Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Gifts and supplies for the musician
SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
Ad (Piano Sing)
How to Make Your Piano Sing
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pianoteq
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
Who's Online
66 registered (ando, 661-Pete, Al LaPorte, 19 invisible), 1099 Guests and 16 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Pianos
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#1406948 - 03/30/10 09:13 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Philpot321]
R0B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 1439
Loc: Australia
YouTube would argue that they are no more responsible for the content posted on their site, than your ISP is, for opinions you post on internet forums.

Interestingly, there is an ongoing dispute with a publisher trying to sue YouTube for illegal content, and YouTube is countering with claims that the publisher uploaded the content, anonymously, and deliberately downgraded the quality, to make it appear to be pirated material.

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8575666.stm
We live in interesting times


Edited by R0B (03/30/10 09:16 AM)
Edit Reason: Corrected link
_________________________
Rob

Top
(ads P/S)

Sauter Pianos

#1406963 - 03/30/10 09:42 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: 7notemode]
appleman Offline
Full Member

Registered: 03/30/09
Posts: 188
Originally Posted By: 7notemode
They could say that they are owed an ASCAP fee. On general principals, since it was probably an automated action anyway, I would file a request with Youtube to have the video reinstated. At least a live person would look at it then. I would say that you reserve all rights to your performance, which was done for non-commercial purposes. At least, that is what I would do, and what I have known others to do. It may not be worth the trouble for you -- just my $0.02 :-)
IANAL either.

The problem is that Youtube does not claim ownership of the videos, just like Piano world is not claiming ownership of the posts on this forum. It's up to the user to obtain all the rights, which is stated in the ToS.
Quote:
You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them.


A completely legal cover would have a mechanical license for the song and a sync license for the video. Being non-commercial does not exempt someone from that.

The Internet is still very much the wild west of copyright law. It's mostly patrolled by bots and other AI, rather than actual people. It isn't surprising to see people not following the correct laws, because not only are most people unaware of them, but enforcement is spotty at best.

That being said, if you receive a DMCA takedown notice, and you contest it, you waive many of your rights and face very heavy fines, since you assert that you have secured rights to the video and take full legal responsibility. You go from innocent infringement to willful infringement.

If a person contests it and the copyright holder sues, and that person didn't obtain a license, they would now be facing a six figure settlement where before they just lost the right to distribute the video.
_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

Top
#1406967 - 03/30/10 09:50 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: appleman]
R0B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 1439
Loc: Australia
All of the above are reasons why I only post on YouTube, and other internet sites, original compositions, for which I own the copyright.

Even then, there is nothing to stop a website owner from downloading that music and posting it on their own site.

One of my tracks, is being used, without my permission, as background music on a website for a cafe/restaurant, in the French Alps
cursing
_________________________
Rob

Top
#1406968 - 03/30/10 09:52 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: appleman]
LaRate Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 250
Loc: Germany
Originally Posted By: appleman

You go from innocent infringement to willful infringement.

Other than in criminal law (which might apply additionally), I believe in civil law there is no difference between negligent (there is no "innocence" in law breaking wink ) and wilful. And civil claims (ridiculously high compensations) are the ones you have to worry about. At least it is like that in Germany...

Top
#1406970 - 03/30/10 09:59 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: R0B]
Nikolas Online   content
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/26/07
Posts: 5429
Loc: Europe
Originally Posted By: R0B
One of my tracks, is being used, without my permission, as background music on a website for a cafe/restaurant, in the French Alps
cursing
This I would chase down actually!

Too annoying! You are not only loosing potential revenues, but you are actually appearing to endorse some kind of restaurant! shocked

At some point I had given a few of my scores in IMSLP. I'm a big supporter of the freeware society and anything to do with free education, thus I gave them permission to use my scores!

To my surprise while googling my name (yup... I'm one of those suckers) I got results to another music sheet site (won't name it), which had taken the 5 scores from IMSLP and had it on their website. The difference was that this particular site was subscription based! I got SO annoyed! Contacted them and finally got them to take it out!

No notice the problem: Every score in IMSLP is with a CC license 3 (the most harsh, but still... :-/) The basic thing about any CC license is that it will stay there forever (not reversable) and it will allow redistribution. Both make sense, but in fact copyrights prohibit these, while CC allows them. Well, copyrights allows whatever the holder wants...

