Youtube and Copyright

[Robert Benda]

(In the U.S.).
With YouTube, if the music has been flagged, you never know when it *might* be pulled because the rights holder decided to no longer allow people to use it. Meaning your clients' wedding video could suddenly be left with no audio.

ALSO, if you get noticed as a commercial enterprise, using their song(s) to promote your business (like with, say, a demo reel) you may end up owing six figures. Joe Simon wrote a great article about it a few years ago, after the trailer he made for Dallas Cowboys QB Tony Romo's wedding went viral. The guys who did the first slow-motion photo booth were using "Blurred Lines" to soundtrack it... until they weren't, shortly after it went viral.

Don't make the mistake that just because YouTube didn't automatically take something down that you're not in violation. You might still get served, and it might take a long time til someone notices, or follows through. Some companies actively search out copyright violations, others seem more lax, but you never know when things might change and go pear shaped.

Personally, I'd rather pay the $20-$50 for the license.

[Danny O'Neill]

The YouTube licence doesn't cover commercial use. So you as a company do not get exemption. Joe simon, David Robin and others have been sued for YouTube vids which were permitted by the robot to use the music but were actually in breach of copyright.

The rights holders all have a dashboard where they can see all vids using their music including number of hits. So if you go viral and get on their top 10 then you can expect a letter from a lawyer.

It's a total mess. Here in the uk we can buy a PPL license and use ANY music we like on a DVD. This however doesn't cover Blu-Ray and Internet use is a no no. The music labels still want to sell on disk. They don't like the internet and still try to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Chris DeVoe]

I have several hundred songs up on YouTube, most of them are kids from the School of Rock performing popular music. Roughly half of the songs have been identified as copyrighted material. Of that group, 99.9% of the rights owners assert the claim, but only put an ad for the original song next to my video. In a rare few cases, the audio is muted - usually by Led Zeppelin. Only one artist has ever gone through the process of issuing a DMCA "Takedown Notice" against a song on my YouTube channel, the creepy little dude known as "Prince". He issued two of them in one night. You get three DMCA "hits" and you lose all the content on your channel. And you have to watch a deeply insulting "Copyright School" video before YouTube will let you access your channel again.

So I created a second channel and no longer put up Prince videos and urge the various School of Rock locations to not do Prince songs. Because, obviously, the fact that videos of children performing his songs are available on YouTube is the primary reason why people are no longer buying his music.

[John Knight]

What are the 'changes to Vimeo' as mentioned by OP? Are they tightening copyright or scanning content?

[Peter Riding]

https://vimeo.com/blog/post:626

Pete

[Mark Williams]

Originally Posted by Chris DeVoe

You get three DMCA "hits" and you lose all the content on your channel... .

This is very true. I filed 16 DMCA complaints on Youtube and 11 on Vimeo against 4 account holders who stole some of my video footage. Youtube and Vimeo closed their accounts and removed 213 of their videos. One of the two opened another account and used more of my video footage. I contacted him any gave him a price for using my footage. He wasn't interested so I made 3 more DMCA complaints. No more problems since this. I have this guy and his alias accounts on my favorites list so I can routinely see if he is behaving himself. I am very pleased about how fast Youtube and Vimeo responded to these complaints.

[Chris DeVoe]

I never challenged the fact that Mr. Rogers-Nelson owned the songs, but I think the whole DMCA Takedown "three strikes" approach is, to use Frank Zappa's immortal phrase "the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation". If 99.99% of rights holders have agreed with a particular way of doing things, Mr 0.01% looks like an utter tool. Taking down his songs was no problem. The problem is that if he had succeeded in getting my channel removed, several hundred other songwriters who were benefiting from the ads next to covers of their songs would be losing out.

Mark Williams, your situation is vastly different than mine, but I still feel the DMCA is a terrible tool, one that I would never use.

[Mark Williams]

Well, when you pour all you skill and focus into producing something you think has value, even if only to oneself then one can feel pretty violated when someone steals your work. Additionally, in my situation the persons involved were making considerable ad revenue off my work. I have no problem with the DMCA take down process nor Prince's actions to protect his property.

[Chris DeVoe]

Originally Posted by Mark Williams

Well, when you pour all you skill and focus into producing something you think has value, even if only to oneself then one can feel pretty violated when someone steals your work. Additionally, in my situation the persons involved were making considerable ad revenue off my work. I have no problem with the DMCA take down process nor Prince's actions to protect his property.

I do. It's a scorched earth policy, and as far as I'm concerned it is behavior that violates the Golden Rule.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Danny O'Neill

The YouTube licence doesn't cover commercial use. So you as a company do not get exemption. Joe simon, David Robin and others have been sued for YouTube vids which were permitted by the robot to use the music but were actually in breach of copyright.

Nobody has ever been sued for copyright breach for a video posted on YouTube. They have been sent letters by lawyers but that is a very different thing.

