February 13, 2015 at 4:48 am #20018MuscoSoundParticipant
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.February 13, 2015 at 6:24 am #20019DaveGuest
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.February 13, 2015 at 6:45 am #20020
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.February 13, 2015 at 7:14 am #20021soundroadParticipant
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.February 13, 2015 at 8:05 am #20022MichaelLParticipant
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.February 13, 2015 at 8:59 am #20025DaveGuest
The way I see it is that my music content is exclusively owned by me and has nothing to do with music libraries or music licensing sites that are non-exclusively distributing and licensing it for me. At the end of the day, I am the exclusive owner of the intellectual property. Recently I had a customer contact me saying ” I just licensed your track, I am trying to use it on YOUTUBE but I am told I am infringing on copyrights.” I wrote back saying just go here
And include your license and link to your video and they will take the claim down.
The customer did not seem annoyed, and actually was understanding when I explained a lot of people simply are using our music without a license.
If Customers license from other NE sites where there is no possibility to dialogue with the customer who purchased, well then the music licensing site can eliminate that claim for their customer as they are selling the license. This is the way things should be moving forward. Basically, I see it as a “proof of purchase”. Do you want to put up a YT video with a track? Show me the license you purchased for that track. This is good for writers. This will enable writers more control over their intellectual property and give us knowledge about who is doing what with our tracks on YT.
I started doing this once I saw one of my songs getting 500,000 views on YT. I never gave anyone permission to upload my song. What gives people the right to make videos with my song?
When our music has been pillaged for pennies and devalued, I see this as a good way to change the mindset of “music is free”. We have an opportunity to teach the public a music licensing lesson. People need to know that music can be licensed “free of additional royalty payments”, but they also need to know that the music is not “copyright free”. If we happen to make some “advertising revenue” money along the way from those who do not take videos down because they can not present a proof of license purchased, I believe that is the best and fairest result.
It took me long time to come to this opinion, but that is where I am at.February 13, 2015 at 9:18 am #20026Art MunsonKeymaster
Absolutely correct and what Dave is advocating is fraught with potential problems!February 13, 2015 at 9:31 am #20029DaveGuest
Art, what are the problems? The main problem I saw was teen girls uploading my song at will without my permission.
The problem I see is everyone in the world thinks music is eternally free to do whatever you want to do with it.
I am not saying that my stance is 100% right and I am very open to other opinions in this debate.
Let me ask this, what is the best way to prevent unlicensed usages of our music on YT? Or do we all just say “well, that’s the way it is, some people will go ahead and use our tracks as they wish.”February 13, 2015 at 9:32 am #20030
People don’t want to be hassled over a $20 track they purchased from a site. Royalty free licensing is supposed to be hassle free as well. If I spent my money to legally license a song, I should not have to show a proof of purchase to anyone.
This is my view as a consumer: If I am going to be harassed and accused of stealing music, I would not use any music from a RF company. I would just use a song from my iTunes library. Why get my video removed for a library song? Why not just use a Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Bruno Mars, or Beyonce song?
If I purchased a song and got a warning from YouTube, I would assume that the library I bought it from sold me stolen property. I would then ask for a refund. I don’t really care about composers royalties. I buy music from RF sites to not worry about additional payments or copyright claims. I do not want to be educated on licensing or hassled about monetization. I want a hassle-free experience.February 13, 2015 at 9:34 am #20031MichaelLParticipant
Absolutely correct and what Dave is advocating is fraught with potential problems!
Advocating for change is a very good thing. Advising people to leap into the void before the change occurs…perhaps not.
Youtube pays $.00048 for partially owned content. That’s about $240 for 500K views. Most YT videos get less than 1,000 views. It still amounts to looking for change in the seat cushions.
Good RF cuts can easily earn more than $240, fairly quickly. Still not a can of worms that I want to open.February 13, 2015 at 9:36 am #20024JayGuest
I have done extensive research on Content ID and have contacted the major Content ID collection companies (AdRev, Rumblefish, Audiam etc.) and asked about the Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive issue and it seems the consensus is (according to them) that a library doesn’t necessarily have to have complete Exclusive licensing rights for your music to collect content ID for a composer. The key here is that they need to have Exclusivity only for Content ID via a side agreement or Opt In of some sort as these rights need to be assigned. So the main factor here is that the composer can only designate one library to enter their music into the system as one can only upload a single audio track into the Content ID system or there will be a conflict. So as far as YouTube is concerned, that is all they really care about as they want as much music as possible in the system so they can sell more ad space (each song in the system gives YouTube permission to put ads on any video containing that song).
