- This topic has 30 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know what is supposed to happen is that only exclusive tracks are entered into Youtube’s Content ID system, but have to ask: If your music is being used in a Youtube video, how do we know this isn’t going to trigger the content ID warning should someone else try to use it? Is there a way to check?
Upload your own tracks inside video files to a YouTube account and try to monetize them. If you’ve been writing library music for a while, you may be shocked by how many mistaken, false or even fraudulent claims there against your music.
I’m in the process of going through my entire catalog and just about every composer who gave me non-exclusive music has had stuff flagged.
It’s not usually their fault either – 9 times out of 10 it’s because a library they gave tracks to got greedy and sent the music off to AdRev without thinking about what it might mean for every other library trying to license the same tracks.
‘Matched content’ comes up a lot for arrangements of public domain songs (like Christmas Carols). I guess there’s no way around that issue right now.
Just to be clear ChuckMott, someone using your music in a video on youtube in no way means that it will be automatically entered into the youtube contentID database or somehow trigger any claims in other videos using your music.
Someone needs to physically and purposefully upload your music into the youtube contentID database (not just a simple video on youtube) for claims to start being triggered.There are lots of ways your music can get into contentID without your knowledge though. The main ones I see are
1. You enter your music into a library, a library that says they do not use contentID, but then that library has distribution partners who do use it. This happens a lot and is a tough one to get cleared up as you are several steps removed from the people who took your music.
2. A customer to a music library buys your music and thinks he can use it as a sample to create his own musical composition. I have seen people buy our music then add a sax solo or guitar solo, sometimes just throw a hip hop beat underneath and then turn around and sell it as their own. They then claim they own the music on youtube and your original music magically starts getting claims on youtube.
These are also very tough to get rid of. This type of problem happens a lot with OrchardMusic.3. Someone simply steals your music and uploads it into a music distribution system like Route Note or CD Baby. They tick the box to earn youtube revenue and start making money off of your music.
These are hard to deal with as well.4. Non-exclusive music libraries unknowingly join AdRev and upload your music without your permission. This is what happens most often and is usually pretty easy to take care.
One more tip. When you do like Mr Petrie says and start testing your own music in your own youtube channel (I strongly suggest that all composers start doing this) you should never give the URL of your test video to AdRev or AdshareMG or whatever other company is making the claims. If you give them your video URL along with a complaint they will simply whitelist your youtube channel and it will then be useless for tests.
I learned the hard way and am on my fourth youtube channel that I keep solely for keeping track of false claims on our composer’s music.Just to clarify, Orchard Music is here
They used to be called IODA and some claims still come in with the IODA name but newer claims are from Orchard Music. But still the same company.
At least they are decent enough to tell you who is making the claim in the youtube claim itself. Most companies leave that info out and you have to contact AdRev or AdshareMG directly to try and find out.
If that is the case then only the composer him/herself can get that info from them. I’m not able to ask for composer in those cases, the copyright owner has to contact them to find who is making false claims on their music.BFM
http://bfmdigital.com/
is another one that does not let their clients know that they need exclusive rights to upload music into their system. They’ll accept anything and then tell composers and music libraries that they need to educate their customers about contentID instead of BFM educating theirs.
In their defense they do tell you that they are the ones making the claim and they will remove it when asked.Wow, this is a heck of a mess.
Is there any way to grant those who buy a license to use your music an exemption from getting flagged by services like Adrev?
E.g. I sell a license to someone, they make a youtube video and use my track. I have the same track in Adrev to catch unauthorised uses, so I don’t want my client to get flagged. Is there any way of doing this? If so, does it have to be done manually?
Yes, you can do that. You can contact AdRev and have them remove each individual claim that appears on your client’s videos.
It depends on who is selling the license though. If it is a non-exclusive library then the problem arises when the client initially receives the claim, they get really angry (believe me) and send very angry emails to the library who sold them the license. The library can usually fix the situation if they want to. But if the client never writes back to the library and just assumes they were sold something illegally or that the library did not have the rights to the music (that is 9 times out of 10 their first assumption) then the client simply decides to never use that music library again. Customer gone forever.
That is really bad for the music library business and for composers in general. Customers need to trust music libraries and the composers they represent.Totally see your point, and exactly what I would want to avoid.
I think the way it currently is, if you have tracks in a library then those tracks can’t be in content ID… because you can’t grant individual exemptions to clients who use your tracks on youtube quickly and efficiently enough.
How do exclusive libraries who use content ID manage this?! Do they have some automatic way of providing their clients with an exemption?
How do exclusive libraries who use content ID manage this?! Do they have some automatic way of providing their clients with an exemption?
That’s a great question Tbone.
I think maybe it works because the client for an exclusive library sees the name of the music library, the name of the composer and the name of the song in the youtube claim itself. Since they recognize all 3 of those things they feel safer. If they do not want ads on their videos or if they want to monetize their videos then they contact the library to ask them to remove the claim.
I assume that’s how it would work.The problem comes in with non-exclusive material when multiple entities start making claims with different song titles and composer names and music libraries that they don’t know, then the client starts freaking out.
Very interesting discussion all this… and definitely feels like one part of the future of music ‘royalties’.
Again, agreed on the non-ex problems. Man that must be a hell of a headache.
But on the exclusive ones, I can imagine an exclusive library easily selling 500 licenses a day, most of which end up on youtube videos, but I have no idea how they could be managing that many claims and issues if they were using content ID. I think they simply can’t do so yet, until there’s an automated way to allow a client exemption from content ID.
(Imagine if 10% of clients – a low estimate – contact the exclusive asking why they’ve been flagged… that’s 50 emails a day in my example and 50 problems you have to send Adrev an email about everyday!)
Exactly.
Every library or distribution partner that I have dealings with are coming to terms with this issue. It takes a huge amount of customer service time to police everyone’s catalogs and calm the frayed nerves of customers. It is also a lot of negative energy all day long to have to threaten lawsuits and call people who will not listen.
We could all be using that time to market the music of our composer’s, to create new features for our websites, to create new partnerships with other distributors.
But the reverse is happening.
Our distribution partners are starting to not trust us when their customers keep getting flagged on youtube.
Here is a clause from an amendment to a contract we have with a distribution partner that I had to sign today. This is a real signal that this whole problem is getting way out of hand and that all of this customer service energy being spent on nonsense claims on youtube is really ruining the business.Check this out:
4 (a)(iii) Licensor shall not submit any Compositions licensed hereunder, whether re-titled or known by any alternate name or not, to third party entities for the purpose of monitoring and reporting music used on YouTube for Monetization, as defined herein, including but not limited to; “The Orchard/IODA”, “INGrooves”, “CD Baby”, “AdShare”, “Universal Music Group aka UMG”, “Rumblefish, Inc.”, “APM Music”, “Pirames International”, “Getty Images”, “Valleyarm Digital Video & Music Distribution”, “Horus Music Limited”, “AdRev” or “Audio Micro”, “Indy Music”, and any other entity of a similar nature.So that is what it is coming to.
Not to be too dramatic but I would like to suggest that all composers start policing their own catalogs for youtube claims. Doing this will totally increase the value of your music catalog in this new environment we are working in.Not to be too dramatic but I would like to suggest that all composers start policing their own catalogs for youtube claims. Doing this will totally increase the value of your music catalog in this new environment we are working in.
I think we’ll do that. We have the admin capacity.
I was beginning to think I could use content ID to get youtube monies for my tracks sold through libraries. But it looks like a terrible idea to me whether it’s non-ex or ex. I wouldn’t do it either way the way things are now.
Based on what I now understand, I would only use content ID for tracks released as commercial recordings, i.e. neither production music nor music for licensing.
But I don’t have much of that!
Also, I’m pretty certain my exclusive libraries aren’t using content ID either.
Also, I’m pretty certain my exclusive libraries aren’t using content ID either.
I don’t know if we share any of the same library clients, but ALL my exclusive ones do in fact use content ID.
It’s not specifically written into any contracts (we’re talking music I wrote before content ID was even a thing), but most of these deals have been work-for-hire, so they probably get to keep all that income. I guess that’s an entirely different subject for discussion…
Hey Mark,
Actually yea, now I think about it, some of them probably are..But the ones that sell a lot to people who use the music for videos on youtube – how could they possibly handle the constant massive stream of content ID claims their clients have to deal with? I feel like I must be missing something here!