- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by Nick D..
- December 18, 2013 at 9:50 am #13969Art MunsonKeymaster
What a mess YouTube Content ID is becoming. Glad I stayed away from it!
Composers and developers up in arms for automatic copyright claims made on their behalf to YouTube content.
Music firms TuneCore and INDmusic are making numerous copyright claims against YouTube game videos to monetise them, it has been claimed….
One game music composer, Magnus Palsson, who scored Terry Cavanagh’s VVVVVV, expressed his surprise and disappointment at INDmusic making claims on his behalf, and has even had his own videos flagged…
Complete story here:December 18, 2013 at 11:00 am #13972MichaelLParticipant
Pretty much what I said in the second paragraph of my last post here:
You can’t do this via “auto-pilot”…yet. It’s a huge mess, and Google / Youtube is slow to fix it.December 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm #13978Steve BallardGuest
I’m glad I stayed away from it as well Art. It seems Google has helped to create this monster and it may very well begin to eat itself. Google is all about the money. They can put ads into every one of those videos and are upset that they have to take them down as well as loose the advertising revenue. As Michael stated it is automated with them and would cost them money to add a human element to the claims.December 19, 2013 at 9:00 am #13980woodsdenisParticipant
Worse again, this is the artists own music, not game relatedDecember 19, 2013 at 9:34 am #13982angopopParticipant
So, just to clarify what is going on: these musicians sent their music to a library on a non-exclusive basis, then the musicians used those songs in their music videos, then the library gets YouTube to take those videos down?December 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm #13986woodsdenisParticipant
So, just to clarify what is going on: these musicians sent their music to a library on a non-exclusive basis, then the musicians used those songs in their music videos, then the library gets YouTube to take those videos down?
There are a number of different things going on that are related, in one case it seems that a digital music distribution company TC opted into the Youtube scheme without allegedly telling their composers. There was a change in the TOS which gave them exclusivity to do so. As we have seen before here the sensible thing to do is to make it an opt in for composers and make it really obvious what it implies !!!!, other wise as we have seen, this mess occurs.
TC explain it hereDecember 19, 2013 at 5:50 pm #13988More AdviceGuest
It’s entirely the fault of greedy publishers and companies like Tunecore who developed all these bizarre, manipulative, and coercive schemes to make profits from composers creative works while paying them nothing and taking control of their ability to monetize their music on YOUTUBE. It’s insane! It’s like a Gold rush. I keep getting invitations to discuss or “Opt In” to the YOUTUBE monetization program from publishers so they can give away my music for nothing and profit from all their “cattle’s” tracks (Free cheap whores, AKA Composers and songwriters)
Publishers just look at composers as “suckers” who will enrich the owners of music publishing companies and their bogus YOUTUBE Monetization Schemes. They wrestle away control of compositions in manipulative fashion, claim that they own the rights to these compositions and THEY are entitled to YOUTUBE fees generated from the music! They collect the dough first, and composers are left with the accuracy and HONESTY of their (Publishers) accounting records and hope they will get paid something…Are you kidding me?…..Here’s $10 for you, you get $43, You get $17….or…hmmm…perhaps it’s more convenient to just keep it all for me! Just all of you chumps opt in now or get out! We have a Scheme that will enrich us fast! So you better opt in…we’re giving you no choice…in fact…oops…we already opted you in automatically because we changed our policies!
Additionally, Google doesn’t give a damn about the artists’ rights or paying them royalties….all they care about is selling as many ads as they possibly can. YOUTUBE is now just one big world of advertising. Google has ads for sale, non stop. The entire situation of monetizing silly YOUTUBE videos is an insane mess! Everyone is claiming “the music is mine!” When all along it belongs to the original creator.
Composers who sign up for this garbage are just stupid.December 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm #13989More AdviceGuest
Meet AUDIAM, and owner Jeff Price. The biggest Schemer there is! He’s cattling up everyone at SOCAN to enrich himself. He collects the money first and then gives you your cut.
There is no up-front fee to join Audiam. In return for the service, Audiam normally charges a 25 per cent administration fee of whatever it collects from YouTube for videos using music that Audiam represents outside of a member’s own YouTube “channel.”
To get started, SOCAN members must go to: http://www.audiam.com/socan. Once they create a free account, they provide song and publishing information.
It’s the Gold Rush to California. The YOUTUBE Scheme! The Cattle is running so fast to sign up so Jeff Price can get a cut of EVERYTHING!December 19, 2013 at 7:45 pm #13990MichaelLParticipant
I read both of the articles posted by More Advice, and understand everyone’s anger. But, it seems to me that both of these services (tunecore and INDmusic) are aimed at “artists” who want to be pop stars, and use youtube as a vehicle for self-promotion, not writers of production music.
These services will NOT work for most production music writers, who put their music into multiple libraries.
Like Art, I’ve stayed away from content ID.
We had this discussion two years ago. IF you’re going to do content ID, the rights to the music must be controlled by one entity.…in other words exclusive.
Now, it makes complete sense why re-title libraries like, JP and SK are going exclusive. That will allow them to monetize youtube content, without any conflicts.
Moral of the story:
Be very careful before letting anyone administer your publishing.
The days of putting all of your music everywhere, in multiple business models, may be numbered. That’s one “gold rush” that may be over thanks to youtube.December 20, 2013 at 5:48 am #13998More AdviceGuest
The days of music being everywhere may be numbered for the weak handed composers who cave in to the coercive BS and schemes. But for experienced composers with a proven track record of their music having strong demand, we do not have to cave into anything. If you have very good NE music that still places a lot, these publishers will continue to add your music Non Exclusively.
This not just for folks trying to become pop stars. This is why JP and AM signed some sort of scheme with Full Screen, and why Jeff Price started Audiam. Let’s cattle up a bunch of free tracks….give them away to YOUTUBE Video makers, and profit from the YOUTUBE Monetization program, and control all the cards to the compositions, and be the first to collect on it. The only folks who will win are those in control of hundreds of thousands of tracks. Hundreds of thousands of tracks getting monetized will result in substantial revenue for the publisher, but for the individual composers’ catalog maybe getting paid 50%…the income will be insignificant. However, I did speak with a publisher yesterday who stated they are now making $1000 a day off the YOUTUBE scheme from just 1700 exclusive tracks which are given away in exchange for monetization of the video that gets created with the free soundtrack.
My questions are this: who is watching all these amateur videos?
How many views need to occur before any kind of significant money kicks in for the creator or publisher of the soundtrack?
How are the royalties paid and what is the formula for payment?
Simply stated: what does a composer earn if a video with his or soundtrack reaches say…100,000 views?
Does anyone know the answers to these questions?