Youtube and Copyright

Nigel Barker · May 27th, 2014, 10:30 AM

Joe Simon was NOT sued. He had a letter from a lawyer & chose to settle. Big difference. His case also dates back to 2011 which was before the option of revenue sharing had been negotiated with the rights holders.

The other case is of FullScreen who are effectively running a TV station using YouTube as their delivery medium. The alleged infringement was to do with cover videos which YouTube actively encourages with the promise of revenue sharing https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3301938?hl=en

FullScreen have settled so while strictly they were sued the case never actually came to court.

Fullscreen Settles Copyright Infringement Lawsuit - TheWrap

David Barnett · May 27th, 2014, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Joe Simon was NOT sued. He had a letter from a lawyer & chose to settle. Big difference.

For the purposes of this discussion isn't the end result still that he used copyrighted music & lost out financially due to the legalities of doing so?!

There was a poster here who a year or two ago was caught using a minor hit from a local musician near him (he never stated who) who happened to come across the use of his song in a video of his. He recv'd a cease & desist letter from the agent or attorney & the factored out fees, damages etc. Came to a couple hundred or thousand or so dollars, modest, but somewhat reasonable. Better than hiring an attorney of his own to defend him possibly. Anyway lesson learned.

Robert Benda · May 27th, 2014, 01:37 PM

Yeah, I don't see much difference beyond semantics. Only a very few people have taken these sorts of civil cases to trial. These letters function as a statement of intent to sue, unless people pay damages/compensation. The end result is functionally the same.

In the U.S., at least, these are also Federal crimes, but I have yet to hear of a case of prosecution. Only civil cases.

Peter Riding · May 27th, 2014, 01:38 PM

For a while we seemed to be breaking new ground in this thread. But now I'm none the wiser. Damn :- (

Pete

David Barnett · May 27th, 2014, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

For a while we seemed to be breaking new ground in this thread. But now I'm none the wiser. Damn :- (

Pete

.
I think the best way to view it is that just because Youtube allows it, doesn't mean it's legal. I think it'll be an evolving policy too as artists see how much, or little, they really receive off these video ads, and if they benefit them... or us.

Jeff Harper · May 27th, 2014, 02:10 PM

As I recall reading on Youtube, if Youtube puts an ad on a video instead of removing it is by the copyright holder's choice, so it is legal in that instance. Copyright holders are offered a choice on how to respond to infringements.

This is all clearly explained by Youtube. If you dig around on the site they explain it pretty well.

The way I remember it is is that Youtube's algorithym picks up matched content. If a potential copyright violation is found, then Youtube notifies the copyright holder, who in turn decides what to do: have the offending video taken down, have the audio removed, place ads, whatever.

In real life, with the thousands or more potential violations per day, I suspect that Youtube has standing orders for the larger companies, say Disney for example, as to what to do for their music. There are certainly too many potential violations for most to handle each incident separately.

I have had matched content notifications twice, and each took months to happen for some reason. In each case the songs were relatively obscure.

Chris DeVoe · May 27th, 2014, 02:22 PM

I've had completely bogus copyright claims as well. There are some who are trying to lay claim on classical works by composers who have been dead more than 100 years. I've challenged them, and they have backed down in each case.

Dave Partington · May 27th, 2014, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris DeVoe

I've had completely bogus copyright claims as well. There are some who are trying to lay claim on classical works by composers who have been dead more than 100 years. I've challenged them, and they have backed down in each case.

The question is not the composition, but the recording surely? Each new recording carries a new copyright.

David Barnett · May 27th, 2014, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

As I recall reading on Youtube, if Youtube puts an ad on a video instead of removing it is by the copyright holder's choice, so it is legal in that instance. Copyright holders are offered a choice on how to respond to infringements.

Sorry to drag this out, but can Addidas use an ACDC song that they put into a Youtube ad, and since youtube allows for ACDC music to be played then that'll be legal? A step further can a local hair salon or mechanic use a Katy Perry song or Metallica song respectively, and it'll be 'legal' and within the law due to Youtube's policy. I don't think so. Again, using it in demo reels likely carries a risk with it.

