy that lets me...
Doesn't matter! Thats for your country and youtube, vimeo and all the other streaming platforms operate globally. The internet is global. Most of these regional licences don't cover global streaming.

4) The PRS in the UK said I could
Yeah, this is a bit of a joke. I've spoken to them on a number of occasions. Each time with a different answer. Some say you can if you buy the PPL. Some say your small enough to go un announced. Some admitted they didn't know. The PRS also only control a small part of the music industry and thats for the UK. Again, internet is global and Sony Music Europe is not the same as Sony Music Americas and even if one gives you permission it doesn't mean the other will abide by it. This is why getting global streaming rights can be so damn expensive. PRS in the UK are not ready for the internet... Still.

The only safe bet is to use the likes of Songfreedom or the Music Bed who all have great selections. It can be expensive with it being around $50 per song from music bed or $60 per month for a Songfreedom subscription. But if we all do it and price ourselves accordingly then it's a non issue.

We're removing all our non licenced stuff and moving to a 100% licenced library so when this EU article 13 thing kicks in or Vimeo goes on a mass purge we can still be operating while everyone else disappears from the internet.

1) Just because YouTube let you, doesn't mean you won't be sued.
So, you uploaded to youtube, the copyright holder has agreed to let you use it but with ads (or no ads) and you think "Great, permission granted and it cost me 99p on the iTunes store". NOPE! While they choose to take a cut of your ad revenue they can still sue you! It is not permission to use the song.
Care to provide some evidence for that? In the UK (& other jurisdictions) the courts would interpret acceptance of payment for use instead of requesting a take down as implicitly granting permission for use.

BTW AFAIK nobody has ever been sued in any country for posting a wedding video containing unlicensed copyright music on YouTube.

Care to provide some evidence for that? In the UK (& other jurisdictions) the courts would interpret acceptance of payment for use instead of requesting a take down as implicitly granting permission for use.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

BTW AFAIK nobody has ever been sued in any country for posting a wedding video containing unlicensed copyright music on YouTube.

Then you don't know very much about this issue, because Joe Simon was literally sued for $150,000.

Are you a practicing lawyer?No but lawyers don't have a monopoly on understanding of the law. When the rights owner accepts payment this legitimises the infringing use just as you don't commit theft if you take an item & the owner accepts your proffered payment.

Then you don't know very much about this issue, because Joe Simon was literally sued for $150,000.
Evidently I know more about the issue than you do. Joe Simon was not sued he was threatened by a lawyer & decided it was prudent to settle before it ever reached a court. The sum asked for was $150K but the sum actually paid was a "five figure sum". We don't know exactly how much as one of the conditions of the deal was that Joe Simon was not allowed to discuss the details. The case was also wholly exceptional as it was the wedding of a sports celebrity & the video went viral & involved a leading wedding videographer charging large fees.

I stand by my statement that AFAIK nobody has ever been sued for using unlicensed music on a wedding video.

https://daredreamermag.com/2011/12/07/the-music-licensing-chickens-have-come-home-to-roost-in-wedding-and-event-videography/

Joe Simon sued. I do believe Dave Robin (rest his soul) was also sued. With Dave he was allowed to keep his video online, the label took their ad revenue but he was still sent that lovely letter.

We all like to think "It won't happen to me" or "I'll get a notice first" but as Joe can testify you can very well just get that letter sent to your inbox demanding money.

What is more likely to happen is whats happened to poor James and Shoot it Yourself where you get a rapid fire list of breaches and loose your account. Now tell me, how damaging would that be to you? No more background web videos, no portfolio, no more online client vids?

And how many are looking to move to all digital delivery? What happens if that only digital copy goes offline? Move to another platform. How long will that last.

The days of letting the clients have any music they like is gone. It's no longer a selling point and even if you host it on your own web host that will come to an end. This EU Article 13 law makes all platforms liable for what gets uploaded and trying to avoid this with self hosting or other methods is just admitting to the fact were all doing something we shouldn't.

If you pitch it right to your clients its a non issue. It really is. Even if you pushed your services as letting the client choose their music you can re-spin it as a good thing.

No but lawyers don't have a monopoly on understanding of the law.

