Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum youtube videos - what's the policy here?...

Contributors to the themed recitals have all been required to submit videos. Often these are simple digicam recordings of the performers themselves in action. At other times, a 'slide show' of a collection of still photos but I have a feeling some have presented music by helping themselves to existing YT videos/slide shows and used these as a foreground to their audio recordings.

Is there an official/unofficial policy here regarding that? Do some of us do it on the assumption that we're beneath the copyright radar? Does anyone go through the formalities of asking permission.

I wanted to use something I've seen to decorate one of my Grieg vids so would like to know what is generally deemed acceptable..

cheers!

Basically, if it's on the internet, it's available for use. Some pictures have watermarks, so it's best to avoid those because it's easy to identify where you got it from. In all reality, you're not making a profit off of the use of their pictures, so it's usually not a problem.

- that's how I viewed it too.

-thanks, Morodiene!

I think copyright holders are more interesting in nabbing pirated music as background more than still photos. Unfortunately, the YouTube filters are so crude that your own playing of the piece can get tagged by folks at Orchard Music or some other copyright holder. They won't usually pull the video down, but you'll have to go through the dispute process.

Ya, this happened to me with my Mendelssohn pieces and a recording of a Messiah performance I sang. Very annoying, because I'm pretty sure most of the time, those things are wrong.

There is "Creative Common" which basically entitles you to use other`s stuff given certain criteria. I try to use this whenever possible . . . .

I used a minute or two from a video already present on Youtube. I mentioned the author but I didn't contact him to ask permission, although I probably should. I don't think he would care at all actually, plus my video is unlisted.

Now that I think about it, the original video has just 393 views. He might get more exposure from being in my video now

In fact I've now got two videos, my performances, flagged as 'matched 3rd party content', one Grieg, one Mendelssohn.

Is there any reason why I should bother about this?

They can put ads on the page (and perhaps the start of the video, not sure) which can be annoying to your viewers and lining the pockets of someone else for work you did. Whether that's important enough to you to dispute is your call.

...seems like it might be a minor irritation, or less.

I'll put it on the back burner for now.

hi dire tonic

this happened to me as well (see the Grieg Recital thread) and I contested it and I think it might already be cleared since the notice is gone now. Piano*Dad writes in Recital thread about what to say to get the claim cleared. You just have to tell them that it's you playing and that you recorded it in your own home.

As for the youtube pictures, I've been thinking about copyright too this time. Last time I made the video, I didn't worry about it and just used pictures that came up on a google search for whatever I was looking for. This time, I found a site where all the pictures are in the public domain and will use some of those for the Sailors Song. For Peace of the Woods, I used a friend's pictures from her family's summer house on the lake.

To me it has been a major irritation, for two reasons.

First, it's simply wrong for these "rights holders" to be granted the privilege of claiming your work without any evidence beyond YouTube's horribly crude matching program. You are presumed guilty. The dispute process permits you to file a counter-claim against EMI or Orchard who claims that you have dubbed their artist over your video (because that's what their claim is). The rights holder then has about six weeks to respond. If you're lucky, they release their claim. If not, they can simply reiterate their ownership without even looking at the video or giving you an email address to contact them directly.

Then you receive a nasty-gram from YouTube threatening legal action if you persist by filing a second disupte. They can also pull your video down without any evidence that you have violated anything. That happened to one of my son's videos until I wormed my way into the company that claimed he was thieving from their artist (absurd, since my son was twelve). Finally, the company actually looked at the video and relented. I'm just ornery and I dislike the lack of meaningful due process. There is no mechanism that allows you to dispute the claim directly with the firm making the claim since they are not required to give you a phone number or email address to contact.

Secondly, if YOU are trying to make a buck off of your videos, you cannot monetize them when these disputes arise. My son's videos were getting enough hits that he actually could make a few pennies -- actually he has made over $140 so far -- so he had a small financial interest in following up on these disputes. That's college lunch money for a while.

I don't think that's true. Copyright still pertains on the Internet, and whether or not something is fair use is not directly connected to whether or not you're making a profit off it.

I'll see if I can find a reliable reference for this.

Another problem is: Which laws apply and who is liable? When I made my last video for the Mendelssohn recital, someone else made the video for me and the music was mine. So two people collaborated and then we posted the video on Youtube, and then there is the piano world site that had a link to it. So that is four different entities, all from different places. Whose copyright law applies? Is a person liable under the law of another jurisdiction? How could that law be enforced on that person?

Also, what are the damages if there is no money being made?

Thinking about all this has me worried about the last two videos that were posted on the Mendelssohn recital. Should I delete them and repost the music without the videos until I make sure about the copyright?

[cross-posted. This isn't a direct answer to Valencia's questions, though the links may provide some guidance. I'll see if I can find something that addresses those questions.]

A guide to copyright online. Includes ways to search for images and other content that you can use, for example materials licensed with a Creative Commons License (CCL). You must check the terms of the CCL because they can still come with various restrictions.

Fair use. Information about fair use of copyright materials. Fair use is a technical legal term for certain uses enumerated in the copyright law. It gives the conditions for when you can use copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright owner.

Copyright guide from the University of Maryland. I just chose this one because it came up conveniently high in my search. It will give you a flavor of what copyright protects, points out that works can be copyrighted even without an explicit statement of copyright, and describes fair use guidelines. Since it's a university document, much of the discussion of fair use centers around use by instructors for courses. But I think the general summary of fair use is good, and the discussion about the restrictions in place even for teaching purposes may help to make the point that non-profit status does not equate to open season on copyrighted materials.

The financial damages question is not whether the user made money or not. It is whether the copyright holder suffered loss of income as a result of the infringement.

For example, suppose you photocopy a score and give it to a friend for study while listening to a piece. Neither of you is making money, but the publisher has potentially lost a sale. And no, arguing that once your friend became familiar with this work of the composer, she would be more likely to buy more scores from the publisher than otherwise, is not a defense. It might be a business case for why the publisher might not pursue such infringements, but the photocopying is still an infringement.

The copyright holder has rights regardless of whether the copyright holder suffers financial consequences as a result of infringement, and regardless of whether the user makes money from the infringement.

Wow this is complicated. So the owners may have a right to compensation whether or not they lose money on my use of the image?

There is the right to fair use, which in this site, suggests this that might be the exception that the recital videos fall under. Keep in mind this is talking about works that are NOT in the public domain (or under the creative commons license where you can use it if you quote it how the owner asks you to). Also I assume this is US copyright law:

http://centerforsocialmedia.org/fai...ode-best-practices-fair-use-online-video

SIX: QUOTING IN ORDER TO RECOMBINE ELEMENTS TO MAKE A NEW WORK THAT DEPENDS FOR ITS MEANING ON (OFTEN UNLIKELY) RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ELEMENTS

DESCRIPTION: Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.

PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in "Bush Blair Endless Love," changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in "Dramatic Chipmunk," creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.

LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.

***********

So does showing an image for 7-10 seconds in a video that is meant for sharing and discussing the music being played fit within this? I don't know, but it's giving me a headache thinking about it....

Piano*Dad, I can sympathise with your frustration, even more with your determination to ensure that whatever monies may be due to you or your son don't end up in the pocket of some capitalist monolith. I'm much more relaxed about this because my classical uploads to youtube are unremarkable and repeatable. By the same token, I can’t imagine anyone’s going to lose a lot of sleep (or money!) as a result of my youtube borrowings.

I should mention the links I've provided are about U.S. copyright law.