Anyways, each music piece has a copyright attached for the music. Covers of songs break that copyright, and SONY is being an *ahem* as well as any other company I know that cares a tiny bit...
_________________________
http://www.musica-ferrum.com

Top
#1406972 - 03/30/10 10:05 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Nikolas]
R0B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 1439
Loc: Australia
I tried, Nikolas.

Emailed them in both English, and French, but never got a reply.

To be honest, I was flattered, at first, as I don't expect to make money from my 'music', but was annoyed at the lack of response.

Ha! I only found out when I googled myself, and the track title!
You are not alone, lol
_________________________
Rob

Top
#1406985 - 03/30/10 10:27 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: R0B]
Devane Offline
Full Member

Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 403
Loc: Ireland
Didn't someone's rendition of "Clair de Lune" get pulled because the owners of the "Twilight OST" flagged all versions on youtube as theirs.

If it was Joyce Hatto's channel I'd understand. wink
_________________________
Say it to my face! wink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b9rOji_PWY

Top
#1407004 - 03/30/10 10:53 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Devane]
Nikolas Online   content
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/26/07
Posts: 5429
Loc: Europe
Originally Posted By: Devane
Didn't someone's rendition of "Clair de Lune" get pulled because the owners of the "Twilight OST" flagged all versions on youtube as theirs.
This is highly ridiculous if it's anywhere near the truth! I mean WOW! (And to think that actually Disney has a Fantasia video (cut from the original 1940) version with the very same music, orchestrated)...
_________________________
http://www.musica-ferrum.com

Top
#1407019 - 03/30/10 11:12 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Nikolas]
Devane Offline
Full Member

Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 403
Loc: Ireland
Originally Posted By: Nikolas
Originally Posted By: Devane
Didn't someone's rendition of "Clair de Lune" get pulled because the owners of the "Twilight OST" flagged all versions on youtube as theirs.
This is highly ridiculous if it's anywhere near the truth! I mean WOW! (And to think that actually Disney has a Fantasia video (cut from the original 1940) version with the very same music, orchestrated)...


It belonged to somebody here if I remember correctly. I think they got it unblocked. I'm sure whoever it was will chime in.

Back to work......
_________________________
Say it to my face! wink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b9rOji_PWY

Top
#1407068 - 03/30/10 12:20 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Larry Larson]
Nikolas Online   content
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/26/07
Posts: 5429
Loc: Europe
Larry: On the quotation of the blue rhapsodie... I doubt there should be any serious issue. I mean it's a homage, the piece is not used in any way other than a 'fair use' ideal! I seriously doubt anything would happen.

On the track on the radio: You need to realise that if this was a national radio, you could very well be looking at tens of thousands of $ lost from royalties. I don't know about you, but I would seriously freak out if something like this happened! Then again I try not to worry too much and loose opportunities (like posting in a forum, for example) because of that!

Nice track you got there, btw! smile
_________________________
http://www.musica-ferrum.com

Top
#1407081 - 03/30/10 12:32 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: R0B]
Larry Larson Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 992
Loc: Carmel, Indiana
Originally Posted By: R0B
All of the above are reasons why I only post on YouTube, and other internet sites, original compositions, for which I own the copyright.

Even then, there is nothing to stop a website owner from downloading that music and posting it on their own site.

One of my tracks, is being used, without my permission, as background music on a website for a cafe/restaurant, in the French Alps
cursing




All my YouTube stuff so far is original, but in one piece: I have a section where I quote a section of Gershwin's "Rhapsodie in Blue". Could this trigger a copyright problem?

Like everything else in legal world, I could see all being very complicated.

When I read about the cafe using your song, I remembered a dream I had in which I was riding in the back seat of a car sometime in the future and the radio was playing. A commercial came on in which one of my songs was being used for the jingle. At first I thought "they stole my song", and then I just decided to be flattered.

the song with the Gershwin quote in it:
[video:youtube][/video]


Edited by Larry Larson (03/30/10 03:09 PM)
_________________________
1995 Baldwin L grand
2001 Baldwin Hamilton upright
Yamaha S90 synthesizer
www.larrylarsonpiano.com
YouTubeChannel www.youtube.com/LarryLarsonPiano

Top
#1407087 - 03/30/10 12:42 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Elissa Milne]
ChrisA Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/28/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Redondo Beach, California
Originally Posted By: Elissa Milne
This is a fascinating one, because if you perform live it is actually the venue's problem to be licensed for the intellectual property. By analogy, YouTube is the venue......