I'll take their advice over yours any day. They pay their bills by their "understanding of the law" and you don't, and you're probably not as savvy in law as you think you are, i.e. Dunning–Kruger.

Nobody got sued. Be realistic. In all this time one videographer got a nasty letter from a lawyer & one other may have had to give up the ad revenue. I don't have a dog in this fight any more but honestly it's ridiculous scaremongering to believe that anyone is going to get sued.

Having Vimeo delete your account is far more of a danger but as Vimeo offers little other than a nice customisable player & given their current attack on their customers they aren't going to stay in business much longer you shouldn't be hosting on Vimeo anyway.

The issue isn't just with deliberately incorporating an unlicensed piece of music as the soundtrack it's also any incidental or background music that could be infringing which until a couple of years ago included anyone singing "Happy Birthday To You"

If you really are worried then it's a simple matter to self host encrypted files.

I'll take their advice over yours any day. They pay their bills by their "understanding of the law" and you don't, and you're probably not as savvy in law as you think you are, i.e. Dunning–Kruger.
We have already established that I know more about the Joe Simon case than you & I don't need to indulge in gratuitous insults.

Nobody has ever been sued for using unlicensed music in a wedding video. What advice would a lawyer give? While in theory you could be sued for using unlicensed music in practice it has never happened so chances are very remote that it's ever going to happen although past performance is no indicator of future results.

If the rights holder accepts payment for the use of the copyright material on YouTube then they cannot pursue for any infringement as they just permitted that use. The rights holder has the option of accepting money or issuing a DMCA takedown. Accepting money for use on YouTube also diminishes potential damages that could be claimed for any other online use as the payment by YouTube is very small.

This is what you usually get when there is copyrighted material found:

---------------
You have 2 copyright claims on your video.

VIEWING RESTRICTIONS
Unavailable on some devices
MONETIZATION
Can't monetize video
If you agree with these conditions, you don't have to do anything.
--------------

Win-win situation, you can post your video and the right holder can monetize!

I would say that the highest probability of getting sued is if you self-host copyrighted material because unlike YouTube your have no contracts with the rights holders. Encrypting will make the case harder because the right holder could argue you intentionally tried to circumvent detection.

What advice would a lawyer give?

In Simon’s case, to clearly settle for a helluva lot more than a Songfreedom license would cost, despite Noa’s ignorant assertion that they are nothing more than “crooks”.

I use artlist.io

They have some beautiful music. The question is, will YouTube flag the videos for possible infringement? In other words, I have used SmartSound licensed music in the past, it gets flagged, I have to challenge the notice which I always win, but until the copyright holder withdraws the notice, it is played under appeal. Is it that way with artlist.io as well?

They have some beautiful music. The question is, will YouTube flag the videos for possible infringement? In other words, I have used SmartSound licensed music in the past, it gets flagged, I have to challenge the notice which I always win, but until the copyright holder withdraws the notice, it is played under appeal. Is it that way with artlist.io as well?

Yes, it is the way with all of them. I've had one video flagged on YouTube (I primarily use Vimeo), which wasn't even close to being the same track (a Digital Juice music track was flagged as being a track from a spoken word Christmas album), and it was the same process.

I have used SmartSound licensed music in the past, it gets flagged, I have to challenge the notice which I always win, but until the copyright holder withdraws the notice, it is played under appeal. Is it that way with artlist.io as well?
This is normal.

YouTube obviously cannot know if an individual channel owner has a license, it just 'Content ID's' it, there is no problem. There would be a problem if your dispute is rejected. But the whole dispute, appeal procedure is not between you and YouTube, it is between you and the rights holder. YouTube only does the content id check which it must legally do.

In my case any SmartSound music is ALWAYS flagged by YouTube and it's always "Getty Images" who make the claim ...if you look on SmartSound's website they have this advice for users on both Vimeo and YouTube
https://www.smartsound.com/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/10/my-video-with-smartsound-music-was-flagged-by-youtube-for-copyright-violation

However the really annoying thing is that the outcome is always in your favour if you contest the claim BUT that takes 30 days or more and during the 30 days is when most brides want to watch their wedding highlights!! During that period too.. various countries are excluded (mainly Germany) and even worse mobile/cell phones will not load the video during the "contested period" so most brides will try and watch on portable devices only to be disappointed! Considering the cost of Audio Pallets (some of mine were $99.00) it's really not worth even trying to use them.

