Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement

Posted by: BillM

Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 07:09 PM

I got a notice today from Youtube that one of my piano/vocal covers was removed for Copyright Infringement. I have posted many covers of popular songs on YouTube over the last couple of years and never had this happen before.

Since many of us here on ABF post covers on YouTube I am curious if anyone else had this experience and if so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
Posted by: CebuKid

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: b528nf7
I got a notice today from Youtube that one of my piano/vocal covers was removed for Copyright Infringement. I have posted many covers of popular songs on YouTube over the last couple of years and never had this happen before.

Since many of us here on ABF post covers on YouTube I am curious if anyone else had this experience and if so, what, if anything, did you do about it?


Among my YouTube Pianist friends, yes, I've heard complaints of this occurring. One lady from Spain that I know (very talented pianist and composer), had this problem with Sony records. She was playing on her own digital piano (it wasn't even an acoustic), and got a copyright infringement violation from YouTube on behalf of Sony records.

From what I've seen, if your recording isn't available in the "public domain", you're more likely to get a copyright infringement violation. Because of this, I went back to a couple of my daughter's videos and listed where the sheet music came from. Perhaps you'll want to list in your description (if you haven't already), the song-writer's name and the composer's name who wrote the arrangement on your piano accompaniment, etc...

I hope this helps, and sorry for what happened.
Posted by: MarcoM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 07:48 PM

even if you say where it comes from you can still be taken down: the account of a really good guitarist that had several hundred original arrangements of well known songs has been taken down over a year ago and it hasn't come back yet (despite a lot of users campaigning in his favour).

Another user that has some excellent piano tutorials for original arrangements of songs had a couple of them recently taken down as well and said that apparently it takes only between 3-5 reported infringements for youtube to completely remove your account.

I think the only 'safe' music genres to play on youtube nowadays are classical and jazz, for everything else the music labels are definitely on the lookout for videos which use their songs in any way shape or form.
Posted by: Little_Blue_Engine

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 08:29 PM

I read in a discussion board on youtube about someone having a video of the garage band he was in while he was in college in the early 70's taken down for copyright infringement because they were playing covers. I believe in the origional artists getting their recognotion and royalties and I don't believe in downloading things for free that are easily available for sale just because you can get them for free, but there comes a point when I wonder whatever happened to imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. No one is going to mistake any of us for the "real thing" and the record companies aren't going to lose their fortunes because some amatuers want to share their accomplishments on youtube.
Posted by: ChrisA

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 08:42 PM

It is perfectly legal to play a "cover" in a public performance BUT if you do you are required to pay a small fee to the songwriter's agency so that they can forward payment. to the song writer. It is the same on u-tube as if you were on stage except the u-tube is even more "public" than playing at a local bar (where you'd likey never get caught.)

Here are a couple good links on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_organisation

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html
Posted by: BillM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 08:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Little_Blue_Engine
No one is going to mistake any of us for the "real thing" and the record companies aren't going to lose their fortunes because some amatuers want to share their accomplishments on youtube.


Agreed - the cover in question was my pitiful rendition of a song by the Turtles (Happy Together) that was released in 1967. The band broke up 40 years ago. I realize that Alley Music Corp (the aggrieved party) is still entitled to their intellectual property but it seems kind of pathetic to me.

By the way, a search of Happy Together Cover on YouTube yields 2,570 hits so apparently I'm not alone in my fondness for this tune. I deleted my video.
Posted by: ladypayne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 08:56 PM

omg haven't had that happened to me yet since I just started youtube.. Maybe I should go back to photobucket lol.. Seems safer frown
Posted by: CMohr

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 09:23 PM

Hey, Ladypayne - stay with youtube. I only say this because every time I tried to watch your vids on photobucket, it crashed my computer. Don't know if anyone else had this problem, but it certainly bummed me out.
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 10:08 PM

I'm sorry to hear that, Bill. I'm guessing it's more of a problem with popular music. But I'm surprised that they would aggressively enforce a cover. I see lots of videos removed that are just pieces ripped from the CDs with a slide show attached, and I can understand why the music companies would want to be vigilant about those.
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 10:10 PM

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......
Posted by: jotur

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 10:22 PM

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......


That's my understanding, too. I suppose youtube hasn't ponied up to BMI and ASCAP because of the overwhelming number of videos they'd have to track and pay for. Unlike your local bar or pub with live music a couple of nights a week. Altho even that can be almost prohibitive. Or maybe they'd also have to pony up to other-than-US royalty entities, too.

I wonder why they haven't taken down the other several thousand videos once one of them was flagged? Surely they can use their own search button laugh

Cathy
Posted by: jotur

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 10:24 PM

I wonder if they'd have to pay mechanical rights (the right to reproduce as a hard copy) as well as performance rights?

