Vimeo shut down my account

[Cary Knoop]

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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”.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

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.

[Cary Knoop]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

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.

[Chris Harding]

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/ind...ight-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"

[David Barnett]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by David Barnett

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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."

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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

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

[Kyle Root]

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.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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.

[Gary Huff]

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

[Steve Burkett]

'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.