Gary Huff · May 27th, 2014, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

The question is not the composition, but the recording surely? Each new recording carries a new copyright.

Yes, exactly. Most people don't quite grasp how the notion of copyright works, the OP being a prime example. What's fun is finding some of the more "copyright righteous" people to be infringing in ways they were completely ignorant about (i.e. filming a live performance of a copyrighted piece by a cover artist, even if the cover artist has the license to perform the piece).

Jeff Harper · May 27th, 2014, 09:42 PM

David, you quoted me. yet you completely missed the meaning. The COPYRIGHT HOLDER is the decision maker in cases of matched content. The copyright holder, the entity who has the legal right over how a song can be used, decides the policy, not Youtube. Youtube simply executes the procedure according to policy of the copyright holder.

If I have a video with a copyrighted song and there is an ad on it, it is legal because the copyright holder has granted permission and is being compensated.

What makes the process risky for Youtube account holders who use copyrighted material is that there is no way to know, with certainty, what policy will be from song to song or from instance to instance.

The copyright holder is legally entitled to make these decisions and can choose when they want a video taken down or muted, or to have an ad attached to it.

The link below explains things. It is pretty much as I have stated.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370

Chris Harding · May 27th, 2014, 10:10 PM

Hey Jeff

I think the bottom line is just upload your video to YouTube and then see what they tell you.

If they put ads on (as instructed by the copyright holder) and you can live with ads, then no problem.
If they want the music removed they will also tell you (they have always given me an option to remove the offending track) so you can also do that
If they require the video to be removed then simply remove, take out the bits they don't like and replace with ambience or a royalty free track and upload again.

The bottom line is that you still can put your video on YouTube and allow it to be viewed but it could have some restrictions so surely the bride can live with that??

Chris

Jeff Harper · May 27th, 2014, 10:39 PM

You are correct, Chris, we can gamble and see what happens. The problem is if your video is taken down you will get a strike. Then if you get a certain number of strikes, then your account will be terminated!

What makes it complicated and dangerous for you and me is not knowing what will trigger a strike.

Chris DeVoe · May 27th, 2014, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

The question is not the composition, but the recording surely? Each new recording carries a new copyright.

No, this was my recording. I recorded a classical pianist playing a work by Liszt. And some sleeze tried to claim a copyright on the composition.

David Stoneburner · May 28th, 2014, 09:43 AM

I have one video that they muted the audio on due to a couple of songs in a mix that my son danced to. I was thinking of challenging it on the fair use basis of
1. It was incidental audio playing at the event. I didn't edit in the clean mix, camera mic only.
2. It is a documentation of historical event for that school and student. (I saw something about that within fair use)
3. It's commentary on the music but it in a movement. (I'm not sure that can be considered commentary, but his original choreography is to the music and is a new derivative work from it.

I'm not sure how strong of arguments they are, and I guess I wondering how easy it is for your account to be closed. YT does mention that they can close your account for a false claim.

Do you think that my claims above could be considered false and reason enough to close my account? It's not worth it for one video, but I would like to audio the audio back on. He also sings in the video later and that is muted out so it doesn't lend itself for being posted at that point. It currently has just over 5,000 views.

May 27th, 2014, 10:30 AM	#31
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: Youtube and Copyright Joe Simon was NOT sued. He had a letter from a lawyer & chose to settle. Big difference. His case also dates back to 2011 which was before the option of revenue sharing had been negotiated with the rights holders. The other case is of FullScreen who are effectively running a TV station using YouTube as their delivery medium. The alleged infringement was to do with cover videos which YouTube actively encourages with the promise of revenue sharing https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3301938?hl=en FullScreen have settled so while strictly they were sued the case never actually came to court. Fullscreen Settles Copyright Infringement Lawsuit - TheWrap

May 27th, 2014, 01:37 PM	#33
Robert Benda Trustee Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Crookston, MN Posts: 1,353	Re: Youtube and Copyright Yeah, I don't see much difference beyond semantics. Only a very few people have taken these sorts of civil cases to trial. These letters function as a statement of intent to sue, unless people pay damages/compensation. The end result is functionally the same. In the U.S., at least, these are also Federal crimes, but I have yet to hear of a case of prosecution. Only civil cases.