Simple solution??? upload with no music and it won't get flagged. Poor alternative as most brides like to walk down the aisle to Ed Sheeran but there really is no alternative!! Even the Wedding March nowdays gets flagged as does "Happy Birthday"

If the rights holder accepts payment for the use of the copyright material on YouTube then they cannot pursue for any infringement as they just permitted that use. The rights holder has the option of accepting money or issuing a DMCA takedown. Accepting money for use on YouTube also diminishes potential damages that could be claimed for any other online use as the payment by YouTube is very small.

I don't think viewpoints like this are entirely accurate, and why we shouldn't be claiming to know copyright laws & practices. For instance, I doubt you can create an online commercial for a small local business, and use a Lady Gaga or Bruno Mars song in it.

Youtube likely has 'terms and agreements', deep within it are clauses and loopholes. Of which could be video's not intended to brand or promote ones business, which, in a way, wedding trailers and other demo videos could be perceived as. It was a long time ago, but remember the videographer who shot Tony Romo's wedding like 10 years ago, and used a Coldplay song. It went viral and he was sued.


Things like that. Sure you can create a video with your 4 year old daughter using a Taylor Swift song, but when you dabble in and venture into 'business promotion', I think Youtubes terms and copyright licensing likely changes. Just try not to speak in absolutes.

It was a long time ago, but remember the videographer who shot Tony Romo's wedding like 10 years ago, and used a Coldplay song. It went viral and he was sued.
Please don't keep perpetuating this myth. As I mentioned in earlier replies Joe Simon did not get sued. He received a nasty letter from a lawyer. It never went anywhere near a court. He though it prudent to settle for a "five figure sum".

Get a sense of proportion. The Joe Simon case was wholly exceptional. In all the years of YouTube no wedding videographer has ever been sued for using unlicensed music on a wedding video.

Please don't keep perpetuating this myth. As I mentioned in earlier replies Joe Simon did not get sued. He received a nasty letter from a lawyer. It never went anywhere near a court.

Which is why you shouldn't be offering legal advice, not being a lawyer or anything. Being sued does not automatically mean you go to court. Joe Simon settled. That's hard to do if you aren't sued.

Besides, in his own words, "I can’t discuss the details of the suit, but it is real. I did have a video that went viral, we had used a very popular song on it, someone saw it and brought it to the attention of the labels legal team and from there they came after us. Getting that letter in my inbox and as a fax was super scary. You always hear “they’ll just send you a cease and desist letter and you take it down” and I always thought that would be true. But the letter that came through and they wanted a lot of money for damages,it the tune of $150,000 for one song. If that didn’t scare you straight I don’t know what would. I spent the next month or so going back in forth with the label to reach a settlement, it was a huge stress on my business and my life and I would never wish this on anyone else. I can’t say what we settle for but it looked like this $XX,XXX , which is a LOT of money for a small business."

Which is why you shouldn't be offering legal advice, not being a lawyer or anything. Being sued does not automatically mean you go to court. Joe Simon settled. That's hard to do if you aren't sued.

Besides, in his own words, "I can’t discuss the details of the suit, but it is real. I did have a video that went viral, we had used a very popular song on it, someone saw it and brought it to the attention of the labels legal team and from there they came after us. Getting that letter in my inbox and as a fax was super scary. You always hear “they’ll just send you a cease and desist letter and you take it down” and I always thought that would be true. But the letter that came through and they wanted a lot of money for damages,it the tune of $150,000 for one song. If that didn’t scare you straight I don’t know what would. I spent the next month or so going back in forth with the label to reach a settlement, it was a huge stress on my business and my life and I would never wish this on anyone else. I can’t say what we settle for but it looked like this $XX,XXX , which is a LOT of money for a small business."

Joe Simon got what we in the UK would call a Letter Before Claim which said if you don't pay up we will take you to court. Whether he would have been taken to court or not is pure conjecture as he decided to settle for a fraction of the $150K demanded.