The problem is that music licensing and Content ID are not naturally compatible. Any client that licenses music will want to monetize their project and will not be happy if they see a library or the copyright holder (composer) putting ads on their video and monetizing in their place for their video which they spent a lot time and money creating for themselves or for their client). This ultimately will come down on the library who made the license. This problem exists with Non Exclusive and Exclusive music. Think about it, even if an Exclusive library puts music into the Content ID system, all their licensees will still automatically get their videos flagged and ads will appear on them just the same as non exclusive tracks. The only difference is that Exclusive libraries can better control the situation since all licenses would go through them but the problem still exists with their clients getting claims and getting pissed off but at least the exclusive libraries will have the control to white list.
The only way to make Content ID work for composers and libraries is the libraries would have to have each of their licensees white list their youtube channels in advance so no ads will go on their videos. This would involve communication with their clients (not just a clause in the license) and making this crystal clear. Composers directly putting their music in the Content ID system when working with libraries is simply a bad idea as there is no way for the composers to communicate directly with the library’s clients to get their channel info to white flag the videos. This would cause a lot of problems for the libraries since the libraries have no control over tracks that are put into the system by composers.
Hopefully eventually client’s will get used to reporting their channel info to the libraries to avoid contentID claims but I’m not sure this will ever happen as it’s a pain for clients. This seems to me to be the only way Content ID can work in favour of composers/libraries, otherwise it’s just a mess. It would be nice to have this side income (even though it’s miniscule…). I noticed Audiosocket is doing Non-Exclusive Content ID collections via Opt Ins and they have something called License ID that may be a solution? Anyone know how this works?
Sorry for the long post, I have just been reading so many conflicting comments on Content ID and needed to get this out. Please correct me if I am mistaken with any of this.February 13, 2015 at 9:48 am #20036DaveGuest
DI, this can be executed as part of the buying process by all RF sites. If you buy a license and then get a warning in the license that says “This music is entered into YOUTUBE’s Content ID, If you are going to use this license for a YOUTUBE video here is what you need to do to make sure an advertisement is not placed on your video…etc.”
It’s a 2 minute process. I am sorry, but a small business media producer paying $20 for a license should not feel hassled because they need to prove they bought a license. Why sell a license in the first place?
Isn’t it weird how at Costco we have to show our receipt on the way out? After we paid? I have no problem with that process.
I agree that the YT royalties are seemingly small, but I have heard from enough colleagues that sometimes a video runs up to 10 million or 50 million views out of nowhere and then the earnings do become substantial. Another RF seller said he is making more from Content ID “advertising revenue” royalties than actual RF sales because the theft and unauthorized use of his music was so rampant. So think about that for a moment.February 13, 2015 at 9:55 am #20037Art MunsonKeymaster
Another RF seller said he is making more from Content ID “advertising revenue” royalties than actual RF sales
We hear lots of anecdotal stories but has anyone actually talked to a real person with actual figures?February 13, 2015 at 10:20 am #20038Steve BallardGuest
Youtube pays $.00048 for partially owned content. That’s about $240 for 500K views. Most YT videos get less than 1,000 views.
Absolutely correct. Not only that but figure in that RF (the library) and CDB take 50% of that (if your using them) and Adrev takes 20%. That leaves the potential of 70% of the revenue being taken by them.
The companies Dave mentions are the ones that are making millions off the backs of the composers. Using the money carrot to entice the uninformed and naive bands, musicians and composers.
MichaelL, that isn’t a can of worms, it’s a shark tank. I walk a wide path around them.February 13, 2015 at 10:31 am #20039
Why buy a license from a library that participates in the process at all?
I don’t want to spend an extra two minutes doing anything. I want completely royalty-free, hassle-free, and stress-free purchases. There are enough libraries and composers out there that do not participate in ContentID, ADREV, and YouTube royalties.
If any person that bought a license gets hit with a claim, that person is entitled to a refund. If I made a video, I would not want advertisements on it unless I was making money from the ads.
There is no justification to be bothered with the system. There is so much great music out there to purchase that is hassle-free. Dealing with any copyright infringement claims at all is not even a reality for me. I would never, ever, ever, ever do business with a company that got me into any trouble or caused any problems. One problem is totally unforgivable and intolerable in today’s marketplace. This is a buyers market, not a seller’s market. The customer is always right in this case. The library must obey the customer and the content creator must obey the library.