May 27th, 2014, 01:38 PM	#34
Peter Riding Major Player Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Reading Berkshire UK Posts: 872	Re: Youtube and Copyright For a while we seemed to be breaking new ground in this thread. But now I'm none the wiser. Damn :- ( Pete

May 27th, 2014, 02:10 PM	#36
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Youtube and Copyright As I recall reading on Youtube, if Youtube puts an ad on a video instead of removing it is by the copyright holder's choice, so it is legal in that instance. Copyright holders are offered a choice on how to respond to infringements. This is all clearly explained by Youtube. If you dig around on the site they explain it pretty well. The way I remember it is is that Youtube's algorithym picks up matched content. If a potential copyright violation is found, then Youtube notifies the copyright holder, who in turn decides what to do: have the offending video taken down, have the audio removed, place ads, whatever. In real life, with the thousands or more potential violations per day, I suspect that Youtube has standing orders for the larger companies, say Disney for example, as to what to do for their music. There are certainly too many potential violations for most to handle each incident separately. I have had matched content notifications twice, and each took months to happen for some reason. In each case the songs were relatively obscure. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

May 27th, 2014, 02:22 PM	#37
Chris DeVoe Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 148	Re: Youtube and Copyright I've had completely bogus copyright claims as well. There are some who are trying to lay claim on classical works by composers who have been dead more than 100 years. I've challenged them, and they have backed down in each case.

May 27th, 2014, 09:42 PM	#41
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Youtube and Copyright David, you quoted me. yet you completely missed the meaning. The COPYRIGHT HOLDER is the decision maker in cases of matched content. The copyright holder, the entity who has the legal right over how a song can be used, decides the policy, not Youtube. Youtube simply executes the procedure according to policy of the copyright holder. If I have a video with a copyrighted song and there is an ad on it, it is legal because the copyright holder has granted permission and is being compensated. What makes the process risky for Youtube account holders who use copyrighted material is that there is no way to know, with certainty, what policy will be from song to song or from instance to instance. The copyright holder is legally entitled to make these decisions and can choose when they want a video taken down or muted, or to have an ad attached to it. The link below explains things. It is pretty much as I have stated. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370 __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

May 27th, 2014, 10:10 PM	#42
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Youtube and Copyright Hey Jeff I think the bottom line is just upload your video to YouTube and then see what they tell you. If they put ads on (as instructed by the copyright holder) and you can live with ads, then no problem. If they want the music removed they will also tell you (they have always given me an option to remove the offending track) so you can also do that If they require the video to be removed then simply remove, take out the bits they don't like and replace with ambience or a royalty free track and upload again. The bottom line is that you still can put your video on YouTube and allow it to be viewed but it could have some restrictions so surely the bride can live with that?? Chris

May 27th, 2014, 10:39 PM	#43
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Youtube and Copyright You are correct, Chris, we can gamble and see what happens. The problem is if your video is taken down you will get a strike. Then if you get a certain number of strikes, then your account will be terminated! What makes it complicated and dangerous for you and me is not knowing what will trigger a strike. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

May 28th, 2014, 09:43 AM	#45
David Stoneburner Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 493	Re: Youtube and Copyright I have one video that they muted the audio on due to a couple of songs in a mix that my son danced to. I was thinking of challenging it on the fair use basis of 1. It was incidental audio playing at the event. I didn't edit in the clean mix, camera mic only. 2. It is a documentation of historical event for that school and student. (I saw something about that within fair use) 3. It's commentary on the music but it in a movement. (I'm not sure that can be considered commentary, but his original choreography is to the music and is a new derivative work from it. I'm not sure how strong of arguments they are, and I guess I wondering how easy it is for your account to be closed. YT does mention that they can close your account for a false claim. Do you think that my claims above could be considered false and reason enough to close my account? It's not worth it for one video, but I would like to audio the audio back on. He also sings in the video later and that is muted out so it doesn't lend itself for being posted at that point. It currently has just over 5,000 views.