It's clutching at straws to cite this one instance of a wedding videographer receiving a LBC for using unlicensed music in a wedding video as meaning that it's a real risk for other wedding videographers. Where are all the other cases? If the record labels & rights holders are so keen to sue why aren't they issuing DMCA takedowns for all those thousands of other wedding videos on YouTube?

Joe Simon got what we in the UK would call a Letter Before Claim

Joe Simon doesn't live in the U.K., Nigel.

On the Wedding Film Academy Facebook group, there were some other recent accounts of big time, long running wedding film makers having their vimeo accounts deleted for the same. Thousands of videos gone and it's only just getting started it seems.

Online is quickly not becoming a way to share videos with clients.... at least with Vimeo.

Joe Simon doesn't live in the U.K., Nigel.

No shit Sherlock! WTF does that have to do with the price of fish?

In the UK an LBC is also sometimes referred to as a "Letter Before Action" or LBA I wasn't sure of the equivalent US term but some Googling leads me believe it to be a "demand letter" or "letter of demand". In any case it's a letter from a lawyer demanding money & threatening legal action if the recipient doesn't settle. Whatever you call it this is NOT a court claim it's threatening court if the recipient doesn't settle but of course it's often a load of bluff & bluster that will either never be taken to court or would not succeed if a court case were initiated.

Your law degree from Google Law is worthless and your opinions on legal matters should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

'Being sued' is a general expression used to define any claim for damages regardless of court action. However it's just that, an expression. A lawsuit, ie legally being sued requires something to be filed with a Court of Law. Unless done in this singular instance of a Videographer being pursued for money in relations to copyright music, then legally he was not being sued.

However whether it's sued or not, makes no difference to the discussion. The guy got caught out and had to pay up regardless of the legal term for the claim.

'Being sued' is a general expression used to define any claim for damages regardless of court action. However it's just that, an expression. A lawsuit, ie legally being sued requires something to be filed with a Court of Law. Unless done in this singular instance of a Videographer being pursued for money in relations to copyright music, then legally he was not being sued.

However whether it's sued or not, makes no difference to the discussion. The guy got caught out and had to pay up regardless of the legal term for the claim.

He is also in all the years of YouTube & online videos in general the only known instance of somebody being chased for use of unlicensed music on a wedding video.

He is also in all the years of YouTube & online videos in general the only known instance of somebody being chased for use of unlicensed music on a wedding video.

Agreed. I think the music industry has more to worry about buyers passing their music onto others. Copying say my favourite album as mp3 to my Brother so he can avoid paying for it himself affects the artist financially in a way sticking a bit of music on my video ever does.

Agreed. I think the music industry has more to worry about buyers passing their music onto others. Copying say my favourite album as mp3 to my Brother so he can avoid paying for it himself affects the artist financially in a way sticking a bit of music on my video ever does.

Now that the music industry has pretty much given up on CDs apart from special box sets they should be more worried about apps that allow you to rip the album from your free Spotify account at 10X real time. Then you can give it to your brother & neither of you paid for it.

Now that the music industry has pretty much given up on CDs apart from special box sets they should be more worried about apps that allow you to rip the album from your free Spotify account at 10X real time. Then you can give it to your brother & neither of you paid for it.

The World is dominated by money. As are most motivations. Why don't most Wedding Videographers get law suits, it's because we are not worth much money. The moment a video goes viral it's assumed it's worth some money and if the artist or those who represent them, whose music is used, feels he or she isn't getting their share, they make a claim. Its that simple.

I have no problem with anyone using my video as long as I am registered as it's owner. Why, because it could potentially bring me money. If I use copyright music in my videos, unless it is felt it's bringing in more money to me than to the artist who made the music, no one has a problem with it. Why, because any publicity is good. If my videos get used, it can help my Business. Same goes for music. A Marryoke with Ed Sheeran promotes Ed Sheehan. Promotion is good. It sells. As long as it doesn't go viral and benefits me more than Ed Sheeran, he or his representative won't care. Hence why most Videographers are spared law suits. It's more damaging than any benefit from a claim can bring.

Could I pay xxxxx amount of money, no. So I'm not worth targeting and not worth the hassle or even the potential negative publicity such a claim could lead to. Only beurocratic organisations would seek damages in such cases, simply to justifuly their existence.
I could still get banned from Vimeo or blocked on YouTube. So copyright does affect me. But not for possible lawsuits by the music industry, who cream a small share from advertising and if they don't like the deal, they simply don't allow it.