No, the law says that "Everyone involved with the performance" is required to take care of licensing. But in practical terms a venue owner is easier to find and would take the heat from trying to cheat, that and your typical rock guitar player is not any good at business, contracts or license stuff. So in practice they do it. But if he didn't they could in theory go after any band member or even the audio engineer. But in practice the venues simply pay a flat fee based on size and number of shows. But my point is the law does not spell this out, that is just the most common and easy way to comply with the law.


I think u-tube is more like a venue that refuses to pay the fees and pushes it on to the performers. Likely they have little choice.

Why the studios bother to find and complain about small time amateur doing covers? My bet is that the process is automated. They have basically robots looking for the violations and the software lacks the common sense of a real person and just sends the notices.

I think there is also a concept in IP law that says that if you don't defend you property you loose it. So it may be just for show, so that if they ever need to then one day they can prove that they spend X hours per month on IP license enforcing.

Good news is that there is an inexhaustible and still growing supply of 75+ year old music.

Top
#1407112 - 03/30/10 01:16 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: ChrisA]
Rickster Offline


Registered: 03/25/06
Posts: 8585
Loc: Georgia, USA
I don’t know, all this is way beyond me, but I thought you only owed royalties to another artist, song writer, studio, record company, or whoever, if you used or recorded their music for commercial purposes and tried to make money on the recording. Just about every musical video recording on YouTube is someone else playing someone else’s’ music.

Since we are discussing this topic, let’s say someone complained to YT about a particular song/piece we recorded and uploaded to YT for fun, what could they do to you? Could they sue you, fine you, or just ask you to remove the video or either just remove it themselves?

Rick
_________________________
Piano enthusiast and amateur musician: "Treat others the way you would like to be treated". Yamaha C7. YouTube Channel

Top
#1407208 - 03/30/10 03:14 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Rickster]
Monica K. Offline

Platinum Supporter until Dec 31 2012


Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 17815
Loc: Lexington, Kentucky
There's performance fees, Rickster (which are usually paid by the venue) and then there are mechanical recording royalties paid if you create a permanent recording. My understanding is that one's obligation to pay royalties is unrelated to the fact of whether you want or are trying to make money off it. Of course, record companies and artists are more likely to be aggressive about protecting their copyright if they think somebody is trying to make a fast buck off them.

Here's an example of the live vs. recorded performance distinction. One of my favorite symphonic metal groups, Nightwish, once made a cover of Michael Nyman's "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" where they added lyrics to it (and not a few electric guitars wink ). They are able to perform that cover all they want at their concerts (after paying the appropriate performance fees), but when they asked permission to record it for one of their albums, Nyman refused. (Apparently he didn't care for their interpretation.) So only a few bootleg copies of it exist, and YouTube has been removing clips of the concert footage when it gets discovered.
_________________________
Mason & Hamlin A -- 91997
My YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/pianomonica

Top
#1407228 - 03/30/10 03:44 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Monica K.]
hv Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 1240
Loc: Cape Cod
The usual course is that the publisher files a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down notice with YouTube. The law says YouTube must disable the video unless the poster files a DMCA counter-notice justifying right to the usage, copy to the publisher, false statements punishable by criminal perjury prosecution. 14 days after counter-notice, YouTube can restore the video unless the publisher files a lawsuit against the poster for copyright infringement in Federal Court in the district where the poster lives. Note that copyright law reserves all audio visual usage to the copyright holder with no provision for compulsory licensing like there is for audio recording. Although I think fair usage still applies.

The only alternative I know of for audio-visual usage is if the copyright holder (the publisher) transfers audio-visual rights to a performing rights organization like ASCAP or BMI. Then you might have the option of licensing with the performing rights organization. Which is usually better than dealing with the publisher because ASCAP and BMI guarantee to defend licensees and hold them harmless to any lawsuits. Publishers on the other hand generally look to expand licensee liability in perpetuity. Problem is that ASCAP and BMI web licensing is relatively new and some publishers are unaware of it, dispute it, and have not read the specifics of their own agreements with their performing rights organizations. I license my web usage with both ASCAP and BMI and have had to have them fend off a few publisher attacks myself. Hopefully it'll all get sorted out soon and YouTube will begin licensing directly with ASCAP and BMI. Which would be the best of all worlds for everyone.

Howard

Top
#1407361 - 03/30/10 06:36 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: hv]
MarcoM Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/17/10
Posts: 246
another one of the people I sometimes listen to posted this (for guitar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxa_Zaqu3Y

which is kind of similar to what another Piano teacher ended up posting, both of them ended up in trouble because of covers of Eagles songs, there are discussions about this on the youtube support forum, but basically as things stand now posting covers is definitely risky if you care about your youtube account.

Top
#1407433 - 03/30/10 08:52 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: ChrisA]
Elissa Milne Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 1337
Loc: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Originally Posted By: ChrisA
Originally Posted By: Elissa Milne
This is a fascinating one, because if you perform live it is actually the venue's problem to be licensed for the intellectual property. By analogy, YouTube is the venue......


No, the law says that "Everyone involved with the performance" is required to take care of licensing. But in practical terms a venue owner is easier to find and would take the heat from trying to cheat, that and your typical rock guitar player is not any good at business, contracts or license stuff. So in practice they do it. But if he didn't they could in theory go after any band member or even the audio engineer. But in practice the venues simply pay a flat fee based on size and number of shows. But my point is the law does not spell this out, that is just the most common and easy way to comply with the law.


I think u-tube is more like a venue that refuses to pay the fees and pushes it on to the performers. Likely they have little choice.

Why the studios bother to find and complain about small time amateur doing covers? My bet is that the process is automated. They have basically robots looking for the violations and the software lacks the common sense of a real person and just sends the notices.

I think there is also a concept in IP law that says that if you don't defend you property you loose it. So it may be just for show, so that if they ever need to then one day they can prove that they spend X hours per month on IP license enforcing.

Good news is that there is an inexhaustible and still growing supply of 75+ year old music.

I'm not aware of a 'defend-it-or-lose-it' clause in international copyright law.. That's an interesting one. And I didn't say it was the venue's legal responsibility - I said it was their problem - subtle, but legally significant, semantic difference.
_________________________
Teacher, Composer, Writer, Speaker
Working with Hal Leonard, Alfred, Faber, and Australian Music Examination Board
Music in syllabuses by ABRSM, AMEB, Trinity Guildhall, ANZCA, NZMEB, and more
www.elissamilne.wordpress.com

Top
#1407444 - 03/30/10 09:29 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Elissa Milne]
CebuKid Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/08/09
Posts: 1176
It seems like the recurring theme is if you play the works of someone who's still alive, then they can still file copyright violations.

However, dead people, like Chopin, Beethoven, and Joplin, can not file such complaints. Hence, all the more reason to stick to classical works. (LOL)

Top
#1407459 - 03/30/10 10:04 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Monica K.]
packa Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/05/05
Posts: 1399
Loc: Dallas, TX
Originally Posted By: Monica K.
Here's an example of the live vs. recorded performance distinction. One of my favorite symphonic metal groups, Nightwish, once made a cover of Michael Nyman's "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" where they added lyrics to it (and not a few electric guitars wink ). They are able to perform that cover all they want at their concerts (after paying the appropriate performance fees), but when they asked permission to record it for one of their albums, Nyman refused. (Apparently he didn't care for their interpretation.) So only a few bootleg copies of it exist, and YouTube has been removing clips of the concert footage when it gets discovered.

This is rather puzzling. Under U.S. copyright law, the rules for a mechanical license (which you need to record a work) change if and when the work is ever actually recorded. My understanding is: if some other artist has negotiated a license to record a work, you then do NOT need to negotiate a new license to record it; you only need to pay the statutory royalty rates established under the law. In other words, the copyright holder can't withhold a mechanical license from another artist once they have allowed any artist to record. But they obviously still get royalties from these subsequent recordings.

Here's the way the Harry Fox website explains it: "Under the U.S. Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted, non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees at the statutory 'compulsory' rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act."

According to HFA Songfile (the database that Harry Fox maintains for mechanical licensing), The Heart Asks Pleasure First has been recorded by several artists besides the original composer. So it seems like anyone can go ahead by just paying compulsory royalties. I'm certainly not a copyright lawyer, so I wonder if anyone understands this differently?
_________________________
Paul Buchanan
Estonia L168 #1718

Top
#1407467 - 03/30/10 10:18 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: packa]
daro Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/09/07
Posts: 168
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: packa
According to HFA Songfile (the database that Harry Fox maintains for mechanical licensing), The Heart Asks Pleasure First has been recorded by several artists besides the original composer. So it seems like anyone can go ahead by just paying compulsory royalties. I'm certainly not a copyright lawyer, so I wonder if anyone understands this differently?
I'm guessing this is the critical issue:
Originally Posted By: Monica K.
Nightwish, once made a cover of Michael Nyman's "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" where they added lyrics to it (and not a few electric guitars

Adding lyrics and/or making significant changes to the instrumentation makes it not just a cover, but a derivative work, which requires permission of the copyright holder.

Top
#1407473 - 03/30/10 10:26 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: daro]
Monica K. Offline

Platinum Supporter until Dec 31 2012


Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 17815
Loc: Lexington, Kentucky
That makes a lot of sense, daro. Of course that leaves the courts in the tricky position of having to determine whether "significant changes" have been made or not. Guess that's why there's a lot of copyright lawyers. laugh
_________________________
Mason & Hamlin A -- 91997
My YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/pianomonica

Top
#1407489 - 03/30/10 10:47 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: daro]
R0B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 1439
Loc: Australia
Never thought about it until now, but does anyone know the legality, or otherwise, of embedding YT videos in this forum, as opposed to simply linking to them for example?
_________________________
Rob

Top
#1407496 - 03/30/10 10:57 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: Monica K.]
BenPiano Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/23/09
Posts: 1171
Loc: US
Originally Posted By: Monica K.
Guess that's why there's a lot of copyright lawyers. laugh


Boy, I went to school for the wrong thing. ha
_________________________
Learning to play since June 2009.
My piano diary on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afpaSTU1096
<- 10+ ABF recitals

Top
#1407497 - 03/30/10 10:59 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: R0B]
BenPiano Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/23/09
Posts: 1171
Loc: US
Originally Posted By: R0B
Never thought about it until now, but does anyone know the legality, or otherwise, of embedding YT videos in this forum, as opposed to simply linking to them for example?


From what I understand, there is no difference. smokin
_________________________
Learning to play since June 2009.
My piano diary on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afpaSTU1096
<- 10+ ABF recitals

Top
#1407503 - 03/30/10 11:18 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: BenPiano]
ladypayne Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 426
Loc: AK, USA
lol this seems somewhat complicated.. now I'm paranoid to record anything other than my own compositions which is a problem because I can't compose any better than I can play chopin or Mozart which btw isn't very good haha. Well not that I ever really tried composing but I wouldn't have a clue where to start. Some of you that compose all the time are all very amazing and make it look easy smile Sighs, I'm at a lost rather to keep recording and hope I don't get flagged or stop all together >.< grrrrrrr bad music companies!
_________________________
I am currently uploading all of my written piano sheets onto my blog to make things easier. I also have written out a few more sheets. All free check it out if you want smile Any questions, PM me

http://myuniquepianomusic.blogspot.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/paws1528

Top
#1407506 - 03/30/10 11:19 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: ladypayne]
R0B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 1439
Loc: Australia
According to intellectual property attorney Denise Howell, the author of Lawgarithms and the host of This Week in Law, the problem with embedding infringing YouTube clips is fairly straightforward.

“Any time you incorporate a copyrighted work into a site without the rightsholders’ consent, you’re potentially liable,” said Howell, “It doesn’t matter where it’s hosted.”

In short, since your site or blog is gaining benefit from another’s copyrighted material without permission, you can be held liable for it. It does not matter if the content is hosted elsewhere, posted by someone else.

Worse still, according to Howell, it does not matter if the person doing the embedding was aware of the infringement.”Innocent or ignorant infringement is just as actionable as the intentional variety,” said Howell. The only difference is the amount the plaintiff would be able to win in statutory damages should the case go to court. However, even in cases of innocent infringement, that amount can be as high as $30,000 per work infringed.

Finally, YouTube, as one might expect, offers no protections against such unwitting infringement. In its terms of use under section 5-G, it states that “YouTube is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such User Submissions.”

When it is all said and done, according to Howell, there is nothing to stop a rights holder, especially a well-funded one, from targeting sites that embed YouTube videos. If a rights holder believes that the site owner might be wealthy enough to pay or be motivated to settle, it is within their rights and their power to go after them.
_________________________
Rob

Top
#1407508 - 03/30/10 11:25 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: daro]
hv Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 1240
Loc: Cape Cod
Here's the exact wording of 17 USC 115I(a)(2):

"A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner."

... the business about derivative work only means Nightwish can't get its own copyright for its innovations without consent of the copyright holder. But lyrics could always be copyrighted as poem. The way this reads, I would think Nyman would have trouble blocking the Nightwish recording as long as it preserved the original melody. I guess that's the question.

Howard

Top
#1407511 - 03/30/10 11:29 PM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: hv]
Monica K. Offline

Platinum Supporter until Dec 31 2012


Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 17815
Loc: Lexington, Kentucky
Nyman could probably argue (with some success) that the Nightwish interpretation changed the "fundamental character" of the work; going from a minimalist piano solo to raging electric guitars and double-bass drum patterns is pretty fundamental, lyrics notwithstanding. laugh

p.s. YouTube covers itself by having a prominent notice displayed whenever you upload a video that you should only upload material that is your own original content.


Edited by Monica K. (03/30/10 11:32 PM)
_________________________
Mason & Hamlin A -- 91997
My YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/pianomonica

Top
#1407520 - 03/31/10 12:03 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: hv]
daro Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/09/07
Posts: 168
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: hv
Here's the exact wording of 17 USC 115I(a)(2):

"A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner."

... the business about derivative work only means Nightwish can't get its own copyright for its innovations without consent of the copyright holder. But lyrics could always be copyrighted as poem. The way this reads, I would think Nyman would have trouble blocking the Nightwish recording as long as it preserved the original melody. I guess that's the question.

Howard

I don't see how you can add a verse to an existing song without permission and expect to get a separate copyright just as a "poem" - it would be blatant plagiarism. Besides, the music and lyrics are generally combined together as a single copyrighted entity - that's the "fundamental character." This is why composers and lyricists, if not the same person, are considered joint authors, and each has equal rights in the work as a whole, not just the music, or just the lyrics.

Top
#1407560 - 03/31/10 02:32 AM Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement [Re: daro]
GYABEAUX Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 133
Loc: Canada
This thread makes my head spin and creep me out a bit. If YT ever touches my stuff, I'm probably gonna pull everything just because I don't want to deal with any of this for the sake of a fraction of a speck of Internet fame for performing yet another special snowflakey version of a Clementi sonatina or Mendelssohn's Venetian Boat song... simply not worth the trouble and possible fines and lawsuits. I guess YT just wants to fill itself with self vlogging talking heads of how its users brushed their teeth a particular morning for original content.
_________________________
Bach - BWV847 P&F in Cm
Bach - BWV861 P&F in Gm
Mozart - K397 Fantasia in Dm
Mozart - K475 Fantasia in Cm
Chopin - Nocturne in C#m
Debussy - La fille aux cheveux de lin
Debussy - Golliwogg's Cakewalk
Hofmann - 37-1 To the Lute
Gade - 19-2 Scherzo
Chopin - 25-12 Ocean
Chopin - 25-1 Aeolian Harp

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  BB Player, casinitaly 
What's Hot!!
Christmas Header
- > Gift Ideas for Music Lovers < -
From PianoSupplies.com a division of Piano World.
-------------------
The December Free Piano Newsletter
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
(ad) Piano Music Sale - Dover Publications
Piano Music Sale
Sheet Music Plus (125)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Odd sound effect on old upright
by 661-Pete
12/20/14 06:38 AM
Define "atmospheric" in piano music
by Pianolism
12/20/14 06:18 AM
1 Hour 2-5-1 Jazz Workout Backing Track - Slow to Fast Swing
by Nahum
12/20/14 05:36 AM
Jools Holland wow
by Shey
12/20/14 05:23 AM
How to determine felt thickness without specifications?
by JoeThePro
12/20/14 01:09 AM
Forum Stats
77362 Members
42 Forums
160009 Topics
2349738 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
Gift Ideas for Music Lovers!
Find the Perfect Gift for the Music Lovers on your List!
Visit our online store today.

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission