Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
At MLS…
http://www.musiclicensingsoftware.com/
We have developed and included a free csv importer feature where you simply use your existing csv file of metadata, or export your metadata from Sourceaudio or LicenseQuote, and then import your entire library in one go.
If your files already exist on a server simply include the URL in your csv file.
If they don’t exist on a server you simply upload the files in one go and then import your metadata.
Result? Instant Music Library with no hassles, no limits, no plans and no payments, ever.-Mark
And I am sorry, but I am now of the opinion that every RF site owner must educate THEIR buyers that content ID is here to stay and only going to get bigger
Good grief. What a load of sh*t.
I pretty sure Advice was just trying to unsubscribe from this forum thread, not from your service Michael. 😉
Here is our free offering to composers who want to setup their own music licensing website.
http://www.musiclicensingsoftware.com/
You control everything, easy upload, no monthly fees, no fees at all.AdShare & AdRev. I’m not sure the 2 companies aren’t related.
They are definitely not related.
Your AdShare claims will all come down when Lee puts his request through.
If you feel like posting the info on your false claims from AdRev I can help you figure that out.
ContentID posts lots of info now on the copyright claims (usually) and there are lots of ways to use that info to figure out what is happening and who to contact.Lee said he’s issued a takedown notice. They’ve always been a decent company to deal with.
Lee is great. He is responsive and very helpful.
I’ve been cautious to NOT enter into any agreements authorizing YouTube Content ID.
There are many libraries that will enter your music into youtube contentID without asking you and without letting you know what you might have earned.
It just seems that “guilty until proven innocent” is a sleazy approach to the problem. Shouldn’t they verify ownership at the Library of Congress before filing fraudulent claims?
That is really the most unfair and frustrating part of this whole situation. That the copyright owner of the actual music is guilty until proven innocent.
That is the part that really p****s me off.
There should be some sort of vetting for music that is uploaded but there is absolutely none.I can definitely see how for big exclusives e.g. KPM it’s easy to handle, but yes, those smaller exclusives who aim more at the hobbyist
youtube contentID works perfectly for exclusives, big or small.
The thing that many composers, music libraries and AdRev don’t realize (I think AdRev does actually realize it but they don’t advertise it) is that you HAVE to have exclusive rights to the music to even upload it to youtube contentID.
ContentID and AdRev and every other middleman out there works perfectly if you are exclusive to one company.
Non-exclusive libraries cannot use the youtube contentID services because you HAVE to have exclusive rights.
That is the only issue here. Non-exclusive libraries uploading and pretending they have exclusive rights just to earn a few pennies (and most often without the knowledge or remuneration to the composer who owns the music).@ENW1
see my response here@ENW1
From what you posted it actually looks like AdShare MG was making the claim on your music.
Did you have your music in the AS library around 2011?
Many of the catalogs that were inadvertently uploaded to AdShare MG are somehow getting re-claimed on youtube. They keep saying they have removed that music from the youtube contentID database but they obviously haven’t as many of the composers who were around at that time keep getting their music reinstated with AdShare MG.
It is a major hassle. AdShare MG is apparently just lying to everybody when they confirm a composer’s music is removed. They blame it on an intern or something that keeps reinstating these composer’s music catalogs into youtube contentID but why is it even an option for an intern to be able to do this when they have confirmed over and over again that the music from these composers has been deleted from the database.
Pretty dodgy if you ask me.
This is exactly why it is good for composers to test their catalogs on youtube for false copyright claims like this.This is the orchestra in Prague my friend used.
http://www.orchestra.net/
“fifty piece orchestra is only $2250 per hour (booked as 3-hour session) including conductor, studio, engineers, and music printing.”Is there a way they are “doing it on the cheap”
A composer friend of mine just did exactly what you are describing.
He hooked up with a music library in France. They asked him to write in a certain style and to do all the orchestral arrangements as well.
He did the arrangements and the library flew him and a producer to a country in Eastern Europe (I forget which one) where they have super-cheap orchestras and they got it all done in a couple of days for a great price.
So far one of those tracks was placed in one movie for nowhere near the 50k-100k you mentioned above.
I also have a few composers submitting tracks to ML that are obviously live orchestral performances. One guy seems to just crank them out.
There’s got to be a way to do it for cheap. I’m just not sure what it is exactly.I have a separate test account on youtube where I just keep tracks that I am keeping an eye on.
I have a couple of other accounts that I actually post videos for people to see.
I like to keep them separate,
1. because my main accounts keep getting whitelisted by AdRev and are useless for testing. I never give out URLs to anyone for my test account. It is very easy to find and whitelist my main accounts.
2. because the test account only has private tracks/videos that I am keeping an eye on and it is very easy to just scroll through and see if any claims have been made or removed. It would be a little more confusing to sort through them if my real videos were in the mix as well.That’s awesome Tim. Thanks!!
and i make original music and i buy royalty free sounds and loops and incorporate them into my productions, im wondering if my customers will have any issues with this whole content id thing,
We recently had to delete a composer’s entire catalog from ML because his tracks started triggering lots of youtube claims.
I contacted the composer and he told me that besides selling his music as production music he also sold it as loops and music construction kits to other composers.
These two formats do not mix well as people of course assume they can call a composition their own once they incorporate royalty free loops into their version of the same music.So you should probably be careful using music construction kits. You can find out if there is an issue by simply uploading your music to youtube and checking for yourself.
The music library mentioned in that article is one of the libraries that recently entered all of their composer’s music catalogs into the youtube contendID system this year, in many cases without the permission of the composer.
If their own technology worked so well why are they uploading music into AdRev without permission of their composers?
I don’t get it.Other experts on the topic (like Mark Lewis of ML) strongly doubt this is the case.
I don’t doubt, I know.
I have seen many times where a music track shows up with 4 or 5 separate claims from different sources including AdRev.
Why didn’t AdRev protect those tracks from multiple claims?And why doesn’t AdRev tell the music libraries they are pitching their service to that the music they upload has to be exclusive?
From my experience AdRev will say just about anything to add anyone’s music to their catalog of 30 million tracks, whether the copyright owner is aware of it or not.
There’s got to be a tech based resolution to this insane situation.
Again, the situation maybe “insane” for some but 95% of composers have no issues with youtube contentID whatsoever. At least in my experience.