The World is governed and shaped by those whose motivational reasons to do things are often personal and petty, copyright included. And if you feel that's silly, look at any political initiative, be it Brexit or Trumps laws. Few of us see or respect the bigger picture in these matters. We look out for ourselves, nothing more.

Even what is morally right is often just done as an excuse to make us feel better about ourselves or our lives a little easier.

In the 1920s when radio stations started playing music the record companies bleated that it would put them out of business because if people could have music for free on the radio why would they ever buy records? Eventually a way of delivering payment for radio plays was negotiated. The record companies also realised that plays on the radio were a great way of promoting the sale of records.

Well, it happened to me. I mentioned earlier I 'purchase' licenses (or what I thought were) for about $50-$60 dollars from Songreedom. I'd been meaning to still take them down from Vimeo, but they links are then embedded into my site & YT sucks for embedding due to the ads (what potential bride wants to see a commercial before my demos). Plus itd be a bit of work downloading & changing site. Still, I had intentions of doing it at some point.

Anyway, I was on my site & saw a 'This video has been removed' image in my thumbnail on my Videos page? Odd, but I thought this was coming. I searched my email for 'Vimeo' and it was about a month ago, fortunately not too long & also only 1 video.

I emailed them explaining that I thought I had licensed it from a fairly well known & established website, haven't heard back yet. Response said "As a Pro customer" I should hear back within 2 hours. That was yesterday. Anyway I dropboxed and linked it in my response. My presumption is Vimeo will just say they can't comment & I'll need to reach out to Songfreedom, and they'll likely respond with "Well, the artist still has the right to ask you remove the music if that's how they choose to handle it" like what sense does that make when they're trying to sell (verbatim) "license for streaming".

I'll keep you all posted however I'm taking all my videos down. I advise you all consider to do the same. There is an option to dispute the DMCA takedown, but it looks pretty official asking my name, address, phone # etc. I'd rather cover myself and have ALL other videos gone so as they don't ding me with more after a dispute. I'll probably redo my site and just self host 1 video, then link to youtube where I'll upload all the others again. I wish Vimeo had a simple edit function like YT. I'd just scrape the audio off if I could and keep the videos muted there myb for SEO purposes & never link them anywhere. I don't have the projects anymore, I suppose I could just open up in Premiere & mute the audio but tbh I just want them off for now.

Vimeo responded, fairly thorough response saying 'Its possible' they filed a claim while I had a license, adding 'which seems to be the case here'.

Sorta gave me confidence others maybe had similar issues. I went ahead an filed the DMCA counter. Myb it wasn't a bright idea as its only "1 strike" but just kindof upset as I have other important videos on my account also. Taking down all my weddings though. All of them.

This is what we did late last year.

Like many (if not all) we used commercial music as here in the UK you can purchase a PPL so you can use it on the physical media, however that does not extend to internet use. But we took the risk. We never marketed ourselves as "You pick the music" as we dont want to edit EVERY video to John Legend or Ed Sheeran. But we would sometimes use their selection.

Early last year we took the decision to go exclusively licenced. The couples can let us know what music they like and we use that to influence our decision. But this does mean no more Ed Sheeran (huzzah!).

Then, late last year we went though and identified all videos without licences and deleted them from Vimeo. After we made sure we had the source file.

I don't expect clients from 11 years ago to notice until their anniversary comes around and they want to know where it is. But in those cases they can either watch the disk version or I can dropbox them the digital file.

Like many we simply cannot risk losing our Vimeo account and I don't like the idea of YouTube placing ads even though we have a licence. Also remember, even if YouTube flags it and the owner grants use they are not actually giving you permission to use it. They are well within their rights to still sue/seek compensation while still claiming any ad revenue.

The aim is to be ahead of the curve. So when everyone else around us is running around trying to put out the fire of having nothing online we are sitting quite pretty.

Songfreedom is great in that you can just use as much as you like for your flat monthly fee. I do believe themusicbed also has a subscription option now too.

