Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it’s a disturbing thought that a groove and feel is subject to copyright infringement. Look at a genre like reggae and how influential Bob Marley was in that genre. It could probably be argued that a lot of tracks could be comparable to Bob Marley. Another example would be Elvis, and how he inspired musicians at the time, and even now with genres like rock-a-billy. It’s a bad precedent to have an estate, not the musician because he’s dead, be able to go after generations of musicians that were inspired by the music for 70 years. I do get that the law needs to be there, but a verdict like that has such broad implications of what could happen. Everybody wants their music to be able to take care of their family when they are not here anymore, but there is a difference between someone legitimately just ripping your work off and someone being inspired by something you’ve done.
That verdict is ridiculous and should be appealed. SOOO much of music is about being inspired by the musicians that came before and taking something they’ve done and adding your flair to it. It’s an homage or like hey I was really inspired by you and your work. I mean everybody is like oh who does that band sound like. Oh well it’s a mixture of x, x, and x. Just my two cents.
Not to sidetrack this discussion but I just received a copyright claim on visual content administered by orchard music. The visual content in question is a stock after effects template that is properly licensed. I wouldn’t add this to the junk claim pile because it is the same template, but it just goes to show that it is not just music that customers worry about getting claims, it is visuals too. Just something to think about.
That FauxMusicSupe is pretty good, I never heard of it before. Very entertaining reading!
That was awesome, thanks for sharing that. I never heard of a lot of those samples but they sound great. haha I would see if they have an affiliate program because you sold me on them.
I don’t know all the details here but it sounds a little unfair from what was posted here. So basically they keep just about everything from 0-1000 on the sync, and then if it’s over 1000 you only get 25%. I would say no thanks unless they are paying something upfront for your music and are placing a lot of music that will generate back end money. I don’t like the idea of getting zero commission for anything under $1000, you should get a cut of that regardless, and a lot more then 25%.
I think it is important to have a website, but a lot depends on your own personal end game. For me, it was very important to have a site because at first I wanted it to be a tool for custom work. I made it myself using webstarts, which was pretty simple. It was all kind of point and click and very little code. As things have evolved over the past 4 years so has the site. I’ve gotten a lot better at coding and designing websites so now it’s a lot more advanced and does a lot more. The main thing is you have to promote, market, and everything else or it will do virtually nothing for you. If that is something you don’t want to do then get a site for the sole purpose of submitting to libraries. Give yourself a little professional credibility that you take this stuff serious. I don’t know if that would make a big difference or not but I know it’s something I look at when people email me. Whether or not they have a custom email, and webpage. If they do I will check out there site and see who I am talking to before I email them back if I don’t know them. I take them more seriously then if it’s just a generic @gmail or whatever without a website.
Mark, the intended meaning behind that statement may come off strong, but my intended message and your interpretation is not what I mean. What I mean is libraries need to address content id. It is not going away any time soon. It exists, and composers/some libraries use it. We are both on the same page, your library doesn’t take composers that submit their music to content id, I do not submit my music to content id.
We both have made are positions clear. That is how we are both handling content id. Time will prove whether or not we made the correct decision and hopefully it will give us that competitive edge. I am in no way advocating for content id. We are both working under the assumption that content id is here, it is a reality, and we don’t want to have are music associated with it.
That statement is bold, but I think it is a reality that the libraries that pretend like content id is not something to make a stance on are going to lose in the long term. The acceptance comes from acknowledging it and making a firm decision about what to do next. We both have already done that.
Does that clear it up, or do you still disagree?
Personally for me if I get a false claim I still get kind of a pit in my stomach, even though I’ve been through the process and know it’s a junk claim. I want it resolved immediately. I can only imagine how it would make a customer feel if they just paid the license and now there is a claim on the video especially when they expected not to have a problem. From my end it’s a HUGE priority to stay on top of the false claims just to have the issue not come up for my customers.
I’d be curious to know if other musicians are monitoring their tracks on YouTube are getting false claims against their music too. If I had to make a conservative guess, I’d say for the about 300 pieces of music on YouTube, I get around 1-3 false claims per quarter.
Ya it is a total pain, and it sucks because I’d like to push the content id free sales pitch a little more as a selling tool, but it’s a bold statement to say it’s 100% content id safe because of the false claims. Personally, I think customers enjoy knowing it wont trigger a claim, especially for the producers that are making an end product for someone else. Not only does it make them look bad, but it makes the musician look bad too if they knew it would cause a copyright claim and didn’t disclose that. A lot of the custom work I do involves a non-disclosure agreements, and I think that has to do with the production company wanting to appear like they created everything and didn’t source the music, along with other more obvious reasons. It makes me draw the conclusion that for stock music they would like to keep that same appearance that if you come to our production to make this project, everything will be taken care of by us.
How bad would that look if a production company got paid some money for say an explainer video for a corporate client just to have a copyright claim on it and have a competitor’s ad running on their video. It makes everyone involved look bad, and is a great way to burn a bridge. I understand that for some customers that is not an issue, but for the ones that it is an issue it could be a very big problem.
I also understand for some people it is easy to clear the claim and get the ad removed from like adrev, but at the same time for the ones that can’t have that hassle, or don’t want that for their end customer they have to be aware of what music is content id free and what is registered.
