My video got deleted for having 4 MINUTES OF MARIO KART MUSIC in the background. -_- What do I do? I sent a DMCA counter-notification and answered the questions correctly. Do I just wait for 10 days and hope Youtube decides to put my video back up? Or are they just gonna pretend nothing happened? I WANT MY VIDEO BACK
i've got videos with music and i got emails saying that they infringe copyright but there is no action required on my part, should i remove them or not?
@FanOfThings1092 That is absolutely incorrect. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it is wrong. It amazes me how so many people have misconceptions about this. Every page on YouTube has a link at the bottom of the page labeled "Copyright." Click that, then click "Copyright Tips."
youtube makes money off the videos posted on their site. anything posted on THEIR site is vulnerable to copyright laws. Yes, it is your channel but it is still their commercially posted site.
I'd only have a problem if someone was using my original works for commercial purposes, or incorporating it into their alleged 'original work' but is still easily recognizeable as being mine.
I dont tolerate as fair use, those who record your image, voice, or performance on other 'live' video streaming sites, and reposting it without my permission on YouTube or other sites.
For personal use of recording my material, no big deal, but reposting on sites is infringing my copyright.
very well done. even if i don't get all the points you quoted (yeah those judicial terms are not my thing, must have missed that in school years ago). my problem is though, that the term of "fair use" is not a judicial one here in germany, meaning: i have to refer to united states law when youtube contacts me. and all i want is being able to make stuff which makes people laugh. never believed it could be that hard ;)
Kenrg: I could maybe put together a couple of tunes (no lyrics) for you. It would just be an acoustic type instrumental (hopefully to your liking). Let me know if you could use 'em.
i only have 1 subscriber and like 5 friends a 5 videos but it still wont let me upload any video with a song as background noise.... although it hasn't told me to delete my old vids that use music
utube is so gay wtf i know at least 50 people who have stolden thousands of songs and i know -2000000 people who have watched utube videos instead of their ipod wtf utube sucks
The problem arises because while many of its users are non-profit, some (its partners) are and so is the site. What could be done is to make non-YTpartners sign disclaimers so they are legally distanced from the users. That way its the individual user and not YT who gets the heat.
This may seem bad at first but since the individuals are not using it for commercial purposes, the fair use act would still hold true and we'd be able to defend ourselves instead of YT wussing out.
I just got hit tonight. My tribute vid for my late sister got pulled because a third party claiming ownership of the song I used demanded it be pulled.
Thanks for the education on Fair Use. I intend to fight this.
I just received a notice that a video of mine was disabled. It contained approximately 1:20 of The Turtles' "Happy Together" as a mock radio station in a GTA IV video I made.
A friend also received a notice for his video showing off the capabilities of a VFD connected to WinAmp. The song played for about 30 seconds. It was recorded with a cell phone.
I had an email from Youtube saying that one of my videos was a breach of copyright and would be allowed to stay, however they were now putting advertising on it. The video in question is all my own work. The backing music is Chopin.
I wrote to rumblefish who they say informed them of the breach of copyright. Today the ad is gone. Rumblefish wrote to me to say what they had done was in error and that their method was not accurate...
How many videos are these people getting revenue from?
youtube has flagged 3 of my videos for copyright music in it. i removed one of them, dispute the other and still thinking the other one. thing is i tracked them all down and the company in question is none other than UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP. i admit that the videos are music videos for tv shows but i do put in the side a fine print that i don't own it, really sad because i dont have any master copy of it. most of them were 6 months old and from my old computer and took time to make it. any advice
musical tracks aren't printed words. They are covered international broadcast legislation. which states (basically) that you can use up to one minute of a track as recorded by the creator without any liablility and up to three minutes without paying performance royalties.
LMAO - Dude, check the date this was posted: June 07, 2007. Right. We did this as phony drama more than a year before launching VH. Damn, we're evil geniuses!
What? Did you use a Metallic song? Cause we all know what crybabies they are. Do you make money off your videos? God forbid that we would hear someone's song and enjoy it without them making their 2 cents off of it. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. You've been served. Sorry.
No, I admit it, I used the music without permission, and it's the copyright owner's choice whether or not to be an ass about it. But have you ever tried to get permission to use a song in an amateur video? Just asking about the rights starts at $500. Wouldn't it be nice if they worked with YT to lease you song rights for a buck or two? Eventually some sort of common sense arrangement will be worked out, but right now it's a war of extremes.
yup but the US copyright law you read pretty much stated that your totally in the right regarding your videos you had removed. but of course law is law, and you can twist it whichever way you please, as you stated. they can pull the "commercial purposes" card on you at any given time even if it isnt for such purposes. Although i cant keep talking like this as i dont know youtubes policies very well nor do i know much about law and copyright. anyways thanks for your semi-lengthy personal comment.
I did the same, and it was tagged but the notice said the 3rd party (owner) allows it so i didn't have to remove it,but did make other videos private for fear of suspension.From what I've read, The PRO IP act could put an end to fair use, but not for certain.The more I read these upcoming acts and current laws, the more confused I become because of it's ambiguous language and legal lingo.
If the U.S. Government had any balls it would shut down Youtube and other sites that promote content theft. I love to watch and share artistic endeavours with friends as much as the next person, but when the audience size becomes a worldwide audience and I am using other people creative works to promote my own agenda, I would be stealing at that point. Larry Flynt is responsible for the Parody Laws. The idea Parody is still criticism. Youtube has no policy against copyright violation it's clear.
Why do think that major motion picture put hit songs in their movies because for excessive amounts of money? Because they are artistically sound choices? No it is because the commercial trained American mind responds positively to the same repackaged dribble over and over and will spend money on having the same comfortable experience served over and over again. Your use of such songs on Youtube will diminish that impact. Youtube prmotoes and subsists off of content theft period.
You're living a fantasy. If you use copyright protected material on youtube you're infringing on copyrights because youtube is a commercial site. If you show it at home on the other, that is not a violation. Youtube would not be successful if was a parasitic site. Non-commercial entertainment 99.9% of the time is not clever enough to draw large scale public interest.
Perhaps that line you spoke is the Key? Can one's use of previously published music, as a soundtrack to one's goofy little YT vid, be considered a circumvention that "provides an alternative source" for the acquiring of copywritten material by potential consumers? Thus depriving the due, of their just compensation? Ethically, maybe. Technically, nah.
the music copy rights are complicated and sticky, can't play music in a place of business, hence starbucks for instance has their own cd's. bummer, but the laws are set and you can't change them by having a tantrum
You can't change laws by having a tantrum, but you can change them by getting enough citizens to tell their legislators that a change is needed. Laws are not static or set in stone; they are there to serve the public good. Thanks for watching.
your analysis is pedestrian and absurd, and your conclusions are nonsensical. Respect other peoples' property while maintain freedom of expression and discourse. There's your starting point.
Sorry tuneesq, but with all respect, I have to disagree (as I exercise my right to maintain freedom of expression). If a system were set up so I could reasonably compensate an artist for using his/her song in my vid (that gets a measly 82 views), I would. I've bought what I use. I'm not stealing, not profiting. I'm honoring and promoting those works. (see other comment to kenrg)
I agree with you, and I think my comedic parodies shown on YouTube constitute the fair use agreement as well. There have been a few "fair use parody" court cases that have won as in the "Pretty Woman" parody defense of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. I think a lot of these big name corporations like Viacom should really concern themselves more with the Lanham Act which talks about trademark copyright. That is a much more serious matter, and could seriously alter financial revenue.
Having not heard the videos in question (can you hear a video? Um), you may in fact be in violation of the spirit of copyright law. If you've used a major portion of a song, noncommercial or not, have you not "(fingers) stolen (fingers)" the artists work for your own purpose? I'm talking what's right here, not the letter of copyright law.
An artist has a considerable investment in his work (usually), involving his total life experience, which results in his creation. Is it right to use that wholesale, regardless of whether you are remunerated for your incorparating use or not, as a major part of your own creation? Even in parody, the artist's work is an important part of your parodying creation, is it not? Especially if you use the whole thing.
You are correct, which is why I removed more than just the video that was in question (I think I removed 16 in all). I'm not anti-copyright, or anti-artists making money - In fact, a small amount of my income is from book royalties, so I can relate to a creator being ripped off. The point here is just finding a better definition of that fine line called "fair use."
I actualy went to a couple classes on fair use and I agree with what you are saying though some lawyers would not. On the other hand I would point out that most likely you are not dealing with the law here so much as the YouTube user agreement policy and they can do whatever they want. Law or no law. I agree that most music here is simply a free advertisement for the artist. I like your pay button idea A LOT! They need to merge with Itunes.
Second, as far as fair use goes. The record industry and higher paid artists need to just wake up and realize that while they used to be able to get $15 a CD, or I guess some people will pay $10 for an album on iTunes, their work no longer carries the value it once did. You can't force profits by beating everyone up, you need to lower your prices. I'd pay $5 a song to legally use it in my non-commercial videos.
You sound like a reasonable person. Reasonable people, it seems, are no longer welcome most places. Wouldn't it be great if YouTube had a mechanism whereby you could admit upfront you're uploading something with copyrighted material, click the proper button, pay your $5, and get on with your life?
First, there is (and has been) fingerprinting software that can identify music (artist/title) and it would be easy for them to run thru the video base applying it. Probably how they noticed you.
I think it's all complaints-driven on YouTube, as is on most sites.. though reposting identical videos is probably detected using a hash of deleted videos. YouTube have to protect themselves from litigation; Copyright law protects user-content driven sites from litigation only if they remove copyright content when they are informed of it, so it's easy to understand their position: they want to avoid any legal action...
I wish they would at least mount a token defence in this sort of situation though. Arguing fair use on your behalf, or giving you the opportunity to get in contact with the copyright holder and argue the case for yourself, would be benficial, even if they then later caved if the copyright holder didn't back down.
It was a decent reason. I admit it was a copyright violation under the letter of the law. The question is about uneven application of the law, and whether or not personal vlogs are of "a commercial nature." The video in question was encouraging people to vote (November '06 U.S. election) - It seemed educational to me.
If copyright works like patent/trademark law, I believe they have to protect their property no matter what. I agree, it is difficult to get stuff licensed. I've gotten permission to use 2 commercial songs, but most modern artists are impossible to reach. Another artist's label said if it's free, the lawyer fees will still run about $250.
It is frustrating, I had a family video taken down where admittedly I played U2 in the background, strange though that U2 were not in the links and in YT terms, I'm a small fish in a big ocean, the vid had about 170 views and I could only think "how the hell did anyone stumble across this!"
This is bull. I'm not in the business, but I think by taking off the average joe's movies simply b/c their trying to cover their own asses is crap. I agree w/alot of other folks comments on here and I think a better solution needs to be found. I thought YouTube was created for us to express ourselves...their so worried about lawsuits, their infringing on our creative expressions. MORE POWER TO YOU, GOOD SIR!!
I usually don't, but occasionally there's a song that's just perfect for a film piece. It's only been a handful of my many videos that this effects, and I will certainly go on creating original content. But, this is a larger issue that is not going away and that the media companies will need to deal with in a strategy beyond further alienating their market.
Thanks for your support. I know that in a few vids I did go beyond "stretching the law" and I have now removed those from my profile.
I'm not arguing for All Free Music All the Time - I'm arguing for a realistic, negotiated settlement and policy that is fair to all: Us, YT, and the musicians.
Any YouTuber can start toward a good licensing agreement by making an offer, "With my tiny budget and low income hopes, I can pay $X to use your music." Get a response and respond to that. I often negotiate small sums to music publishers ($40-$70) to quote lyrics in books.
Why not pay for music? CDs tell you how to reach the label, publisher, and writers. Contact them, negotiate a license.
The "give the music exposure" argument is like the clubowner who says, "Playing here for free will get you other gigs."
If the music you want were worth nothing, you wouldn't use it. Most music creators will be so happy to get YouTube income that they'd make you a good deal--I know I would.
The required license for most songs is in the hundreds of dollars (at least, the stuff I've checked), obviously way out of line with my potential income from the use ($0). It's in the best interest of both YouTube and the media conglomerates to reach a realistic licensing agreement similar to the fees that radio stations or nightclubs pay.
someday it will be illegal for me to invite a friend over to my house to listen to a Metallica CD, because Metallica would rather have my friend just buy the CD and listen to it at his own house. heh.
Your friend can listen to it at your house, but only if you buy the 10 station license, and only if they sign a statement promising to not remember any of what they heard after they leave.
This is really upsetting. I think that it is completely reasonably, non-infringing, and Fair Use to use songs in the background of our videos. Our videos are non-commercial in nature and the songs are used as part of our Free Speech expression. We are not infringing upon the copyrights of the artists! People have actually asked me what song I use, and I tell them and then they go buy it!!
Why doesn't YouTube simply pay off the record companies? When I was a DJ, the stations paid ASCAP and BMI a flat fee. We didn't have to license separately every single record we played. Once a year (I think it was) we kept a log of what music we played. That determined the cost. It was cheap. The record companies understood that radio play was great advertising. How can they not see that play on YouTube is too? Shtoooopid.
Good comparison. The analogy I've been using is the fees bars are (supposed to) pay for their juke boxes. Again, the models and precedents are there, it's just a matter of negotiating the price.
Funny thing is, I bought 10 times as many CD's when Napster was up than I normally do, because I listened to artists I never would have heard of otherwise. I'm a boomer. I'd never even heard of Sheryl Crow.
Agreed - Downloads aren't killing the music business; greed is. And one form of that greed is the consolidation of media owndership. When only a handful of companies are programming radio stations from coast to coast, new artists don't get heard and sales sag. They should learn to love and exploit new technologies to promote a large variety of artists and sales will once again soar.
it's amazing how greed drives people. the millenium copyright act serves the big corporations so their CEOs can pull in the big bucks. hurray for pirates.
This is interesting. I know of one YouTube Partner/celeb that has an online store for selling merch, and has several videos which contain copywritten music, which they name in the description box of their video.
To my knowledge, no action has been taken against this individual.
BTW, what was the music label from the album you used a song from?
If it came from the label, that would further confirm my suspicion that the deal between the music labels and YouTube is very different than what we've been led to believe.
Record labels should be extremely flattered we are using their tunes in our humble offerings. I did wonder though why I had so many videos from you, I thought you had drank too much of that vodka you keep in your refridgerator!
The hair is copyrighted, and by mentioning it without permission you've violated the kenrg channel terms of service. I'm afraid one more outburst like that and I'll have to suspend your account. But, now that you mention it, it is getting a bit shaggy...
other stuff we can use is Creative Commons music: incompetech,com, jamendo,com, soundclick,com. Yahoo now has a creative commons search engine. Recorded music that is over 95 years old no longer has a copyright and can be used by anyone. A lot of artists are starting to license their music through creativecommons,org. They have a lot of different options for copyrights, and it's not just for music.
i also think this is a blessing in disguise for you to take your talent and work to a new level.now it will be work you entirely own, can do anything with and go anywhere with.i also think it will force you to be even more creative.. im looking forward to seeing what you do next.
this is an interesting discussion ken... here is my own two cents from the view of the creator.. I have had people snag footage from my film off the internet to use for their own pruposes.. this is footage that cost me a LOT of money, blood sweat and tears. I would absolutely go after them for a copyright violation and not consider it flattering or that it "helps" me in any way.
I also did a 4 part video entitled 'DEVIL IN CHURCH"
where I visit a church and conduct interviews in a devil outfit. parts 1,2, and 4 were allowed up but with not explanation Youtube sent me a notice that part 3 would be removed. Too many times youtube contradicts its own policy's, making them laughable and leaving users clueless as to what truly is a violation.
Sounds like all original material, what's their problem? Did some religious nut with no sense of humor think it was hate speech? People have to learn the difference between disagreement, satire, and parody on the one hand and violent, threatening, hate on the other. Sounds funny to me.
I assume it was some nut with no sense of humor. I have had similar videos with content that certain people cant look at objectively and they resort to threatening to have videos removed by contacting youtube and sometimes people succeed and its pathetic that I cannot fight or make a case for my content.
Youtube took down a video I did entitled "Dirty Storytime 2" where I took a childrens book..altered one word in the title..and the altered word replaced the word in the story creating a new parody story, and I was recieved a notice from youtube that the publisher wanting my video taken down and it was.
Parody is usually considered fair use, if you'd fought it. But, to fight it you need to be able to afford better lawyers than the publisher. The publisher probably thought you were destroying their brand by associating their book with something "dirty." Did you show the pictures in the book? That might have also been the problem. I say, do it again with traditional fairy tales (Goldilocks, Hansel & Gretal, etc.) and original artwork.
I only showed the cover of the book but even then I censored portions of it and only showed the books orginal title briefly. At not time during the video did I show pictures from the book.
Sorry they stuck you with such a crock of dung. I've been watching your videos for some time and never saw an issue. What's interesting to me is that there are 10's of 1000's of karaoke songs out there and there is no way that those companys paid for each of those songs. To purchase the rights to use the music from a copyrighted work can go into the millions.
Hmmm, interesting I'd say. It irrates me because I do purchase a lot of music and I don't just purchase it because I have to. I want to use it to make videos but can't even though I've paid for it. Bah Humbug.
You know...when our band was playing in various bars, they had to have paid their ASCAP dues, etc. I can't understand why YouTube won't just do a similar thing. If we are not making a profit personally from our videos, why should it matter. And, like you said, often times we are turning people on to music that they then will go purchase!
Agreed; music can really help a video flow and succeed. There are some royalty free sources of music, and that's what I usually use, but sometimes there's a song that's just perfect for a video and ... well ... now I've been busted.
I don't understand one thing, if you are going to post videos in the future with copyrighted music and defend it with the fair use clause, then why did you take down these today? Confused, Anne
I took down the ones that had entire songs or "substantial parts." I will claim Fair Use when it's an insubstantial clip and/or I can demonstrate that it was for "criticism, commentary, news, teaching, scholarship, or research" as allowed for in the law.
Very good subject matter! I've had a lot of questions and foggy answers when it comes to copyrighted music in a public video. I have alot to say about this subject but not as of yet made a video talking about it yet, but I may revisit.
Good vid Ken. Points well made. If YouTube are classifying your videos as 'commercial' surely they are obliged to offer you a share of the advertising revenue?
YouTube started covering their asses as a precursor to rolling out the revenue sharing platform. Clearly those in "the program" shouldn't be able to use copyrighted material as they are now making money here. The rest of us who are well within the realm Fair Use have to abide by the same rules but without the commercial gain.
Incidentally, where the law states: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", YT apparently defines that as 25 seconds. So, can we loop 25 seconds of a song?
There's nothing in the law about 25 seconds, it's just a rule-of-thumb that seems to work. I suppose if the entire song is 25 seconds, then you're using a substantial part of it. But 25 seconds of a symphony doesn't even get you halfway into the main melodic pattern.
Thanx professor Ken for this clarification(sic) of the law. I think if you just deleted a few thousand subscribers you wouldn't have this trouble though. I do my best to obfuscate music sources rather then listing them in the tags - you might want to try that. Hopefully YouTube's "add soundtrack" feature will eventually evolve to allow us to add background music as well - because if you've looked they have quite a good catalog of music available.
Exactly - Right now they have a nice list, but it replaces all your audio. What they need to do is make those (or some) files available as MP3s so we can mix them into our videos, rather than destroying them.
I dunno, but I downloaded this video for the sole purpose of extracting the audio portion as a substitute for buying the latest Justin Timberlake MP3.
Do you think that youtube actually checks out the claims of the people who reported you or are they just taking their word on it? Sounds like you really did not break any copyright laws.
YouTube pretty much takes the claimant at their word, and it is up to us to then complain and fight back (if we've got a case). I don't believe I broke the law, but in a few cases (the videos I deleted) I certainly bent it a bit. The problem, as I said, is no clear lines and a double standard that makes some 'Tubers lipsync stars (all infringement) and penalizes others for background music.
Nope. In fact, that may be how I got busted: I'm too honest and put the artist in the description and tags. Giving credit does not satisfy the law (or the idiots paid to enforce it).
ahhh, like you say that's probably how they found it. Otherwise who from a record company is going to watch 1000's of videos to find those that use their music - much easier to just do a search...
I was wondering what was happening with all those email invitations. No harm done on my side. With some none professional, none lawyer hired hand dictating what stays and what goes they do not have time for second guessing. They most likely have given a guide line from there lawyers to what to do and pass it on to the desk personnel. They are the judge and jury.
Yes, it's the copyright holder's notifications that I was referring to...how they decide which to notify about and which not to...If there are 100 "infringing" videos and they notify about 5, that means they didn't notify about the other 95. Do they notify about each one that "violates" or not, I wonder?
A while back I did a video about Belinda Carlisle that used an entire song & video of hers - pretty much a dare for them to try and shut me down. That's not the one that got their attention: It was one where I used Pat Metheny (jazz guitar) purely as background for something, and properly credited him. Go figure.
That's exactly what I meant. The Carlisle: (which I loved, by the way) blatant "fuck you"; the Methany: total promo piece because most of the people watching the video would have thought, "Pat Methany? Who's that? That was kinda nice..."
The offended copyright folk likely wouldn't see the random wrist slapping as an invalidation of anything. Like cops with their radar guns turned on 'stun', they know they can't nail every speeder that goes by, but they hope the sight of someone else getting pulled over, tagged, bagged, fined & released into the wild again will make the rest of the herd think twice.
i hear ya, Tom. it doesn't make much sense that the very courts that put Napster out of business seem not to mind (or are oblivious to)the handful of other free mp3 download sites (such as Soulseek or iMesh) that still exist out there. (er..perhaps i should keep my voice down when i say that).
Very frustrating! I try to avoid using any music that could possibly be considered copyright infringement, however sometimes it adds a touch that is difficult to get from somewhere else. I was wondering why I received all of those old videos.
Crazy...Why would they care,we only help by getting the music out there to be heard.I hope they go thru all of Renettos vids and the other profit sharing folks here on YT..They will find all kinds of copyright problems.
it seems like "they" think that shutting down smaller channels with less than 1000 subscribers or 5000 or whatever line they draw there wouldn't be too bad because not that many ppl would miss them. it would just be a good example to show their power or whatever.
I'm considering backmasking. The general public will think it's an audio glitch in the video compression, while true audiophiles will recognize the music, subconsciously reverse it and match the music segments with the proper video segments. Anyone else considering this method is reminded that this method is the sole intellectual property of 30andout, LLC, and be prepared to compensate the originator in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Lynne's claim lies merely in the homage paid to Messrs. Lennon and McCartney. The application of backmasking (and the reliance on others to translate and correctly apply the resulting cacophony)to viral videos with the intent to circumvent rights and/or defraud those holding said rights is virgin territory. (Not to be confused with Virgin Records.)
And another thing! Why can't we buy the rights to use the music we like. I would pay but it is not easy to figure out how to buy the rights to use a song. How dumb is that on the copyright owners part!
Unfortunately, that's what is termed in the "Code of Conduct" as:
"Don't try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around them—just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created."
I wish YouTube would stand up for the users, but it is nice to have a free broadcasting channel.
I'm in the process of removing anything that may be considered in violation, as well. Good show, Ken.
Oh here is what I put on my educational video's. (Note: This video is for educational purposes only!) As a professional teacher I do love to educate! Mrs. GeezerArt
Breasts are important things in the world! Men do need to be educated in this subject (Gene says). Nine and 1/2 Weeks music would work with this one! lol
"Let me ask you, was my video about Belinda Carlisle's breasts educational?"
It soooo completely transcended the mere label of "educational". How can I say? It was illuminating, enlightening, awesome, mesmerizing, and dazzling. Truly a booborific epiphany!
But, pragmatic is pragmatic. And a boob is a boob is a boob. Utilize your "Get out of jail free" card and slap it on every video. And don't worry. All of your loyal viewers will vouch for the highly educational value of all of your videos (and your exemplary character) when you land in the federal slammer ken. Hey, and if it all goes bad, we can e-bail you out!
Check out the Press Pass Tv Video " Fair Use for Fair Play"
presspasstv 7 months ago
How did you do your hair like that it's soooooooooooooo cool!!!
SmokingEssy7887 1 year ago
Hey Ken why do you think video game music is fine with youtube and WMG music isn't???
SmokingEssy7887 1 year ago
Video game music is fine with youtube
SmokingEssy7887 1 year ago
My video got deleted for having 4 MINUTES OF MARIO KART MUSIC in the background. -_- What do I do? I sent a DMCA counter-notification and answered the questions correctly. Do I just wait for 10 days and hope Youtube decides to put my video back up? Or are they just gonna pretend nothing happened? I WANT MY VIDEO BACK
doublek642 1 year ago
i've got videos with music and i got emails saying that they infringe copyright but there is no action required on my part, should i remove them or not?
wwemitch 1 year ago
a copyright law made in 1970s still aplies today that if u make NO money off it it's fair use. look it up online.
FanOfThings1092 1 year ago
@FanOfThings1092 That is absolutely incorrect. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it is wrong. It amazes me how so many people have misconceptions about this. Every page on YouTube has a link at the bottom of the page labeled "Copyright." Click that, then click "Copyright Tips."
GenuineHeather 1 year ago
viacom we rally want to know just beacuase we put your clips why sue we were practitly making you better viacom you back stabber
AGENTURIEL09 1 year ago
nothing to do with the topic....I like your hair long!!! ;-)
757chelle 1 year ago
youtube makes money off the videos posted on their site. anything posted on THEIR site is vulnerable to copyright laws. Yes, it is your channel but it is still their commercially posted site.
meanmisty 2 years ago
I'd only have a problem if someone was using my original works for commercial purposes, or incorporating it into their alleged 'original work' but is still easily recognizeable as being mine.
I dont tolerate as fair use, those who record your image, voice, or performance on other 'live' video streaming sites, and reposting it without my permission on YouTube or other sites.
For personal use of recording my material, no big deal, but reposting on sites is infringing my copyright.
Scynite 2 years ago
__┌┐______'┌┐ Copy and paste
__││_______││ if the COPYRIGHT is pissin you
┌┬┬┬┐___┌┬┬┬┐Off!
│____│┐_┌│____│
BHandJK1619 2 years ago 8
very well done. even if i don't get all the points you quoted (yeah those judicial terms are not my thing, must have missed that in school years ago). my problem is though, that the term of "fair use" is not a judicial one here in germany, meaning: i have to refer to united states law when youtube contacts me. and all i want is being able to make stuff which makes people laugh. never believed it could be that hard ;)
by the way: you have one new subscriber ;)
OneCrazyGerman 3 years ago
Kenrg: I could maybe put together a couple of tunes (no lyrics) for you. It would just be an acoustic type instrumental (hopefully to your liking). Let me know if you could use 'em.
RodEOpallo 3 years ago
i only have 1 subscriber and like 5 friends a 5 videos but it still wont let me upload any video with a song as background noise.... although it hasn't told me to delete my old vids that use music
riddick46 3 years ago
utube is so gay wtf i know at least 50 people who have stolden thousands of songs and i know -2000000 people who have watched utube videos instead of their ipod wtf utube sucks
fyspro 3 years ago
is stolden even an english word
zombieX111222333 3 years ago 3
This would help me.
BUT YOUTUBE WON'T LET ME DISPUTE IT!
HOW THE FUCK CAN I WIN THEN?!
FUCK
YOUTUBE
HCPWONYT 3 years ago 2
same happened to tolstoykafkaevesky
crammage 3 years ago
if these music groups are so afraid of copyright violations, they should be going after those p2p file sharing services, not youtube videos
hitmanokita13 3 years ago
GF Youtube.
You fucking owned them. Be a lawyer and defend me if I get in trouble? ^_^
TruePikachao 3 years ago
your so cool if only youtube knew you were just a 15 year old who got owned in english
fatninja300 3 years ago
The problem arises because while many of its users are non-profit, some (its partners) are and so is the site. What could be done is to make non-YTpartners sign disclaimers so they are legally distanced from the users. That way its the individual user and not YT who gets the heat.
This may seem bad at first but since the individuals are not using it for commercial purposes, the fair use act would still hold true and we'd be able to defend ourselves instead of YT wussing out.
t3hmaniac 3 years ago
I just got hit tonight. My tribute vid for my late sister got pulled because a third party claiming ownership of the song I used demanded it be pulled.
Thanks for the education on Fair Use. I intend to fight this.
trocaria 3 years ago
I just received a notice that a video of mine was disabled. It contained approximately 1:20 of The Turtles' "Happy Together" as a mock radio station in a GTA IV video I made.
A friend also received a notice for his video showing off the capabilities of a VFD connected to WinAmp. The song played for about 30 seconds. It was recorded with a cell phone.
DRM FAIL.
SpaghettiOhh 3 years ago
I had an email from Youtube saying that one of my videos was a breach of copyright and would be allowed to stay, however they were now putting advertising on it. The video in question is all my own work. The backing music is Chopin.
I wrote to rumblefish who they say informed them of the breach of copyright. Today the ad is gone. Rumblefish wrote to me to say what they had done was in error and that their method was not accurate...
How many videos are these people getting revenue from?
Rozrr
Rozrr 3 years ago
I put the three's company theme on movie maker,put a 3d ripple on it and slow mo-it got deleted
Ihearyoucalling 3 years ago
I'm sorry, 'Kenrg'. I was far too distracted by your lovely long locks to concentrate on your rant.
smooches!
byronhiggs 3 years ago
youtube has flagged 3 of my videos for copyright music in it. i removed one of them, dispute the other and still thinking the other one. thing is i tracked them all down and the company in question is none other than UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP. i admit that the videos are music videos for tv shows but i do put in the side a fine print that i don't own it, really sad because i dont have any master copy of it. most of them were 6 months old and from my old computer and took time to make it. any advice
elysia05 3 years ago
musical tracks aren't printed words. They are covered international broadcast legislation. which states (basically) that you can use up to one minute of a track as recorded by the creator without any liablility and up to three minutes without paying performance royalties.
bathlarper 3 years ago
I don't know where you get that information, but I think you'll find a few major media companies willing to disagree with you in court.
kenrg 3 years ago
DAMN YOUR AWESOME
94muscleman 3 years ago
this was just phony drama you and renetto used for your vh site
dickdiana161 3 years ago
LMAO - Dude, check the date this was posted: June 07, 2007. Right. We did this as phony drama more than a year before launching VH. Damn, we're evil geniuses!
kenrg 3 years ago
What? Did you use a Metallic song? Cause we all know what crybabies they are. Do you make money off your videos? God forbid that we would hear someone's song and enjoy it without them making their 2 cents off of it. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. You've been served. Sorry.
legalass17 3 years ago
subbed btw
phalxor 3 years ago
sounds like you got screwed. illegaly screwed
phalxor 3 years ago
No, I admit it, I used the music without permission, and it's the copyright owner's choice whether or not to be an ass about it. But have you ever tried to get permission to use a song in an amateur video? Just asking about the rights starts at $500. Wouldn't it be nice if they worked with YT to lease you song rights for a buck or two? Eventually some sort of common sense arrangement will be worked out, but right now it's a war of extremes.
kenrg 3 years ago
yup but the US copyright law you read pretty much stated that your totally in the right regarding your videos you had removed. but of course law is law, and you can twist it whichever way you please, as you stated. they can pull the "commercial purposes" card on you at any given time even if it isnt for such purposes. Although i cant keep talking like this as i dont know youtubes policies very well nor do i know much about law and copyright. anyways thanks for your semi-lengthy personal comment.
phalxor 3 years ago
I did the same, and it was tagged but the notice said the 3rd party (owner) allows it so i didn't have to remove it,but did make other videos private for fear of suspension.From what I've read, The PRO IP act could put an end to fair use, but not for certain.The more I read these upcoming acts and current laws, the more confused I become because of it's ambiguous language and legal lingo.
vocalbrush 3 years ago
If the U.S. Government had any balls it would shut down Youtube and other sites that promote content theft. I love to watch and share artistic endeavours with friends as much as the next person, but when the audience size becomes a worldwide audience and I am using other people creative works to promote my own agenda, I would be stealing at that point. Larry Flynt is responsible for the Parody Laws. The idea Parody is still criticism. Youtube has no policy against copyright violation it's clear.
greasebend 3 years ago
Why do think that major motion picture put hit songs in their movies because for excessive amounts of money? Because they are artistically sound choices? No it is because the commercial trained American mind responds positively to the same repackaged dribble over and over and will spend money on having the same comfortable experience served over and over again. Your use of such songs on Youtube will diminish that impact. Youtube prmotoes and subsists off of content theft period.
greasebend 3 years ago
You're living a fantasy. If you use copyright protected material on youtube you're infringing on copyrights because youtube is a commercial site. If you show it at home on the other, that is not a violation. Youtube would not be successful if was a parasitic site. Non-commercial entertainment 99.9% of the time is not clever enough to draw large scale public interest.
greasebend 3 years ago
thanks for that video! "fair use" is a very interesting topic. i use it...but i hope youtube knows that too.
ralfonzo83 4 years ago
Perhaps that line you spoke is the Key? Can one's use of previously published music, as a soundtrack to one's goofy little YT vid, be considered a circumvention that "provides an alternative source" for the acquiring of copywritten material by potential consumers? Thus depriving the due, of their just compensation? Ethically, maybe. Technically, nah.
cputb1 4 years ago
the music copy rights are complicated and sticky, can't play music in a place of business, hence starbucks for instance has their own cd's. bummer, but the laws are set and you can't change them by having a tantrum
hoomelemele 4 years ago
You can't change laws by having a tantrum, but you can change them by getting enough citizens to tell their legislators that a change is needed. Laws are not static or set in stone; they are there to serve the public good. Thanks for watching.
kenrg 4 years ago
Thanks. Very informative.
Featureman 4 years ago
your analysis is pedestrian and absurd, and your conclusions are nonsensical. Respect other peoples' property while maintain freedom of expression and discourse. There's your starting point.
tuneesq 4 years ago
Sorry tuneesq, but with all respect, I have to disagree (as I exercise my right to maintain freedom of expression). If a system were set up so I could reasonably compensate an artist for using his/her song in my vid (that gets a measly 82 views), I would. I've bought what I use. I'm not stealing, not profiting. I'm honoring and promoting those works. (see other comment to kenrg)
cputb1 4 years ago
kenrg,
I agree with you, and I think my comedic parodies shown on YouTube constitute the fair use agreement as well. There have been a few "fair use parody" court cases that have won as in the "Pretty Woman" parody defense of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. I think a lot of these big name corporations like Viacom should really concern themselves more with the Lanham Act which talks about trademark copyright. That is a much more serious matter, and could seriously alter financial revenue.
Sealy1986 4 years ago
Having not heard the videos in question (can you hear a video? Um), you may in fact be in violation of the spirit of copyright law. If you've used a major portion of a song, noncommercial or not, have you not "(fingers) stolen (fingers)" the artists work for your own purpose? I'm talking what's right here, not the letter of copyright law.
LyinDan 4 years ago
An artist has a considerable investment in his work (usually), involving his total life experience, which results in his creation. Is it right to use that wholesale, regardless of whether you are remunerated for your incorparating use or not, as a major part of your own creation? Even in parody, the artist's work is an important part of your parodying creation, is it not? Especially if you use the whole thing.
???
LyinDan 4 years ago
You are correct, which is why I removed more than just the video that was in question (I think I removed 16 in all). I'm not anti-copyright, or anti-artists making money - In fact, a small amount of my income is from book royalties, so I can relate to a creator being ripped off. The point here is just finding a better definition of that fine line called "fair use."
kenrg 4 years ago
I actualy went to a couple classes on fair use and I agree with what you are saying though some lawyers would not. On the other hand I would point out that most likely you are not dealing with the law here so much as the YouTube user agreement policy and they can do whatever they want. Law or no law. I agree that most music here is simply a free advertisement for the artist. I like your pay button idea A LOT! They need to merge with Itunes.
thechurchofdave 4 years ago
I completely agree with this video, nice research Kenrg.
mcb350z 4 years ago
Second, as far as fair use goes. The record industry and higher paid artists need to just wake up and realize that while they used to be able to get $15 a CD, or I guess some people will pay $10 for an album on iTunes, their work no longer carries the value it once did. You can't force profits by beating everyone up, you need to lower your prices. I'd pay $5 a song to legally use it in my non-commercial videos.
telmnstr 4 years ago
You sound like a reasonable person. Reasonable people, it seems, are no longer welcome most places. Wouldn't it be great if YouTube had a mechanism whereby you could admit upfront you're uploading something with copyrighted material, click the proper button, pay your $5, and get on with your life?
kenrg 4 years ago
First, there is (and has been) fingerprinting software that can identify music (artist/title) and it would be easy for them to run thru the video base applying it. Probably how they noticed you.
telmnstr 4 years ago
I think it's all complaints-driven on YouTube, as is on most sites.. though reposting identical videos is probably detected using a hash of deleted videos. YouTube have to protect themselves from litigation; Copyright law protects user-content driven sites from litigation only if they remove copyright content when they are informed of it, so it's easy to understand their position: they want to avoid any legal action...
FleckerMan 4 years ago
I wish they would at least mount a token defence in this sort of situation though. Arguing fair use on your behalf, or giving you the opportunity to get in contact with the copyright holder and argue the case for yourself, would be benficial, even if they then later caved if the copyright holder didn't back down.
Good video, kenrg, :)
FleckerMan 4 years ago
So, basically youtube deleted a vid of you without a descent reason?
limmylimm 4 years ago
It was a decent reason. I admit it was a copyright violation under the letter of the law. The question is about uneven application of the law, and whether or not personal vlogs are of "a commercial nature." The video in question was encouraging people to vote (November '06 U.S. election) - It seemed educational to me.
kenrg 4 years ago
If copyright works like patent/trademark law, I believe they have to protect their property no matter what. I agree, it is difficult to get stuff licensed. I've gotten permission to use 2 commercial songs, but most modern artists are impossible to reach. Another artist's label said if it's free, the lawyer fees will still run about $250.
telmnstr 4 years ago
It is frustrating, I had a family video taken down where admittedly I played U2 in the background, strange though that U2 were not in the links and in YT terms, I'm a small fish in a big ocean, the vid had about 170 views and I could only think "how the hell did anyone stumble across this!"
21stCenturyCat 4 years ago
The affecting sales argument would in this case hit the problem of potential sales to you since there is a market for music for soundtracks
geniice 4 years ago
This is bull. I'm not in the business, but I think by taking off the average joe's movies simply b/c their trying to cover their own asses is crap. I agree w/alot of other folks comments on here and I think a better solution needs to be found. I thought YouTube was created for us to express ourselves...their so worried about lawsuits, their infringing on our creative expressions. MORE POWER TO YOU, GOOD SIR!!
joey75220 4 years ago
Why do you need to use other people's content to express yourself.
geniice 4 years ago
I usually don't, but occasionally there's a song that's just perfect for a film piece. It's only been a handful of my many videos that this effects, and I will certainly go on creating original content. But, this is a larger issue that is not going away and that the media companies will need to deal with in a strategy beyond further alienating their market.
kenrg 4 years ago
Thanks for your support. I know that in a few vids I did go beyond "stretching the law" and I have now removed those from my profile.
I'm not arguing for All Free Music All the Time - I'm arguing for a realistic, negotiated settlement and policy that is fair to all: Us, YT, and the musicians.
kenrg 4 years ago
Any YouTuber can start toward a good licensing agreement by making an offer, "With my tiny budget and low income hopes, I can pay $X to use your music." Get a response and respond to that. I often negotiate small sums to music publishers ($40-$70) to quote lyrics in books.
MichaelLydon 4 years ago
Why not pay for music? CDs tell you how to reach the label, publisher, and writers. Contact them, negotiate a license.
The "give the music exposure" argument is like the clubowner who says, "Playing here for free will get you other gigs."
If the music you want were worth nothing, you wouldn't use it. Most music creators will be so happy to get YouTube income that they'd make you a good deal--I know I would.
MichaelLydon 4 years ago
The required license for most songs is in the hundreds of dollars (at least, the stuff I've checked), obviously way out of line with my potential income from the use ($0). It's in the best interest of both YouTube and the media conglomerates to reach a realistic licensing agreement similar to the fees that radio stations or nightclubs pay.
kenrg 4 years ago
someday it will be illegal for me to invite a friend over to my house to listen to a Metallica CD, because Metallica would rather have my friend just buy the CD and listen to it at his own house. heh.
hondo1188 4 years ago
Your friend can listen to it at your house, but only if you buy the 10 station license, and only if they sign a statement promising to not remember any of what they heard after they leave.
kenrg 4 years ago
This is really upsetting. I think that it is completely reasonably, non-infringing, and Fair Use to use songs in the background of our videos. Our videos are non-commercial in nature and the songs are used as part of our Free Speech expression. We are not infringing upon the copyrights of the artists! People have actually asked me what song I use, and I tell them and then they go buy it!!
cruelraspberry 4 years ago
Queen is under EMI which just signed a deal that enables us to use their music.
Im going to use all Queen music in all my future videos
groovytimes 4 years ago
Why doesn't YouTube simply pay off the record companies? When I was a DJ, the stations paid ASCAP and BMI a flat fee. We didn't have to license separately every single record we played. Once a year (I think it was) we kept a log of what music we played. That determined the cost. It was cheap. The record companies understood that radio play was great advertising. How can they not see that play on YouTube is too? Shtoooopid.
JiveDadson 4 years ago
Good comparison. The analogy I've been using is the fees bars are (supposed to) pay for their juke boxes. Again, the models and precedents are there, it's just a matter of negotiating the price.
kenrg 4 years ago
Funny thing is, I bought 10 times as many CD's when Napster was up than I normally do, because I listened to artists I never would have heard of otherwise. I'm a boomer. I'd never even heard of Sheryl Crow.
JiveDadson 4 years ago
Agreed - Downloads aren't killing the music business; greed is. And one form of that greed is the consolidation of media owndership. When only a handful of companies are programming radio stations from coast to coast, new artists don't get heard and sales sag. They should learn to love and exploit new technologies to promote a large variety of artists and sales will once again soar.
kenrg 4 years ago
it's amazing how greed drives people. the millenium copyright act serves the big corporations so their CEOs can pull in the big bucks. hurray for pirates.
zciweslab 4 years ago
This is interesting. I know of one YouTube Partner/celeb that has an online store for selling merch, and has several videos which contain copywritten music, which they name in the description box of their video.
To my knowledge, no action has been taken against this individual.
BTW, what was the music label from the album you used a song from?
theestranger 4 years ago
Interesting how the "partners" get away with things we can't, eh?
The music was Pat Metheny's Imaginary Day, Warner Bros Records. I'm trying to remember it was the lawyers that busted me, not Pat himself.
kenrg 4 years ago
If it came from the label, that would further confirm my suspicion that the deal between the music labels and YouTube is very different than what we've been led to believe.
theestranger 4 years ago
Record labels should be extremely flattered we are using their tunes in our humble offerings. I did wonder though why I had so many videos from you, I thought you had drank too much of that vodka you keep in your refridgerator!
ajdpadbury 4 years ago
Well, the drinking too much is a constant, but the accidentally spamming all of my friends was just a bonus. Thanks for understanding.
kenrg 4 years ago
This is very interesting! Could you please post this one as an answer to the last YouTube video - to make shure that they listen?
Thanks!
Regina
mixedpixel 4 years ago
Which video should I use this as a reply to? Send me the link and I'll do it!
kenrg 4 years ago
watch?v=N1LtFh3uT44
mixedpixel 4 years ago
Go get em' Sherrif! These varmints are not enforcing these rules fairly!
DoctorMetropolis 4 years ago
basically i think copyright law is archaic. :p
mysterywalker 4 years ago
You need a haircut
jaikesghost1 4 years ago
No No Noooooooooooooo!!!!!. He does not need a haircut. I love his hair.
TubularBelle 4 years ago
The hair is copyrighted, and by mentioning it without permission you've violated the kenrg channel terms of service. I'm afraid one more outburst like that and I'll have to suspend your account. But, now that you mention it, it is getting a bit shaggy...
kenrg 4 years ago
So yes I've done my research but sometimes there's just only one song that will work for your video.
majestia19 4 years ago
And that's where I made my mistake... Oh well.
kenrg 4 years ago
at least we can use EMI music now
other stuff we can use is Creative Commons music: incompetech,com, jamendo,com, soundclick,com. Yahoo now has a creative commons search engine. Recorded music that is over 95 years old no longer has a copyright and can be used by anyone. A lot of artists are starting to license their music through creativecommons,org. They have a lot of different options for copyrights, and it's not just for music.
majestia19 4 years ago
Great response - I hope everybody takes note of these resources.
kenrg 4 years ago
i also think this is a blessing in disguise for you to take your talent and work to a new level.now it will be work you entirely own, can do anything with and go anywhere with.i also think it will force you to be even more creative.. im looking forward to seeing what you do next.
taragolden 4 years ago
this is an interesting discussion ken... here is my own two cents from the view of the creator.. I have had people snag footage from my film off the internet to use for their own pruposes.. this is footage that cost me a LOT of money, blood sweat and tears. I would absolutely go after them for a copyright violation and not consider it flattering or that it "helps" me in any way.
taragolden 4 years ago
I also did a 4 part video entitled 'DEVIL IN CHURCH"
where I visit a church and conduct interviews in a devil outfit. parts 1,2, and 4 were allowed up but with not explanation Youtube sent me a notice that part 3 would be removed. Too many times youtube contradicts its own policy's, making them laughable and leaving users clueless as to what truly is a violation.
MMASK 4 years ago
Sounds like all original material, what's their problem? Did some religious nut with no sense of humor think it was hate speech? People have to learn the difference between disagreement, satire, and parody on the one hand and violent, threatening, hate on the other. Sounds funny to me.
kenrg 4 years ago
I assume it was some nut with no sense of humor. I have had similar videos with content that certain people cant look at objectively and they resort to threatening to have videos removed by contacting youtube and sometimes people succeed and its pathetic that I cannot fight or make a case for my content.
MMASK 4 years ago
Youtube took down a video I did entitled "Dirty Storytime 2" where I took a childrens book..altered one word in the title..and the altered word replaced the word in the story creating a new parody story, and I was recieved a notice from youtube that the publisher wanting my video taken down and it was.
MMASK 4 years ago
Parody is usually considered fair use, if you'd fought it. But, to fight it you need to be able to afford better lawyers than the publisher. The publisher probably thought you were destroying their brand by associating their book with something "dirty." Did you show the pictures in the book? That might have also been the problem. I say, do it again with traditional fairy tales (Goldilocks, Hansel & Gretal, etc.) and original artwork.
kenrg 4 years ago
I only showed the cover of the book but even then I censored portions of it and only showed the books orginal title briefly. At not time during the video did I show pictures from the book.
MMASK 4 years ago
Awesome way of telling You Tube to lick some monkey testicles without getting yourself in trouble :-)
vagina00 4 years ago
Sorry they stuck you with such a crock of dung. I've been watching your videos for some time and never saw an issue. What's interesting to me is that there are 10's of 1000's of karaoke songs out there and there is no way that those companys paid for each of those songs. To purchase the rights to use the music from a copyrighted work can go into the millions.
Pookieftw 4 years ago
Hmmm, interesting I'd say. It irrates me because I do purchase a lot of music and I don't just purchase it because I have to. I want to use it to make videos but can't even though I've paid for it. Bah Humbug.
Pookieftw 4 years ago
You know...when our band was playing in various bars, they had to have paid their ASCAP dues, etc. I can't understand why YouTube won't just do a similar thing. If we are not making a profit personally from our videos, why should it matter. And, like you said, often times we are turning people on to music that they then will go purchase!
Ravensinger 4 years ago
Youtube must be pissed Because Your Video Wont Play Lol. Anyway If I had seen this Video,I'm Sure I'd Agree With You Lol
FabioCrow07770 4 years ago
Why have they forsaken me? Please YouTube, I'll be good! They know not what they do.
kenrg 4 years ago
I agree, Youtube needs to clarify or start paying us for our stuff....Good Vid.
vmanvand 4 years ago
videos are not going to be that good with out music.
thay are takeing this way to far.i relly dont feel that we are hurting the music bezz just cause we use music.
just my way of thinking.
love your videos!
wolflore 4 years ago
Agreed; music can really help a video flow and succeed. There are some royalty free sources of music, and that's what I usually use, but sometimes there's a song that's just perfect for a video and ... well ... now I've been busted.
kenrg 4 years ago
I don't understand one thing, if you are going to post videos in the future with copyrighted music and defend it with the fair use clause, then why did you take down these today? Confused, Anne
VoyeurArt 4 years ago
I took down the ones that had entire songs or "substantial parts." I will claim Fair Use when it's an insubstantial clip and/or I can demonstrate that it was for "criticism, commentary, news, teaching, scholarship, or research" as allowed for in the law.
kenrg 4 years ago
I like the videos wher you analyse and explane stuff, you are wery good at it:D
Spiff144 4 years ago
Touche!
Momotaro15 4 years ago
Very good subject matter! I've had a lot of questions and foggy answers when it comes to copyrighted music in a public video. I have alot to say about this subject but not as of yet made a video talking about it yet, but I may revisit.
jesse1701 4 years ago
Good vid Ken. Points well made. If YouTube are classifying your videos as 'commercial' surely they are obliged to offer you a share of the advertising revenue?
voxinabox 4 years ago
I would think so. They know where to send my checks.
kenrg 4 years ago
YouTube started covering their asses as a precursor to rolling out the revenue sharing platform. Clearly those in "the program" shouldn't be able to use copyrighted material as they are now making money here. The rest of us who are well within the realm Fair Use have to abide by the same rules but without the commercial gain.
GeneticBlend 4 years ago
Incidentally, where the law states: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", YT apparently defines that as 25 seconds. So, can we loop 25 seconds of a song?
GeneticBlend 4 years ago
There's nothing in the law about 25 seconds, it's just a rule-of-thumb that seems to work. I suppose if the entire song is 25 seconds, then you're using a substantial part of it. But 25 seconds of a symphony doesn't even get you halfway into the main melodic pattern.
kenrg 4 years ago
Now that YouTube has done a deal with EMI. Can we now use music on the EMI label in our videos?
I'm confused!!
andymooseman 4 years ago
I am waiting for an announcement on that. Watch the YouTube blog and send them emails asking for the rules.
kenrg 4 years ago
Thanx professor Ken for this clarification(sic) of the law. I think if you just deleted a few thousand subscribers you wouldn't have this trouble though. I do my best to obfuscate music sources rather then listing them in the tags - you might want to try that. Hopefully YouTube's "add soundtrack" feature will eventually evolve to allow us to add background music as well - because if you've looked they have quite a good catalog of music available.
wogsland 4 years ago
Exactly - Right now they have a nice list, but it replaces all your audio. What they need to do is make those (or some) files available as MP3s so we can mix them into our videos, rather than destroying them.
kenrg 4 years ago
I am not exactly sure what YouTube's point is with notifying some people and featuring others.... interesting.
askmisscris 4 years ago
the decline of CD sales started at almost the exact same time when kenrg started making videos. coincidence? I think not.
yaffle 4 years ago
I dunno, but I downloaded this video for the sole purpose of extracting the audio portion as a substitute for buying the latest Justin Timberlake MP3.
curt344 4 years ago
And you got your money's worth.
30andout 4 years ago
Thanks to your copyrighted masking technique I was able to hide the entire Timberlake album in this one six minute video.
kenrg 4 years ago
It's all part of my secret plan to bring down Time-Warner. Mwahaha!
kenrg 4 years ago
Do you think that youtube actually checks out the claims of the people who reported you or are they just taking their word on it? Sounds like you really did not break any copyright laws.
jinxie3334 4 years ago
YouTube pretty much takes the claimant at their word, and it is up to us to then complain and fight back (if we've got a case). I don't believe I broke the law, but in a few cases (the videos I deleted) I certainly bent it a bit. The problem, as I said, is no clear lines and a double standard that makes some 'Tubers lipsync stars (all infringement) and penalizes others for background music.
kenrg 4 years ago
If you put the name of the song and band name were the video description is, is that ok to use it then? I see a lot of people do that.
jinxie3334 4 years ago
Nope. In fact, that may be how I got busted: I'm too honest and put the artist in the description and tags. Giving credit does not satisfy the law (or the idiots paid to enforce it).
kenrg 4 years ago
ahhh, like you say that's probably how they found it. Otherwise who from a record company is going to watch 1000's of videos to find those that use their music - much easier to just do a search...
21stCenturyCat 4 years ago
I was wondering what was happening with all those email invitations. No harm done on my side. With some none professional, none lawyer hired hand dictating what stays and what goes they do not have time for second guessing. They most likely have given a guide line from there lawyers to what to do and pass it on to the desk personnel. They are the judge and jury.
phillipah7 4 years ago
And yet they continue to feature videos that have TONS of copyrighted music throughout.
HYPOCRISY!!!
Ps. This explains the bulletins earlier (I thought maybe Tonto had hacked into your account!)
curt344 4 years ago
curt, youtube has a very conveniant set of standards...there are those they want to make stars and those they want to make examples of...
battim 4 years ago
... and as a result, YouTube ends up looking like a giant stool sample.
curt344 4 years ago
bitter....?lol
kidblood1 4 years ago
Yes it's kinda silly there is copyright infriction on youtube when the audio quality would only serve as a teaser.
SynthesisOfSound 4 years ago
I wonder if the (seemingly) random enforcement of a right negates the validity of any attempt at enforcement?
tlg847 4 years ago
its not random, it requires the copyright holder to contact them formally...
battim 4 years ago
Yes, it's the copyright holder's notifications that I was referring to...how they decide which to notify about and which not to...If there are 100 "infringing" videos and they notify about 5, that means they didn't notify about the other 95. Do they notify about each one that "violates" or not, I wonder?
tlg847 4 years ago
A while back I did a video about Belinda Carlisle that used an entire song & video of hers - pretty much a dare for them to try and shut me down. That's not the one that got their attention: It was one where I used Pat Metheny (jazz guitar) purely as background for something, and properly credited him. Go figure.
kenrg 4 years ago
That's exactly what I meant. The Carlisle: (which I loved, by the way) blatant "fuck you"; the Methany: total promo piece because most of the people watching the video would have thought, "Pat Methany? Who's that? That was kinda nice..."
Morons.
tlg847 4 years ago
The offended copyright folk likely wouldn't see the random wrist slapping as an invalidation of anything. Like cops with their radar guns turned on 'stun', they know they can't nail every speeder that goes by, but they hope the sight of someone else getting pulled over, tagged, bagged, fined & released into the wild again will make the rest of the herd think twice.
booradleysstuntman 4 years ago
Right, I know the copyright folk wouldn't see it that way but I wondered about how a judge might view it.
tlg847 4 years ago
i hear ya, Tom. it doesn't make much sense that the very courts that put Napster out of business seem not to mind (or are oblivious to)the handful of other free mp3 download sites (such as Soulseek or iMesh) that still exist out there. (er..perhaps i should keep my voice down when i say that).
booradleysstuntman 4 years ago
and ken, no problem about the video sending part. i was just a little confused when i got 15 new messages in such a short time^^
oh and btw: i think what you said about the revenue sharing / money making part about this whole thing is an excellent point.
keep up the good work!
speedyconkiwi 4 years ago
I agree, there needs to be some form of clear line. Good points Ken!
livingpassion 4 years ago
Very frustrating! I try to avoid using any music that could possibly be considered copyright infringement, however sometimes it adds a touch that is difficult to get from somewhere else. I was wondering why I received all of those old videos.
livingpassion 4 years ago
Crazy...Why would they care,we only help by getting the music out there to be heard.I hope they go thru all of Renettos vids and the other profit sharing folks here on YT..They will find all kinds of copyright problems.
kidblood1 4 years ago
true true. and isn't using copyrighted music what made brookers "famous"??
they would never get the big ones.. only we have to suffer from that.
not fair, i say. not fair.
speedyconkiwi 4 years ago
it isn't fair to hold different folks to different standards...
battim 4 years ago
exactly! that's what i meant.
it seems like "they" think that shutting down smaller channels with less than 1000 subscribers or 5000 or whatever line they draw there wouldn't be too bad because not that many ppl would miss them. it would just be a good example to show their power or whatever.
speedyconkiwi 4 years ago
I'm considering backmasking. The general public will think it's an audio glitch in the video compression, while true audiophiles will recognize the music, subconsciously reverse it and match the music segments with the proper video segments. Anyone else considering this method is reminded that this method is the sole intellectual property of 30andout, LLC, and be prepared to compensate the originator in a fair and equitable manner.
All rights reserved.
30andout 4 years ago
I think Jeff Lynn might argue with your claim of copyright on that method. Music is reversible but time is not - Turn back! Turn back! Turn back!
kenrg 4 years ago
Mr. Lynne's claim lies merely in the homage paid to Messrs. Lennon and McCartney. The application of backmasking (and the reliance on others to translate and correctly apply the resulting cacophony)to viral videos with the intent to circumvent rights and/or defraud those holding said rights is virgin territory. (Not to be confused with Virgin Records.)
30andout 4 years ago
And another thing! Why can't we buy the rights to use the music we like. I would pay but it is not easy to figure out how to buy the rights to use a song. How dumb is that on the copyright owners part!
geezerart 4 years ago
you just need to find out what music company owns the rights and pay them. All the info is online. It's expensive.
majestia19 4 years ago
Unfortunately, that's what is termed in the "Code of Conduct" as:
"Don't try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around them—just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created."
I wish YouTube would stand up for the users, but it is nice to have a free broadcasting channel.
I'm in the process of removing anything that may be considered in violation, as well. Good show, Ken.
Stroopinator 4 years ago
Oh here is what I put on my educational video's. (Note: This video is for educational purposes only!) As a professional teacher I do love to educate! Mrs. GeezerArt
geezerart 4 years ago
I like that disclaimer - I'm working a "get out of jail free" card for my next video, and I may include that: For Educational Purposes Only!
Let me ask you, was my video about Belinda Carlisle's breasts educational?
kenrg 4 years ago
Breasts are important things in the world! Men do need to be educated in this subject (Gene says). Nine and 1/2 Weeks music would work with this one! lol
geezerart 4 years ago
I certainly learned a lot from that video. :D
GeneticBlend 4 years ago
Not to mention the killer center shot. :)
majestia19 4 years ago
"Let me ask you, was my video about Belinda Carlisle's breasts educational?"
It soooo completely transcended the mere label of "educational". How can I say? It was illuminating, enlightening, awesome, mesmerizing, and dazzling. Truly a booborific epiphany!
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
But, pragmatic is pragmatic. And a boob is a boob is a boob. Utilize your "Get out of jail free" card and slap it on every video. And don't worry. All of your loyal viewers will vouch for the highly educational value of all of your videos (and your exemplary character) when you land in the federal slammer ken. Hey, and if it all goes bad, we can e-bail you out!
KobyBrandt 4 years ago