Cathy
Posted by: Mr Super-Hunky

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 11:05 PM

I wonder if they leave the crappy performances alone and just go after the good ones. If you think about it, if they are worried that someone may want to listen to your version of a tune in lieu of the original, you must be pretty good.

There may be a warped compliment in there somewhere!
Posted by: Plowboy

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/29/10 11:51 PM

Originally Posted By: mr_super-hunky
I wonder if they leave the crappy performances alone and just go after the good ones. If you think about it, if they are worried that someone may want to listen to your version of a tune in lieu of the original, you must be pretty good.

There may be a warped compliment in there somewhere!


I certainly enjoy Bill's covers, he's good. On the other hand, while Alan Gordon has passed away, I'm sure Gary Bonner enjoys getting royalties for Happy Together. I doubt he worries much about Bill, though.
Posted by: MegumiNoda

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:02 AM

They seem pretty indiscriminate about what they go after. I made a (very bad) practice video using the Music Minus One (MMO) orchestra as my accompaniment. Because I was just learning the piece, I had to slow the orchestra part way down. That video was still flagged as some sort of infringement on Sony. I'm not even sure if MMO is a subsidiary of Sony.

I had thought that a 10 minute use of some music whose sole purpose was for accompaniment would fall under fair use (no financial gain; small excerpt for artistic expression), but apparently, it does not. Strangely, my infraction seems to be a bigger problem in Germany than elsewhere. According to Youtube, I don't have to remove the video yet, but people in Germany will be spared of my blasphemous attempt at Beethoven. Perhaps that is just as well.
Posted by: BenPiano

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:15 AM

Bummer, Bill.

I saw an interesting article a while ago on that viral wedding dance video and why it never was pulled:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/w...ng-dance-video/

It's too bad more studios and copyright holders don't take advantage of this advertising technique.


Bill, it looks like it's time you started playing some Chris Brown. grin
Posted by: 7notemode

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:16 AM

I'm no lawyer, but I have an interest in this issue, and this is my perspective on it: Youtube/Google do automated searches for copyright violations. They cast a very wide net. If you posted the Turtles playing Happy Together, they would have a legitimate claim. You posted your performance. Alley Music Corp does not have a copyright on your performance. You automatically do. 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 :-)
Posted by: BenPiano

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:22 AM

Originally Posted By: 7notemode
I would say that you reserve all rights to your performance, which was done for non-commercial purposes.


Not a recorded performance. The copyright holder "owns" the music. Cover it live in a bar - no problem. Put it on You Tube - problem.

I really do feel for the position of copyright holders. One might think it petty to yank amateur performances on You Tube, but where to you draw the line? It's a tough spot to be in, and some recording companies are more vigilant than others.
Posted by: ladypayne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:24 AM

I don't really understand why youtube goes through the trouble of deleting amateur performances on music covers but they leave full length movies up. Granted, they are in like 10 or 12 parts, but there's definitely a number of featured full length films on youtube that go undetected. So I wonder if these people that put these movies use some round about way so that the vids don't get deleted besides saying I Don't own this vid etc..
Posted by: MarcoM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: BenPiano
Cover it live in a bar - no problem.


actually even if you cover it live in a bar you still have to do the paperwork so royalties are paid (or at least you need to do this in some European countries, I haven't ever played in a cover band live in North America). It wouldn't surprise me if bar owners even here have to pay some sort of licensing fee for 'live music' and have to give the setlist to ASCAP/BMI/... for royalty distribution.

It ought to be possible to do the same on youtube, I am sure a lot of people would be totally fine with a microtransaction of $1/$2 to be able to post their cover of xyz, as of now there appear to be no legal way to share your performance of copyrighted material even if you were willing to pay to be able to do so.
Posted by: SpencerF

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 05:19 AM

Youtube has been paying out money to major copyright holders for years to keep the website from shutting down. The problem is that some companies want more money than youtube can afford. Youtube only makes so much money off of a video. If youtube makes ten cents (highly exagerated, and im not sure exactly how it works) everytime someone watches a music video, but the company wants 20 cents for everytime someone watches that video, well they just take the video down.

Also, some companies just don't like the idea of not having control over their music. They want people to buy cds (they hate itunes as well). In fact if they wouldn't suffer severe losses in profit, they probably would prefer to not distribute the music at all, just have it played on the radio, tv, performances etc.

Kind of like movie scores. You cannot get the full sheet music to a movie. It is impossible. They don't want you to perform it. They just want you to listen to it in the movie and recognize it as part of the branding of the movie.

So when you post your cover of their music on youtube, and youtube makes almost no profit off of your video, but the company wants royalties, well you aren't going to pay the royalties are you?