My part in this is to stay vigilant for my music to be clear, and the libraries have got to make a stand on how they are going to deal with it. You can’t have a situation where some music is involved with content id, others is not, and it’s a crap shoot for the customers which one they will get. That is a terrible business move. If musicians are confident with the ease of something like adrev, or whoever, they should work hard to spin it in a positive way. Doing nothing and surprising a customer with that is bad, and even with the best customer service after the fact, it still can burn a bridge.
Yes they are mistakes. I will get a 3rd party copyright claim on one of my tracks. There in fact is no validity to the claim. The system misidentifies the music with a piece of music in the database. It’s almost like the threshold for identification is low. I will dispute the claim as not being valid because the music that is the basis of the claim is not correct. Typically that will resolve it, but it can take up to a month.
Sometimes it feels like their is some trolling about that goes on where people or entities try to intentionally create claims just to see if they can get away with it. I don’t know if that is true, but I get that impression from time to time when I have to defend my music against a total junk claim. I’ve even had it once where the claim got dropped and then reinstated. So I had to go about it to the next step, which worried me because YouTube doesn’t defend me. If it would go further I would get a copyright strike against me, even though I did literally nothing wrong.
Luckily, after I disputed it again and got a hold of the people with the claim it got resolved and it was dropped. I don’t know if that happens to other musicians often or not. I have a lot of music on YouTube with a decent amount of listens, so it might just make me a target. I am not sure.
Just a side note on that on the false positive things, I don’t use loops or anything like that. Sometimes I use EZ Drummer, but even with that I change it up quite a bit. I create my music from scratch and the claims are total junk 100% of the time.
I get A LOT of what I’d like to call content id trolls, that just put a claim on the music to see what they can milk in the ad revenue. Once I dispute the claim it typically resolves the dispute. Sometimes quickly other times they get a month per YouTubes policy to respond to the dispute. Long story short it’s a problem I don’t want my customers to have to deal with, so I have to stay very vigilant to keep everything clear.
Knock on wood, so far no one has entered my music into content id. What I am getting most is false positives. I had one recently last week that was claimed by adrev which I was able to listen to the music that was claimed. To my ears it wasn’t even close. I disputed the claim and it was resolved like a day or so later. I’ve had a few adrev claims but luckily it is nice working with them to get it disputed. They are fast.
I just got another one like 3-4 weeks ago from what I believe to be a troll. I submitted a dispute and I just went to check to see the status and it’s been dropped. They had a month to respond to the dispute. I was going to name and shame them, but now it’s gone. It sucks because I am put into a position where I have to be on guard all the time, and YouTube really doesn’t make the situation better. It seems like the person that makes the claim has priority over the one defending themselves.
All the music I have on Soundcloud/YouTube/Other Marketing Channels, has a watermark. It’s the best way I’ve found of trying to protect my music from theft.
Mark, I just want to let you know I respect you and your library. I didn’t mean it to come off like the way you’ve decided to address it as a negative. You’ve made your stance and decided what way your library is going to handle content id. That is a great thing. The comment was more for the libraries in general that haven’t chosen a stance. I have chosen not to participate in content id, and you have chosen not to participate in that. We are both on the same side of the issue, and hopefully time will tell that we made the right decision.
I agree that not upsetting or confusing the customers will give you a big competitive advantage. I don’t participate in content id and monitor my youtube channel for any claims and they do come up. They are junk claims that I have to dispute. If I don’t stay on top of them, I worry that I will have an upset and confused customer. The fact is content id and digital fingerprinting is something that needs to be addressed because if the policy is we don’t have composers that participate in that program and then a claim that is junk comes up your customer is going to be even more mad. If you have it set up to deal with that then that is great, and if it’s working for you then that’s even better. Here is where I am coming from.
I think it really needs to be a 50/50 split between libraries that ACCEPT content id registered musicians that they inform customers that they licensed the music legally and the claim is nothing more then showing a purchase receipt. They have the proof, and to spin it in a positive way. Then the musicians need to stay on top of the claims too to make sure the customers don’t have to deal with junk claims.
Maybe I am wrong, and time will tell. I do think that if you have a music library embraces the fact that some musicians choose to put music into content id to protect the music from theft that they will be more competitive long term over the libraries that have content id music that doesn’t address it. There are some VERY good musicians that have their music in that program. Don’t forget that. If the library informed the customer that the music was content id registered and they’d have some steps after the purchase to clear a youtube claim, but did it in a positive way. The customer would have the power to decide whether or not they wanted to do that. If they didn’t find that to be a hassle they’d buy it, if they did think that was a hassle they wouldn’t.
Make no mistake though, I don’t participate in that program, because I think it’s a plus to customers to not have that hassle. Where I am coming from is as a musician that has music alongside others that do participate in that program, it would be a huge benefit if the libraries showed which music was content id and which music was not. Just the same way as they show whether it’s pro registered or not. I’d like it to be in a way that doesn’t bias so that we are both on equal ground so the customer can choose based on an informed decision. That is where I am coming from, and is my two cents on it. What I mean be big competitive edge is the library that handles content id the best will have the edge.
That could be not allowing composers in that participate in that program. It could be embracing composers that do, and explaining it to the customers. All those different variables and business decisions that are directly influenced by content id. The library that handles it the best will ultimately have a big competitive edge. Only time will tell what the best option is, but it is the fork in the road time, and all the libraries need to figure what path they are going to take.
By ignoring it and making customers mad at stock music libraries and musicians it hurts everyone.