Facebook & YouTube live streaming & copyrighted Music

[Craig Seeman]

With free streaming services like Facebook and YouTube, clients often have keep interest in streaming to them for widest viewership and post stream recorded distribution.

I'm wondering what people's experiences are live streaming to either with copyrighted music. The deliberate or incidental use of copyrighted music is prevalent in all manor of streaming these days in both Weddings and Corporate events. I''m finding it almost unavoidable.

While my live streams to those services haven't involved copyrighted music yet, in my own experience Facebook hasn't flagged things that YouTube has. In all but a few cases YT simply monetizes by running an ad.

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Craig

Good move! the previous topic was getting a tiny bit off track! Actually my son uploaded (not streamed) a 3 minute video on Facebook last week and it got bombed due to the music so the will do it if they find it. I really wouldn't mind a restriction on inserted music but it's pretty darn hard to film something and get nailed because some guy's radio was playing in the background...honestly ambient music should be excluded from copyright but we know it wont happen. There was a ridiculous case a while back where the cameraman was sued by Fox Studios because he filmed people in front of a display window that happened to have TV's playing an episode of the Simpsons!!

[Andrew Smith]

My personal experience is that the identification of copyrighted content (whether correct or not) happens after the fact when the stream is completed and a permanent copy is then generated at YouTube. It's at this stage that the usual copyright scan of the 'uploaded' file (sideways over from the YouTube streaming server in this case) happens.

A mate of mine reckons he had a stream die due to copyrighted content, but I suspect it was more the quality of the internet connection he had to deal with. He's also not too technically minded.

Andrew

[Chris Harding]

Hi Andrew

Over the last few years I have spent an absolute fortune on Smart Sound Royalty Free music ..now they have given Getty Images a licence to distribute it as well and every time I use it (legally) You Tube nail me and I have to submit a dispute which always takes a week or so and the decision is always reversed by Getty Images ...however it's a darn week where my clients have to put up with revenue ads which the dispute is being reversed. I have a huge library of Audio Pallets which cost anything from US$49 to US$99 so I really don't want to stop using them!

At least if I allow the DVR to stay put on my CDN event page it is not "attacked" but I would suspect it would if I embedded the video onto a site with an aggressive music detector like You Tube has.

[Andrew Smith]

Hi Chris,

I think this is going to be almost a marketing bullet point in the future for stock music providers - "no disputes when used on YouTube."

I've had a Stock20.com music library over the years and they seem to have now disappeared from the internet. Then just the other day (12th of August) I had a copyright claim on a video I uploaded in 2014:

Copyrighted song: Cantraip-14157
Claimed by: AdRev for Rights Holder

I'm a stickler for not breaching copyright and knew that it was properly licensed stock music. So I immediately filed a dispute against it, specifying "Licensed through Stock20.com" and the following day ....

"Good news! After reviewing your dispute, AdRev for Rights Holder has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video."

I have no idea if Stock20 called it a day and sold their library, or even just the rights to mine YouTube for suspected breaches of copyright.

It's a bit annoying, though. A least mine was resolved within 24 hours. I'll be damned if I'm putting up with a copyright claim against my account.

Andrew

[Chris Harding]

I had the exact same dispute from "Ad Rev for rights Holder" for a wedding ceremony I shot in 2012!! sent to me this year The Church Organist played "Canon D" as the bride walked in!! Seriously, nobody will even watch the video shot 4 years ago, never mind click on an ad .. I just left it. It seems that even classics where the composer died 100 years ago now has been bought by publishers as a way to make money.

[Craig Seeman]

I'm curious how many are bothered by "Ad Revenue for Rights Holder" tags.
For the streams that I do, I find that the clients can live with that as a "price" for wide viewership.
Of greater concern is when they pull the audio completely.

BTW I recently posted three videos to both YouTube and Facebook that were flagged on YouTube but not Facebook. So the services seem to be using different methods of scanning, tagging. The most sever resulted in a couple of songs banned from Germany specifically.

Recently I posted a video to both FB and YT using SmartSound library audio. It was not flagged although I noted the same piece is also available from YT directly, I did note the name of song/composer and that it was licensed in the description.

Just to be clear none of this was live streamed.

It's most important to know whether either service will kill distribution mid stream for a potential violation.

Chris I'm very interested in hearing about the circumstance of Facebook flagging content. Was the music a live cover or recorded content synced to a performance or speech?

[Chris Harding]

Hi Craig

Nope, my son shot a 1st Birthday Party and added a cover version of a song (I told him he was asking for trouble) so it probably deserved to be flagged. I just get mad when you get nailed cos the DJ has played some music as the speeches start