I don't expect clients from 11 years ago to notice until their anniversary comes around and they want to know where it is. But in those cases they can either watch the disk version or I can dropbox them the digital file.

Why would you host videos for the client? Are you using them for marketing your own business? If so I would just use licensed music. They can host their own videos with Ed Sheeran if that's their desire.

Why would you host videos for the client? Are you using them for marketing your own business? If so I would just use licensed music. They can host their own videos with Ed Sheeran if that's their desire.
The client is most likely a bride. It be like designing a web site and haveing the client figure out the hosting. Online hosting is the preferred method of distribution high def video there isn’t a universal physical media. Weddings play copyright music during their events which sometimes you can’t take out and clients often request a popular song to be used for their video which was never a problem when you mailed them a dvd but now it seems hosting can flag it even when it’s not ment for public consumption. I film dance recitals that use copyright music. they haven't flagged me yet but could at any time. I should be able to put up samples of my work to promote myself but don’t to avoid the risks associated.

Sometimes it is feasible to purchase music with the rights to use online but this isn’t always the case.

Why would you host videos for the client? Are you using them for marketing your own business? If so I would just use licensed music. They can host their own videos with Ed Sheeran if that's their desire.

As Pete said, I think Danny is referring to a bride just randomly going back thru her email & searching for that vimeo link from years ago. I'll admit, I have some early ones out there (albeit with borderline porno music on it haha, but I was a newbie).

Anyway, I never really took them down, so many were from 2014-2015 which is already 5 years now. I probably do need to put it in my contract that highlights would only be up for 1 year (or something). I give it to them on USB too, but who expects them all to upload themselves. Anyway, what if a couple thinks "Oh, it's our 5/10 year anniversary, let's post our highlights video up onto FB" then searches and its gone.


I'm sure if they wrote me & I explained they'd understand, and I could just dropbox it to them, but I don't think its unreasonable to think that it could happen.

I give it to them on USB too, but who expects them all to upload themselves

We deliver on DVD, but I think it's reasonable to provide it on USB or Dropbox as well, help them create, license and upload to their personal YouTube account if requested, but for my self promotion it would be highlights only; I would replace the audio track with licensed music, even if that meant replacing A Thousand Years with Canon D, or do that for the client. We are at a point now, it's our job to explain the copyright problem, not pay for it nor break the law. That's how I see it, my $0.02.

We deliver on DVD, but I think it's reasonable to provide it on USB or Dropbox as well, help them create, license and upload to their personal YouTube account if requested, but for my self promotion it would be highlights only; I would replace the audio track with licensed music, even if that meant replacing A Thousand Years with Canon D, or do that for the client. We are at a point now, it's our job to explain the copyright problem, not pay for it nor break the law. That's how I see it, my $0.02.

Thanks, maybe I should have clarified but yeah I only upload the highlights only. Never a full length. Never been asked either. Anyway my point was I used to upload the highlights, clear the music with Songfreedom by paying $60 for the song, and left the highlights video up indefinitely. Probably no one watched them in years but it never really crossed my mind to take them down. And, for years, Vimeo was lax with music copyright infringement (I had read where they give a portion of their paid accounts $$ to the licensing companies like ASCAP & BMI, sorta like how jukeboxes work).

I wish Vimeo was a little more proactive on this, and announced a rule change in advance spreading the word to those in the field so we could work in advance of alot of this. Bummer how they handled it imho.

I had a few old videos on Vimeo that had background music that was licensed by SmartSound. They took them down anyway. If they or Smartsound cannot figure this out, I don't see any reason for SmartSound or Vimeo.

I had a few old videos on Vimeo that had background music that was licensed by SmartSound. They took them down anyway. If they or Smartsound cannot figure this out, I don't see any reason for SmartSound or Vimeo.

Just curious do you host on Youtube, or self-host or a different provider?

I use YouTube. And they have flagged some, not others. I have won all the challenges where I was using licensed music. A few that had background or incidental music were also flagged. They can't be monetized and may have ads. Fair Use doctrine is that if the video is transformative, not about the music itself it is (arguably) okay but I usually will strip this out as well. An exception is a fireworks display that was playing a track of various musical artists in the background but I couldn't strip the audio without also losing the explosive percussions, so I considered that fair use to be transformative.