An action in the UK at least would never fly as it's a general legal principle that before suing anyone the claimant always has a duty to mitigate their losses which doesn't sit with giving permission & accepting ad revenue. If the rights holder has the option of preventing the breach but doesn't & in fact benefits financially from that breach then they can have no cause for action.

Originally Posted by Danny O'Neill

It's a total mess. Here in the uk we can buy a PPL license and use ANY music we like on a DVD. This however doesn't cover Blu-Ray.

Yes it does. The Limited Manufacture licence covers any physical product including Blu-ray discs & USB sticks.

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Chris DeVoe

I never challenged the fact that Mr. Rogers-Nelson owned the songs, but I think the whole DMCA Takedown "three strikes" approach is, to use Frank Zappa's immortal phrase "the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation". If 99.99% of rights holders have agreed with a particular way of doing things, Mr 0.01% looks like an utter tool. Taking down his songs was no problem. The problem is that if he had succeeded in getting my channel removed, several hundred other songwriters who were benefiting from the ads next to covers of their songs would be losing out.

Mark Williams, your situation is vastly different than mine, but I still feel the DMCA is a terrible tool, one that I would never use.

You are, actually, the moment you use the song without permission. That's the whole point. You're ignoring the fact that someone else owns that song.

I actually feel that 3 warnings of violation before they take any action is pretty reasonable. They're under no obligation to do so, they could just go straight to suing.

[Roger Van Duyn]

Originally Posted by Chris DeVoe

I do. It's a scorched earth policy, and as far as I'm concerned it is behavior that violates the Golden Rule.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Don't you want to be paid for your work so that you can take care of your family? Shouldn't the other guy be paid for his work so he can take care of his family too? Which Golden Rule allows me to take something someone else has worked to create without paying for it unless he himself has chosen to give it away for free? It's his work, so it should be his choice whether to charge or not. Not mine whether or not to pay.

[Chris DeVoe]

Originally Posted by Roger Van Duyn

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Don't you want to be paid for your work so that you can take care of your family? Shouldn't the other guy be paid for his work so he can take care of his family too? Which Golden Rule allows me to take something someone else has worked to create without paying for it unless he himself has chosen to give it away for free? It's his work, so it should be his choice whether to charge or not. Not mine whether or not to pay.

Originally Posted by Robert Benda

You are, actually, the moment you use the song without permission. That's the whole point. You're ignoring the fact that someone else owns that song.

I actually feel that 3 warnings of violation before they take any action is pretty reasonable. They're under no obligation to do so, they could just go straight to suing.

Actually, there are three levels of response an owner of a song can take to a cover on YouTube:

1: Allow the song to be used, and placing an ad for the original next to it.
2: Mute the audio
3: Issue a DMCA takedown notice.

In the case of Mark Williams' work, the reasonable thing (to me) would be to require that the infringing video or videos be removed. That is NOT what the 3rd DMCA "warning" does. Each "warning" results in removal of the claimed video, the 3rd "warning" results in the deletion of the entire account and all other videos including others that are not infringing. That's what I mean by a "scorched earth" policy. That's not about asserting copyright. It's giving one copyright holder an excessive ability to "punish" those who have violated. It is as if a photographer had discovered that someone had printed one of their photographs and hung it up in their home, and instead of just being paid for it and insisting that the copy be destroyed, that their home be burned to the ground.

Responses #1 and #2 are plenty. Response #1 allows the copyright owner to benefit. I'm sure plenty of songs have been sold by ads placed next to and before my videos of cover versions. Response #2, I've only encountered twice, in the case of Led Zeppelin covers - they mute the audio. Usually, I delete the video, because what use is a cover song without the audio? It accomplishes the objective without being a jerk.

[David Stoneburner]

My kids are dancers and my son is a street dancer. Of there videos I have always used the microphone on the camera to pick up the live music at the venue or on the street. Of all the videos,90 +, I have had a mixture of music results. One video was muted, a few have been either blocked in other countries or blocked on mobile devices and a few have had adds to buy the songs. I have never sold any adds on the videos, even when it has been suggested by YT, and it is artistic expression of the material. So just be aware that anything can happen.

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Nobody has ever been sued for copyright breach for a video posted on YouTube. They have been sent letters by lawyers but that is a very different thing.

Joe Simon (U.S.) would like a word about that, I bet. (The Music Licensing Chickens Have Come Home to Roost in Wedding and Event Videography | Dare Dreamer Magazine)

So would YouTube channel FullScreen, who is getting sued for users posting song covers. (Cover a song, upload it to YouTube, and you may get sued | Consequence of Sound)

The main difference seems to be whether a person from the copyright holder notices your video (like when it goes viral); versus when a computer algorithm flags it.

In either case, if they chose, they could sue with a single infringement. Most companies simply choose not to.