Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID

[Desire_Inspires]

A successful YouTuber is going to want to monetize the video, so you wouldn’t get any AdRev money.

So I would need to monetize my own popular videos?

[soundroad]

I wonder if someone knows how much The Orchard pays to musicians for YT placements? Are they selling license or just monetize as ADrev and similar service?

[mark]

Signing up with Adrev would not resolve the issue that soundraod has been having. Since Adrev cannot remove another company’s claim, like the Orchard Music claim, then you would simply have two claims on the videos of the customer’s that you have sold a license to.

[mark]

Soundroad, to keep this guy from stealing your music you should contact him directly as mentioned above. Find out his phone number and keep calling him until he stops.
I have to do this all the time for our composers.

[soundroad]

Hi Mark, thanks for your advice. I don’t know how to find his phone number but I found his YT channel and will try to write him a letter. Even if I’m sure that he knows what he does.

[MuscoSound]

Hopefully you can get in contact with the dude and get it straightened out. It sucks to hear your situation and hopefully you can get it to work out. I think a lot of times people feel like they can get away with crap like that but when you call them out on it, they know they are caught red handed in the wrong. The internet is not as anonymous as it used to be. Just be persistent with him and if that doesn’t work I found a DMCA generator online. http://www.dmcagenerator.com/

I am not a lawyer and maybe if someone here is familiar with the law could take a peak at that and see if that will work. Might be a nice tool to bookmark if it has everything you need legally speaking.

[Dave]

I do agree that ADREV can not remove another company’s claim, but ADREV can prevent future issues like this. I have been hearing stories that people are stealing tracks off of Soundcloud and enetering them into Content ID as if they are their own copyrights. So I am just encouraging writers to think about entering Content ID with ADREV or a similar service so your music is “Content ID’d” first before another entity or person claims it as their exclusive copyrights.

I also think that it should simply become the norm for music users buying on royalty free sites. People should buy a track, then as part of the license it should say “Warning, the track you have licensed may be entered into YOUTUBES Content ID at ADREV, if you intend on using this for a YOUTUBE video be sure to show proof of license purchased to ADREV, and provide a link to your YT video to prevent ads from appearing on your videos.” Is this an inconvenience for customers…yes, but when you get tracks for $20 to $50 is it so bad that you may have to spend 3 extra minutes submitting proof of your license to ADREV?

Content ID and ADREV are here to stay and it’s only going to show more, and very rapid growth. Most writers I talk to are uploading their catalogs to ADREV or a similar service. RF companies that demand NO Content ID tracks on our site are doing writers a disservice in my opinion.

[Desire_Inspires]

But doesn’t the content uploaded to ADREV have to be exclusively owned by the music library? Most RF companies are non-exclusive. They cannot legally participate in this. Only the composer can do so.

It is too much fuss for me. Many of these RF sites are just parking lots for music. There is little money to be earned from selling tracks. Now I have to worry about people buying my music for $20 (of which I only get $10) getting in trouble? That is a horrible system for composers and customers!

I would rather work exclusively with RF companies that review my demos for quality and that actually work to get placements for composers. This other stuff is a bit of nonsense.

[soundroad]

I sent a claim to the Orchard and YT. Wrote him a comment that he is wrong in his actions. Let’s see how it ends.

[MichaelL]

Most writers I talk to are uploading their catalogs to ADREV or a similar service. RF companies that demand NO Content ID tracks on our site are doing writers a disservice in my opinion.

The fundamental problem with the logic of this argument is that Youtube’s TOS (terms of service) require that music in content ID
be exclusive content.

Very few writers these days have their music in only one library. So entering your non-exclusive music into content ID, is a violation of Youtube’s TOS, that will eventually cause huge headaches for you and your libraries.

It has nothing to do with RF libraries changing their policy and everything to do with youtube’s TOS. You can’t put music into content ID that is in both JP and SK, either. It must be exclusive.

[Author]

Posts