Vimeo shut down my account

[Gary Huff]

How about your post that email? Perhaps other people might understand what their explanation is about.

[David Barnett]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

What does that APRA/AMCOS licence allow you to do? Does it allow licensing of popular commercial music, like something from Ed Sheeran, at a price similar to something from the musicbed?

Originally Posted by Cary Knoop

How is YouTube supposed to know that you have a license? The content id flagging is automatic.
Did you try to dispute it and refer to your license in the disputed text?

Yes and it really didn't matter. Songfreedom themselves stated 'The artist is free to request ads if they so choose'. I guess, but wouldn't they do the same thing for a $.99 cent purchased song from Amazon?!

I mean, to me I tried to do the right thing. Its a layer of security and imho professionalism as I wasn't using a dumb Bruno Mars Uptown Funk & going hog wild with it. I also begin my trailers with a brief 'licensed by'. For $60, its worth it.

If my entire account gets shut down then things get bad as I have other semi needed videos on there. Maybe I should pull the weddings off & self host them. TBH I think I'm slowing down on weddings anyway & wouldn't mind if the website only keeps 3 or 4 up, at least for a while.

[David Barnett]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

How about your post that email? Perhaps other people might understand what their explanation is about.

Just let it go guys. Noa, don't post the email. "You think they are crooks". Look, I agree with you, we all can. "You" think they are crooks. Doesn't mean Gary or Cary or me have too (personally I'm in the middle), so no need for the email. Plus, Sabam seems to be a Belgian rights company so thats an added layer of complexity vs an American using them.

Having said that, lets be real, they're not some basement run operation of kids selling a database of mp3's off their hard drive for $50 bucks off craigslist. Its a legit operation, I'm sure they have some legal counsel they work with and advises them. I'm sure they have some ties into the music rights industry and likely video hosting (Vimeo, youtube). So in that regard, they're legit. Fullproof? Prolly not, they could be a bit redundant or unnecesarry, sorta like Lifelock or undercleaning or whatever new car salesmen sell you. I mean, it's something, but maybe not 'worth it'.

[Noa Put]

I couldn't even read Gary's reply as he has been on my blocked list for more then a year (and he knows about that) but when you quote him I unfortunately can see :) Probably he replies to me knowing I can't see it so it looks I can't prove it because I don't react.

No, I"m not going into that anymore, all I care about is what Sabam says because they are the only ones that can ruin my business if I don't comply, Sabam told me that what Songfreedom was telling me was not correct as Songfreedom said their license would cover me completely and that it was the only license I ever have to pay, I did explain in detail to Songfreedom under what conditions I was using that song so it was not that they didn't know in what country they lived. Even after I confronted them with Sabams reply they told some nonsense about the German Association of Authors and youtube which had nothing to do with my situation.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Sabam told me that what Songfreedom was telling me was not correct as Songfreedom said their license would cover me completely and that it was the only license I ever have to pay

Except that's now how you originally described it.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

As far as I can tell they are not legal in Europe, songfreedom says they have worldwide synch rights (to create the video) but not necessarily the streaming rights. They said that eventhough their content partners have the ability to grant certain rights, each territory does have the ability to be as difficult as they would like.

Seems like you're heavily mis-remembering what the original conversation was like. You also seem like you don't understand the concept that you can license in one respect, and not be licensed in another, like using the basic license from PremiumBeat or Smartsound or something similar for a TV show broadcast on a national network.

[Noa Put]

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-...ml#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.

[Gary Huff]

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.

[Danny O'Neill]

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.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Danny O'Neill

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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.

[Danny O'Neill]

https://daredreamermag.com/2011/12/0...t-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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

[Nigel Barker]

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.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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.