Home › Forums › Copyright Questions › Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID
Tagged: adrev, copyright infringement, youtube
- This topic has 190 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by Art Munson.
Soundroad, it is difficult to get past the first line of defense with Orchard. PM me here on MLR and I will send you direct email addresses for the contacts that work for me.
Hi Mark, thanks for your suggestion!
Unfortunately I don’t know how to send you a private message.
I found six of Mark in the list of participants of the forum, but none of them are labeled as just “Mark”.Mark LewisParticipant
My MLR ID is partnersinrhyme
I will ask you a simple question ? The composers that you reference, are they operating their own youtube channel where they use their own music on videos that they upload? In cases like this you could make money from it and there was someone on here a while ago who does exactly that, although with Rumblefish.
I dont operate like that, I just sell through half a dozen RF sites and a few exclusives.. I really don’t believe that there is so much piracy of my music to ….
1. Police it and then proceed to make money from illegal use and clear legal use.
2. More importantly p*** off the Libraries and their customers who expect a “direct licence” that they were promised.
As a side note regarding detection, there is one library I am in that is very proactive in this, and has alerted me a number of times when other libraries have put my tracks in Content id. There is also the YT option. I don’t need Adrev for that.
AdRev and all the others are great at fulfilling record companies and other big content owners needs, nobody is disputing that. In the RF world there are issues with it, its really that simple.DaveGuest
Yes these guys seem to upload some of their tracks to their own YT channel as a way to promote their tracks and guide people to their RF pages on the platforms they sell on.
Everyone says there are “issues” with Content ID as it relates to RF. Again, there are no issues if, we all in one giant Tsunami, every composer in the world adrev’d up into Content ID, or just entered Content ID on your own. This will force all RF companies to have a claim removal policy in place. That can be done quite easily. How? RF company A sells a license to a customer, on the actual license it can be written:
“To quickly clear any potential ‘Third Party Content’ claims using This music on YOUTUBE, please visit this page
using your video links, license certificate and state that you ‘have licensed music by “name of artist on name of RF site”. Your Claim will be cleared in about 2 days or less.
Dennis, ADREV already has a reputation for providing excellent customer service in getting a video or channel white listed. They executed a white list for me very quickly. This company is “YOUTUBE Certified” and seemingly a partner with google in some capacity. It’s pretty obvious that google wants ads on everything on YT because that is how they print money. The more the merrier.
Even the well known exclusive libraries are using the service, and have “issues” when they license a track to a client who wants to run the music free of ads on YT. If APM licenses a track to a YT customer they still need to get that video whitelisted. Or as I have said a million times, the customer can simply get it whitelisted themselves if there is some sort of warning or instructions on the license itself.
My point is that, maybe the entire music buying YT world just needs to learn how to white list their videos?
Why should creators such as yourself Dennis, be denied your rightful “advertising revenue” or “YOUTUBE ROYALTIES” from illegal/ unlicensed uses of your tracks? Why should your RF library get a cut of those as “middle man”? Don’t they already get their cut when they license your track?
Dennis I know a little bit about your catalog at AS and Art’s…, and you guys have been around a while and have large catalogs. I can guarantee you that you guys have lots of tracks floating around in the YT space with legit licenses, but also illegit uses.
Mark Petrie already proved my point by stating his earnings from 30 tracks.
The folks I have spoken with have stated that they are shocked by how much illegal use there is in the YT space with some of their tracks. ADREV informs these guys of all this, you can see every YT video using your tracks! How can that be a negative for creators?
Shifting to “exclusive streaming rights”…Again, this seems to be a gray area. Here is why? Let’s suppose we all decide to write new albums over the next 3 months. There we are with our 10 new tracks all excited to present them to the world. How do we do it? We can sell on I-tunes, Amazon, Spotify etc etc. Promote on Soundcloud, reverbnation, youtube,. Wow….well look at that. just like that there are 6 to 10 places streaming our music. So you see where the entire concept of “exclusive streaming rights” gets all weird and fuzzy? Even if we do not upload and sell on music libraries or RF….
This is where all the pimps come in too. You have companies like tunecore and rumblefish etc. baiting songwriters and bands and artists to “Opt In” to Content ID. They say “Let us handle it!, we’ll collect first then distribute your cut when we feel like it!”
