Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID

Home Forums Copyright Questions Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 191 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20025 Reply
    Dave
    Guest

    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

    http://cid.adrev.net/contact-us

    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.

    #20026 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    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.

    Absolutely correct and what Dave is advocating is fraught with potential problems!

    #20029 Reply
    Dave
    Guest

    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.”

    #20030 Reply
    Desire_Inspires
    Participant

    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.

    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.

    #20031 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    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.

    http://thetrichordist.com/2014/03/10/what-youtube-really-pays-makes-spotify-look-good-sxsw/

    Good RF cuts can easily earn more than $240, fairly quickly. Still not a can of worms that I want to open.

    #20024 Reply
    Jay
    Guest

    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.

    #20036 Reply
    Dave
    Guest

    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.

    #20037 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    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?

    #20038 Reply
    Steve Ballard
    Guest

    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.

    #20039 Reply
    Desire_Inspires
    Participant

    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?

    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.

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 191 total)
Reply To: Reply #20038 in Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID
Your information: