YouTube content ID and NE libraries

[Carles]

I’m submitting 12 tracks to some NE’s libraries and want to avoid any Content ID issues between them.
I also want to publish those tracks as regular music via an aggregator.

I sent my first three tracks to Crucial and these were accepted.
When I did set my account with Crucial I’ve opted -out- for the Rumblefish deal so I think I’ve prevented any content ID for any tracks under my account.
The contract I’ve signed does not mention Rumblefish at all so I think it’s all fine so far.

I’m filling up the paperwork for Cinecue now and they ask to warn them about any possible Content ID program (which should be none at the moment).

But as I want to release via an aggregator, when asked Crucial about they told me that CD-Baby would be fine.
They didn’t specifically denied using other aggregators but indeed pointed to CD-Baby, which can be problematic to other libraries as I did read about a systematic deal CD-Baby/Rumblefish and cause some mess.

Not sure either if when some NE’s are asking about any pre-existing Content ID, they do that in order to register Content ID themselves if still free (as it seems true for AS) or just to keep it out of the equation by not dealing with any material under Content ID, or just to be aware of.

Contracts are quite convoluted as per taking clear conclusions about, so please how could I safely do to:
-keep the tracks out of Content ID,
-work with Crucial and other NE,
-and also release as regular music,
all without causing any problems to any of the parts?

Please any opinion would be very welcome.

[Art Munson]

Contracts are quite convoluted as per taking clear conclusions about, so please how could I safely do to:
-keep the tracks out of Content ID,
-work with Crucial and other NE,
-and also release as regular music,

Some libraries will let you opt out of Content ID but libraries have been known to submit to Content ID without telling the composer. At that, there is no guarantee. Read the contracts carefully or hire a lawyer who is familiar with the field. MLR contributor/lawyer MichaelL should be set up soon. That would be my first choice.

[MichaelL]

MLR contributor/lawyer MichaelL should be set up soon. That would be my first choice.

Thanks, Art!

[Carles]

Thanks Art and Michael.

That seemed to me by reading Michael posts, and so glad to know that there is a lawyer amongst us, but unfortunately I cannot invest any money at the moment (did spent already way too much on virtual instruments crossing the line a while back so currently I only can invest work/time).

But indeed I keep an eye on Michael for the future.

If some libraries do that (is not the first time I read about) then it’s beyond our control anyway as contracts are never specific regarding exploitation/usage.
Is then when MLR comes so useful as people can warn/advice other according their own good/bad experiences.

I don’t think I’ll go with many libraries as I’m excluding RF ones so there are no many NE non-RF left, and some are in the graveyard. I think
3 or 4 will be all what I get as from those few not every one will be interested.
I’m possibly more hesitant about aggregators actually. With CD-Baby seems that I cannot opt out, but not sure if the other aggregators could also have deals leading to Content ID too or these are safe (other than CD-Baby).

I don’t know if should I go the Bandcamp way (which I’m told that’s simply a storefront) and forget about aggregators. Anyway I do not expect make any money releasing as music for regular listening, just a complement more on the personal side.

[MichaelL]

Hi Carles,

I have several CD’s on CDBaby. I was able to opt-out of their sync program and content ID.

I signed up a few years ago. Perhaps that has changed.

Best,

Michael

[Per Boysen]

I too opted out two albums of CD Baby’s sync program, since two pieces have been remixed for production music libraries. Unfortunately, CD Baby’s program only deals with albums and there’s no way to opt out a specific track.

I was worried that even though it’s about remixes in my case, some audio recordings, from the original CD release, in a remix may trigger a Content-ID alarm. Would you say that is an unnecessary precaution?

[Carles]

Thanks Michael and PerBoysen, that’s absolutely true, although I read otherwise in more than one source, Content ID at CD-Baby is certainly not compulsory but just an option.
No problem then (I mean by my side) I can reassure that I did my best to avoid any issues between libraries.

[Michael Nickolas]

Carles,

Not sure either if when some NE’s are asking about any pre-existing Content ID, they do that in order to register Content ID themselves

Applicants to the content ID system must have exclusive rights to the material they submit. So no, they shouldn’t be asking that in order to register your material themselves, because they have no right to register your material themselves.

As you said, there are cases where non exclusive libraries just go ahead and do so anyway. But it appears google is making this harder, I see this on their support page, and don’t recall it being there before:
“Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.”

[Carles]

Applicants to the content ID system must have exclusive rights to the material they submit. So no, they shouldn’t be asking that in order to register your material themselves, because they have no right to register your material themselves.

As you said, there are cases where non exclusive libraries just go ahead and do so anyway. But it appears google is making this harder, I see this on their support page, and don’t recall it being there before:
“Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.”

Thanks Michael. Good to know.
Let’s hope that time will sit everything on place. Certainly the current lack of better regulation is bringing quite a few headaches to clients and composers. Not a sustainable situation, and the worst is that in mostly cases the income for the composers is more than laughable.

[Author]

Posts