This is why I am advocating a TSUNAMI of INDIVIDUAL ORIGINAL CREATORS, THE GUYS WHO OWN THE MASTERS IN THEIR DAW”S uploading to ADREV without any middlemen involved. This way, everything regarding “advertising revenue” and “YT Royalties” loops right back to us – The original creators, the way it should be. How is that a bad thing?
As original creators, we have “exclusive ownership” and get to pick and chose where our music streams or sells. No one has their music on just one site. And for those reading about “litigation” don’t let that scare you one bit. People don’t pull out the “litigation” card for $25 and $50, $100 RF tracks being sold to small and medium sized businesses in the royalty free scene. There simply is no time and no money for that nonsense.
On the other hand, If Mark Petrie licenses a blockbuster trailer track to a big corporation, you can bet they will find a way to remove the ads or do what they have to do to make things work the way they need it to work.
So Jay, let’s not play the fear monger card with RF composers. “You’ll get dropped, you’ll get sued and have to litigate.” I think not. Anyway, if the Tsunami occurs and EVERYONE signs up to Content ID, RF owners will have to drop everyone, then they’ll drop themselves right out of business along the way.
Shifting to “exclusive streaming rights”…Again, this seems to be a gray area. Here is why? Let’s suppose we all decide to write new albums over the next 3 months. There we are with our 10 new tracks all excited to present them to the world. How do we do it? We can sell on I-tunes, Amazon, Spotify etc etc. Promote on Soundcloud, reverbnation, youtube,. Wow….well look at that. just like that there are 6 to 10 places streaming our music. So you see where the entire concept of “exclusive streaming rights” gets all weird and fuzzy?
I really don’t understand this point sorry, YT is not asking for “exclusive streaming rights” that would be crazy. They are asking that you (as a YT Content ID partner) have or administer “exclusive streaming rights”
There are many rights I have as author of musical works and I may assign those rights to third parties in a number of scenarios, record deals, publishing deals etc. If I enter into an agreement with any non ex library I am letting them administer my streaming rights (amongst others) to their clients in return for a fee. Thats a fairly basic agreement between any composer and a non ex library. I still have retention of my copyright. Now because of the non ex nature of that agreement I can enter into multiple deals with non ex libraries letting each one of them administer those streaming rights ( again amongst many others )non exclusively for a fee. This means very simply I do not control or administer the exclusive streaming rights. I have chosen to let xxxx non exclusive libraries do that. This in itself stops me entering in YT Content id OR any other Agency on my behalf doing so.
So assuming that I am correct in my reading of the YT TOS then I could not as an individual, if I had my music in multiple non ex libraries enter my music into YT CID either directly or through AdRev.
It would then make no difference what so ever if all the non ex libraries put a notice along with every transaction explaining how to whitelist, Adrev etc.
If I am wrong in this please explain why. This surely is the crucial clause in the YT TOS in the whole debate.
You are absolutely correct to point out Adrev’s good points lets not disagree or even debate that anymore. Nobody is disputing that and lets not forget Mark Petrie specifically pointed out those tracks he has in CID are not in non ex libs.
The issue being debated here is how AdRev and similar agencies affect non ex library composers.DaveGuest
Yes Dennis, Anything you signed over to a library for them to be exclusive publisher is a track that you can not enter into Content ID i’d think. However, from my perspective any track that we sell non exclusively on RF sites that do NOT have a “No Content ID” policy can be uploaded into content ID by the original creator. Hundreds if not thousands of guys are doing this. There is responsibility on the part of the composer along with this. We have to be prepared to help customers eliminate claims and ads occasionally.
Many of the experienced composers in ADREV for 2 years now have said that after 2 years of doing the ADREV thing, they only run into “issues” about once a month or so when a customer writes asking that they remove the ad.
Also, so everyone understands where the lions share of illegal uses are coming from, I have been told that it is mostly by teens. Teens drive a lot of the music business as consumers. They like to screw around on YT, make videos, tell jokes, goof off, etc. So if they hear cool rock tracks or happy uke tracks, synth pop, bombastic trailers, etc… they are ripping these off of YT, making their own silly videos and then re-uploading. This is what we’d want to a certain extent. It’s almost as if we should welcome all this goofing off and YT play time. Especially when it’s OUR OWN SONG racking up YT royalties or “advertising revenue”. It’s called sweet passive income, don’t work just make money off of music assets.
These kids don’t care if an ad goes on their videos. They probably just assume an advert is part of the deal. My tune that aired on a popular cable show (JP made the placement) blew up on YT from a bunch of teen girls ripping it, re-upping it on YT, chatting it up, sharing it, etc. I adrev’d the tune, I am making YT royalties now. JP doesn’t give a hoot, nor does the show’s production company appearantly. No one is threatening me with litigation. It’s my tune folks, on my hard drive, only I can recall and re-mix the master. What’s mine is mine. I deserve every cent of royalties from the teen girls YT shenanigans. Mark Petrie is enjoying the hell out that 9 to 10K he is making from those video gamer shenanigans on YT. Right Mark?
The main point here is NE RF companies with the NO CONTENT ID policy are just being selfish and self serving and oppressive to their writers.
I gave them a solution: Just tell your customer how to deal with ADREV and Content ID on every license you sell.
I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what “exclusive streaming rights” means. Since you have suggested that the one person on here that could give us a legal definition on this stop participating in the thread, as they say over here we will “park that one there”. LOL.
The main point here is NE RF companies with the NO CONTENT ID policy are just being selfish and self serving and oppressive to their writers.
I gave them a solution: Just tell your customer how to deal with ADREV and Content ID on every license you sell.
I will let library owners comment on that one ( I am not one ) but as I stated earlier this is not the root cause or a solution to the problem either.JayGuest
I am involved with a publishing company and I’m giving the licensor’s perspective on this since CID affects all of us equally and this forum is shared by both parties. I am not trying to convince composers to use CID or not to use CID, I am just stating that CID is complex and if a composer puts their music into this system, they need to understand these complexities to avoid things from backfiring. We have chosen not to take part in CID but are still very much affected by composers who put the music we license into the CID system.
There are a lot of composers in general who register their tracks into CID while this music is also being represented by libraries and causes countless problems for libraries and clients. Let me clarify that the problem is not the extra admin work of dealing with these claims, the problem is that our clients are straight out p****d off that they licensed music legitimately and they are seeing ads on their music as well as their monetization is being re-directed away from them. These clients are extremely busy and do not want to deal with these claims and the last thing we want to do is p*** off our clients, let’s not forget that these clients are revenue sources for all of us.
@Dave, most composers here send the majority of their music to libraries and you seem to be preaching a gospel that composers should join AdRev and cash in on CID because its a goldmine (including Non-Exclusive music). We tested the CID and the average composer makes an average of $1-$3 per month, definitely not a goldmine. As Art said, that it is assumed in this forum that composers putting their music into CID are only putting exclusive music that is NOT in any libraries then that is totally fine and doesn’t pose any conflicts with libraries. My point is mainly how composers unknowingly can step on the toes of the libraries by putting their music into content ID when they also have their music in libraries. Dave, I don’t feel that you are clarifying the complexities and potential conflicts that CID can pose. You are just saying f*%k it, just put your music in CID and who cares about whether or not you have the right to do so or not. You have this us vs them mentality with libraries and what you are saying can be compared with if all exclusively signed artists of an exclusive library all join forces and say f*&k it, let’s all send our music to non exclusive libraries to make some extra cash, what are they gonna sue all of us??? Who cares what we agreed to in our contract! I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous Dave.
These complexities can be very problematic for ALL of the parties involved in library licensing and things are not as simple as you are stating. Yes, there are situations where CID makes sense, but there are many situations where it doesn’t and since this forum focuses on library licensing, then this should be made clear so composers know what they are getting themselves into. It also seems that you are trying to convince non-exclusive composers to put their tracks into CID, how can that be a good thing for anyone? This is clearly a bad idea on all levels as it would only drive clients towards using hassle free, content ID free libraries like the ones that ban their users from CID, not to mention it’s completely against YouTube’s terms of services and YES can make composers vulnerable to litigation. This is not fear mongering, any action where you breach a contract makes you vulnerable to litigation and client’s are getting more and more frustrated with copyright trolling. You really should read some video producer’s forums to see their point of view on this because they are fuming and it’s only getting worse and driving clients towards “clean” exclusive libraries that don’t deal in CID at all. Non-Exclusive music library’s reputations have been on a downward spiral for the last 10 years for not having enough control over their music and trust me, client’s are quickly approaching their limit with CID and this is only making things worse.
it’s the duty of the CID administer to properly protect and police their songs as well as whiteflag legit uses. The CID copyright administrator has the choice of how they want to deal with each CID case, such as whether to takedown the video, to mute the music, monetize it with ads or whiteflag it. How can the composer effectively know which videos are legit licenses and which aren’t if the libraries are the ones selling the licenses? (the composers have no direct knowledge of licenses sold until they receive their statements months later from the libraries).
YouTube requires exclusive streaming rights and as soon as your music exists in ANY library (exclusive or non-exclusive) you no longer hold exclusive streaming rights to your music and are no longer able to properly administer your music in the CID. The administering NEEDS to be done by the entity making the licenses since the licensor is the ONLY party that can decide whether each use is legitimate or not since they are making the sales to the clients. Composers have no way of knowing this information as soon as they assign a 3rd party (library or publisher) to sell licenses on their behalf.
“We can sell on I-tunes, Amazon, Spotify etc etc. Promote on Soundcloud, reverbnation, youtube,. Wow….well look at that. just like that there are 6 to 10 places streaming our music. So you see where the entire concept of “exclusive streaming rights” gets all weird and fuzzy?”
The above statement doesn’t make sense, Exclusive streaming rights don’t mean that you can only stream your music on one site, they mean that ONE entity has the exclusive right to provide/sell streaming rights to clients. These rights are included in licenses that are sold to clients. As soon as your music goes into one or more libraries, you no longer have exclusive streaming rights as a composer.
For someone who is considering whether or not to take the plunge with CID, you sure seem to be sure of how amazing it is. Could it be that you have an involvement with AdRev? If not, I’m sure they would love to put you on the payroll.Desire_InspiresParticipant
Exclusive streaming rights don’t mean that you can only stream your music on one site, they mean that ONE entity has the exclusive right to provide/sell streaming rights to clients. These rights are included in licenses that are sold to clients. As soon as your music goes into one or more libraries, you no longer have exclusive streaming rights as a composer.
Wow. So having music in libraries, even on a non-exclusive basis, causes problems with monetizing one’s music.
Would adding music to AdRev/CID and controlling it truly pose problems for the composer? Aren’t composers able to do direct licenses with their music outside of music libraries for non-exclusive purposes?
I suppose that non-exclusivity has its own set of positive and negative consequences.
There are just so many questions to ask and to answer. I am not sure what the correct answers are just yet. But I may add some unexploited music to AdRev to see what all the fuss is about. It probably will not lead to anything. I just want to see what the big deal is.
This business gets more crazy by the day!DaveGuest
Hi Jay, Great response and it is great to have a lively discussion between publishers and writers. If you look back earlier in the thread, I stated that I have been a cautious gradualist with ADREV. Let’s address your concerns:
1. “complexities” – The “complexities” can be eliminated if the license itself issued at purchase tells the customer how to eliminate ads from their YT videos. You can also add, “if you are having trouble, you can write to this composer, Mr Writer@gmail.com and ask them to clear your video of ads.”
2. “Ticked off customers and disgruntled video producers” who are your clients (All of ours to a certain extent) – They are now getting educated about CID, they should now know how to get their vids whitelisted. Even EXCLUSIVE libraries probably have to white list for their higher paying customers. Jay, I am not sure what the price point your firm sells at, but I can not feel sorry for video producers who get music for $20 to $50 in MANY instances and then cry about how they may have to write an e-mail to get an ad removed. Some RF sites allow for “customer direct to composer” contact. Clearly your company does not allow for that and that is where you have seen problems
3. “The money ain’t that good afterall” – Your guys are making $1 to $3 a month? Well everyone will have a different story in CID land, just as everyone will have a different story in RF markets, and Back end royalties, and sync fees. It all depends on how well you sell and how much you have out there floating around in the unruly youtube universe. And…are the teens having a ball with your songs playing “youtube fun time” where suddenly some video leaps to 10 million views out of nowhere.
My point is this: What if CID just became a way of life for everyone to deal with forever. A drag for video producers? Yes…it is. They may have to spend 2 minutes e-mailing a music license and link to the video they are posting to white list it.
But also Jay, what about the example back in the thread that I gave about the “dishonest publisher”. Remember the story about my friend who sent a UK publisher his catalog, and from time to time he asks “Any good news on my catalog?” and the answer is always “Nothing yet.” But suddenly, after my friend ADREV’d up, pow just like that the UK publisher has a disgruntled client who has a claim on the video! and only the original creator can clear it. But wait a minute, you always tell me that you have no placements on my tracks…See how a service like ADREV came in handy for a writer in that example?
If Google truly took their terms of service seriously, they would find a way to stop the unruly behavior that exists world wide. Then, what about the problem of thieves and shyster “publishers” beating writers to it and ADREVING up their catalogs when it’s not their musicd and they are not the original creator?
NO, I do not work for ADREV, but clearly ADREV and CID are the subject of the current times that needs to be dealt with soon. While I may be dreaming, I do happen to think that if all ORIGINAL CREATORS CID’d up their entire catalogs in one big swoosh, writers would certainly regain control of their works and force the entire industry to deal with the new rules. And that is not a bad thing…for writers. All video producers would be p****d, but they simply would have to deal with it and work around it.
4. Your concern about clients running over to “clean” exclusive folks – Oh don’t you worry!…They will learn how to eliminate ads and will come running right back to dirt cheap $20 licenses simply because it’s too profitable. They will work around those “complexities.”Desire_InspiresParticipant
I admire Dave’s enthusiasm.
I am not sure how it all will work out in the end, but Dave has a miniscule voice in the discussion.Mark LewisParticipant
All video producers would be p****d, but they simply would have to deal with it and work around it.
Sheesh. I would hate to have you for a business partner.
Your ramblings as far as I can tell are not based in logic nor experience. You are not part of AdRev and you are not a music library owner.
You make wild assumptions and have no real concept of how a business actually works.
Good luck with your crusade to get every composer on the planet to join contentID. I wish you well.
Any thread where someone has rudely told MichaelL he is not welcome is a thread I am no longer interested in reading.
I’ve seen that from the Mark Lewis playbook before on discussion boards. “I don’t like what you are saying, so I am leaving this discussion for good.”
Come on Mark, grow up already, As an owner of a RF music site, why don’t you offer your expertise and advice to the original question in the thread. Is the only answer you have to upload all your tracks to your own YOUTUBE channel to see who hit a writer with false claims? Mark, have you placed any of your own tracks to monetize in Content ID? You are the expert businessman in the field of RF music licensing, please offer some expertise to this forum. How should the RF industry handle CID?
Mark, will uploading a catalog to our personal YT channel stop/ police “dishonest NON RF publishers” from licensing our music to their clients for YT usages? No it won’t. So what is your solution to the original question?MichaelLParticipant
“Come on Mark, grow up already”
That is probably the most arrogant and presumptive thing that I’ve heard from someone who operates in the comforting shadow of anonymity.
Why don’t you tell us who you are? Let us know the source of your sage advice, or should I say ‘More Advice” or one of your other 4 pseudonyms?
How about your last rant against RF libraries, P5 in particular, in which you advised everyone to raise their prices to $100? But wait, aren’t you now selling all your cues on P5 at $39.95? There’s a huge credibility gap.
It’s easy to insult people when you’re hiding behind a curtain. Tell us why we should violate the terms of our library agreements to chase down $.00068 per view from youtube.
The original question, was how do you stop thieves. The answer is, use the law. Use the procedures that are in place to combat piracy.Art MunsonKeymaster
Thank you MichaelL, Mark and everyone else for their input on this subject. A subject worthy of discussion but unfortunately corrupted by David’s need to control the conversation while insulting those who disagree with him.
I would normally close this thread but will keep it open so others can chime in. “David” will no longer be a part of it.