- This topic has 190 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
You said that you were talking with the CEO of P5 and that he was talking with AdRev. For P5 to submit to Content ID they need to control the exclusive streaming rights.
P5 would have to go down the same path as AS and offer an opt-in exclusive model, which is quite possible.
So sure, they’re going to “talk” to Ad rev. Why not have the option? It doesn’t mean they’re going 100% Ad rev.
As with AS, it would have to be opt-in, and for new exclusive content. Too much non-exclusive content has already been sold with the guarantee that it’s content ID free.
This discussion is going nowhere.
Perhaps some people see a lot more gray, than black & white on the issue. Simple answers to complex issues can be deceptive.
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.
Nice one DI. Very well put.
Each composer of course should make his own decision in regards to joining contentID. I’m just not sure why some composers feel the need to go on a crusade to get all other composers to join once they have come to their decision.
I have a question regarding contentId, Mark may be in the best position to answer it as he is a library owner. As a composer is it possible or advisable to join the YouTube content ID program then select not to run advertising over your music. I have had a couple of instances where my music ended up in the contentID program because when a producer uploaded their video they entered the audio from the video into the contentID program not understanding that the music in the video would become part of the program.
Each time it has happened it has been purely from lack of understanding of the program and copyright.
Would it ever make sense for a writer to preemptively enter their content then let users who purchase their music know that it is in the contentID program for the licensors benefit (it could stop bogus claims later)
Uploading your music to AdRev (or whatever middleman service that does this) would not solve the issue you had on those couple of occasions. You would still have to work out with those people that they cannot claim to own the copyright to your music via contentID. It would be your word against theirs at that point.
Uploading to AdRev does not stop claims via other companies, it only manages your claims.On the other side as a library owner if you had sold 400 licenses of your music to our customers over the years and they were all happily using said music on youtube and then you suddenly joined AdRev and sent them all copyright claims and stopped them from monetizing their videos (this happens automatically with any copyright claim) then I as a library owner would receive 100’s of angry customer complaints and lose a couple hundred valuable customers forever.
As a library owner I also have a lot of work to do and using a bunch of my valuable time to sort out contentID claims for each and every sale plus “educating” customers that some third party will eventually claim the music they just paid for and to contact me so I can work with this third party that has nothing at all to do with my company or my clients and sort it all out for them is a bit ridiculous and really not a very smart move business-wise.
In my opinion it would be best just to upload your music yourself to your own youtube channel to keep track of who might be falsely claiming it. Lots of our composers have done this and it works like a charm.
Dave, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but forcing your customers to verify they have paid for the music they’re using is putting a tedious burden on them. If you’ve ever tried going through YouTube’s system to challenge ‘matched third party content’ you’ll know what I mean. It can take anywhere from a week to a whole month to get an answer, and very often that answer is ‘Dispute rejected, claim has been reinstated.‘
If someone wants to use the music they’ve just paid for, and immediately start monetizing their video, they’re going to be frustrated to find they have to wait weeks to just get an answer.
The most efficient way to remove a claim / white list a video is to contact the content ID company (e.g AdRev) directly. Some are better than others – AdRev will get back to you within a day but others I’ve contacted, like Orchard and European companies, take much longer.
That said, I agree in principle that the creators of the music should be the ones to get the content ID income and not people who use it illegally. I’ve given AdRev a trial run with some of my higher end trailer music (which isn’t in any RF catalog). Of all my music, it’s the most pirated and uploaded to YouTube, so it seemed like a good place to start trying out Content ID.
Hopefully this technology finds a solution soon, because the system is definitely broken right now. Audiosocket is working on something.
In my opinion it would be best just to upload your music yourself to your own youtube channel to keep track of who might be falsely claiming it. Lots of our composers have done this and it works like a charm.
Haven’t had time to think about this. I’ve never done a youtube video.
What’s the process? What software do I need?Haven’t had time to think about this. I’ve never done a youtube video.
What’s the process? What software do I need?I just used iMovie to create a one frame slideshow. Uploaded an hour’s worth of music per video.
This thread has some comments about policing your catalog with your own youtube channel
Thanks!
He would have sold your music under his own name had you placed your music in contentID as well.
Again, placing your music in contentID does not prevent people from stealing your music. That is some kind of contentID myth that some composers are starting.I agree with putting music on your own YouTube channel to monitor the claims. It really helps stay on top of it so you know there isn’t going to be any problems for your customers. Also I really try to make sure all the music I have out there via soundcloud, or youtube has a watermark. I understand why other musicians want to put there music into content id, but for me, I think the libraries need to do a better job of addressing it.
I think the biggest problem is the shock to the customer there is a claim, and it does put a bad taste in their mouth if they were expecting a hassle free experience. What the libraries need to do is just add an option that says this music is registered into content id on the music details page maybe under the music description. Then have a link on “content id” where it brings up a simple and musician friendly description on how easy it is to clear a claim, with maybe some images of the process. Basically give the customers the option to choose whether or not they want to buy that type of music.
The problem is it’s either hit or miss. They get some music and most of the time it’s not causing a 3rd party claim, and then they purchase some music that is. There was nothing to identify it as being part of content id so now they have a bad taste in their mouths because they don’t know what is going on. If the library had done a better job addressing it, the customer wouldn’t be as upset.
This puts the purchasing power back in the hands of the customers, and economics can take over. If content id music is properly defined, labeled, and is on the exact same non-biased playing field as music not in content id, then the customers have the informed choice. If having music in content id hurts sales for musicians that have music in there, the market will adjust. The opposite is also true. If customers don’t mind the process of showing a license for YouTube, you’d probably see more musicians being involved in content id.
The main problem here is the shock of not getting what they expected. That is a problem that can be fixed by the library owners, and should be on the radar. Personally, I don’t have music in the content id system, but do monitor claims against my music on my YouTube channel. From time to time I have to dispute claims that come up, and I know for a fact they are junk claims. I don’t want my customers to have to worry about that. Content id and digital fingerprinting is not going away anytime soon and it needs to be addressed a lot better then it currently is. It’s like people are still in denial about it, like it’s not happening. It’s time to move past the denial, anger, bargaining, and all those stages of grief and get to acceptance. The library that accepts that it’s the way it’s going to be and works with it instead of grinding against it will really gain a big competitive edge.
I think not upsetting and confusing its customers would give a music library a big competitive edge instead of the other way around.
But that’s just me.I think not upsetting and confusing its customers would give a music library a big competitive edge instead of the other way around.
But that’s just me.I think Muscosound means competitive in terms of attracting the best composers.
I’m sure hassle-free would be more attractive to most consumers.
Muscosound didn’t say that though MichaelL.
Many libraries already have youtube contentID integrated in some way so I’m not sure where all this grievance anger and denial is coming from.
Personally it is just a policy at ML not to accept composers involved in contentID and has been for 5 years and it turns out to be a very good policy as our customers love our site and our no-hassle service.
And without customers you can attract as many talented composers as you want but what would be the point?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.