In my opinion though, the record companies are greedy, evil, and have a very outdated business model. They don't want to change their ways and evolve with technology. They are fighting off the internet to keep control. I hope it won't work. Hopefully the young generation will eventually take their places, and eventually things will change, at least a little.
Posted by: LaRate

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 05:59 AM

It certainly is a cost problem - and that's why I believe the whole removal mechanism is 99% automatic. Sony (and most certainly other companies) runs a scripted search from a list of stuff they own, generate infringement messages, youtube automatically processes them and generates the message to the user. If a live person is anywhere in this process, I think he/she will work like a machine ;-).

My suspicion is, they (i.e. their software) do not even care to differentiate between covers and mere rips of copyrighted material. I'd wager that if you named the video differently, nobody would complain (although this would be even more delicate from a copyright-perspective, since you would claim a cover as being your own composition). Of course, your video couldn't be found as easily by users as well wink.

Germany is a special case actually, since we have an own, very peculiar ASCAP-version - the GEMA: a reeeally bureaucratic organisation. So none of the deals Google makes with the ASCAP applies to Germany, they need to make specific agreements. (p.s.: while I do not mind too much for youtube, I really hate that I can't use Pandora in Germany - these music people could get so much of my money, if they'd let me explore new music I might like...)
Posted by: Peyton

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 07:01 AM

I didn't realize they were actually going after covers. I had an audio pulled from a vid but it was the actual recording (Friend of the Devil) so I could begin to understand, but covers from us amateurs.... ? That was a nice job you did on that tune too Bill. I'm sorry it was pulled.
Posted by: Piano*Dad

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 07:51 AM

Quote:
I think the only 'safe' music genres to play on youtube nowadays are classical and jazz, for everything else the music labels are definitely on the lookout for videos which use their songs in any way shape or form.


Well, my son once got his knuckles rapped by youtube for posting his rendition of ..... a Mozart sonata movement. We got a notice that there was an alleged copyright infringement and they threatened to pull the video down. I responded that the piece was almost 250 years old and that any damn fool would know that it was in the public domain. Well, I didn't say it quite that way, but I do recall being somewhat curt. They backed off. I suspect it was a shotgun blast series of claims from some automated program designed to catch possible violations, but the program likely didn't care much about type I error.
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: jotur
I wonder if they'd have to pay mechanical rights (the right to reproduce as a hard copy) as well as performance rights?

Cathy
Here in Australia shops which play recorded music get an APRA license, and they display a sticker in their front window to say they are licensed to broadcast music. You're right, the broadcast license is different to the live performance license, but it's just a matter of having the right sort of license.

And I would think that the question of tracking 'performances' would be super-easy in a web 'venue' - my goodness, my blog tells me where people have been directed from, including the words they typed into google that ended up leading to my blog: if wordpress is doing that for all the blogs that are wordpress related I'm sure YouTube has the technology to track quite a lot of content. On the other hand, they are reliant on those uploading the clips to catalogue the contents properly..... Hmmmm.....
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Piano*Dad
Quote:
I think the only 'safe' music genres to play on youtube nowadays are classical and jazz, for everything else the music labels are definitely on the lookout for videos which use their songs in any way shape or form.


Well, my son once got his knuckles rapped by youtube for posting his rendition of ..... a Mozart sonata movement. We got a notice that there was an alleged copyright infringement and they threatened to pull the video down. I responded that the piece was almost 250 years old and that any damn fool would know that it was in the public domain. Well, I didn't say it quite that way, but I do recall being somewhat curt. They backed off. I suspect it was a shotgun blast series of claims from some automated program designed to catch possible violations, but the program likely didn't care much about type I error.


YouTube clearly isn't any damn fool!!!! (I love this story!)
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 08:10 AM

I read this thread with interest in that I have almost 50 music videos on YouTube. If I record a pop or R&R or blues or whatever kind of music I play, and upload it to YT, I always credit the original artist or song writer (as a general rule).

Of course, about 15 or so of my songs are original compositions that I wrote myself. I’ve never had a problem or received a notice from YT about any copyright infringement.

I guess my recordings are so bad, they don’t take notice! grin

Rick
Posted by: Pete M.

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 08:18 AM

For the seemingly random selection process, you also have to keep in mind that they'll take down anything reported as a copyright violation automatically, whether it's true or not (thanks DMCA). The fact is, there are actually a lot of people out there who report videos out of spite, just to get them taken down.
Posted by: Piano*Dad

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 08:22 AM

Well, they didn't actually take down the Mozart video, despite passing along the claim that it was a copyright violation. There was a dispute process, and they didn't do anything immediately. Ultimately, they didn't do anything, period.
Posted by: Philpot321

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 08:52 AM

this is really interestimg, ive never heard of covers being removed from youtube for copyright violations... For instance, the youtube user iwillbot has dozens and dozens of covers to almost every modern pop song you can imagine, and they are all still up and VERY popular... its a good thing my covers are horrrrible otherwise i might be in trouble wink
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:13 AM

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
Posted by: appleman

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:42 AM

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.
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:50 AM

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
Posted by: LaRate

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:52 AM

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...
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:59 AM

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...
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:05 AM

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
Posted by: Devane

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:27 AM

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
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:53 AM

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)...
Posted by: Devane

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 11:12 AM

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......
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:20 PM

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
Posted by: Larry Larson

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:32 PM

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]
Posted by: ChrisA

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 12:42 PM

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.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 01:16 PM

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
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 03:14 PM

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.
Posted by: hv

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 03:44 PM

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
Posted by: MarcoM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 06:36 PM

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.
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 08:52 PM

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.
Posted by: CebuKid

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 09:29 PM

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)
Posted by: packa

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:04 PM

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?
Posted by: daro

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:18 PM

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.
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:26 PM

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
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:47 PM

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?
Posted by: BenPiano

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:57 PM

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
Posted by: BenPiano

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 10:59 PM

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
Posted by: ladypayne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 11:18 PM

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!
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 11:19 PM

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.
Posted by: hv

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 11:25 PM

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
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/30/10 11:29 PM

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.
Posted by: daro

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 12:03 AM

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.
Posted by: GYABEAUX

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 02:32 AM

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.
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 03:24 AM

I think that there is plenty of confusion in this thread! Not sure if I can actually help (or if I understand things right), but here it goes:

(Most usually): Anything composed prior to 1923 is copyright free. Which includes scores, the music, etc. You can do whatever you wish with a Beethoven Sonata. It may be of extremely bad taste, but it's not illegal. With scores there is the tiny detail of editors though: An urtext edition is copyright free (assuming nothing has been added to the score, by editors or others). An edition with fingerings, and critical analysis, etc, is NOT, even if the music is. The creative work of the editor is still in copyrights. So while the Beethoven Sonatas are "free" and available in IMSLP, the same cannot be said for most editions out there. Otherwise photocopying would be fine, which is not!

Anything composed after 1923 is usually not copyright free. Ligeti, Messiaen, Cage, whatever is not. Which means that you are pretty much tight to the wishes of the copyright holder. If I don't want you putting lyrics to my music, I may be an arse but I still have the rights to stop you. And I have the rights to stop you from posting your result on YT or here or anywhere. With performances there comes (Again) the creative work of someone else apart from the composer: the performer. Anything performed by Argericht (for example) is not copyright free, even if it's very very old music. Her performances are the ones which hold copyrights!

Apart from copyright, which is what the word states (the rights to copy/distribute), there's also the thing about royalties (airtime royalties in face). Every time my music gets performed in public, in the radio and the tv (but not the Internet usually) I get a tiny amount of money. IF you think this is little, think that people make a living out of airtime royalties and that they can add up to plenty of thousands of $!

This is where it gets tricky for living composers (and not classical most usually). They want their royalties. And while ASCAP, BMI, etc will get those from radios, etc, and most usually (at least in most countries) the live venues will provide a general fee to the performing rights society of that country (area), the same does not apply for Internet covers.

And this is where it gets silly. I do think that, while not on my perfectly legal rights, in my common sense rights I have the ability to whistle a tune, or play it on the piano. This doesn't make me a scam artist! Now, with YT, 95% of the people posting there also do not get anything out of it, apart from the joy of sharing. But YT does! And there's no royalties to be seen anywhere! So it remains a largely gray area! There are bands who are selling the covers they have made, but they are only grabbing performance rights, not composing, and have probably acquired a license to do so (Pomplamoose comes in mind).

The silliest of all was when they started taking down lyrics sites, which is extremely silly. Yes, it's copyrighted material, but who on earth can't make out the lyrics? If one reads, or sings along is also breaking the law? frown Or the DRM stuff, where you can buy DRM free or DRM from iTunes!

Heh... for a composer I think I'm rather open minded! laugh

PS. Do correct me if I'm wrong anywhere in the above. I think I have the juice right, but certainly things are different in various countries, plus I may have the tiny details wrong...
Posted by: LaRate

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 03:59 AM

The biggest problem is, that "common sense justice" could be but more often is not applied because the party we're dealing with is usually not a musician but a company. Companies try to protect and make money of assets, not art.

They have no sensitiveness which use is actually more like advertising the original product rather than ripping it off. A beautifully played cover might make we wanna buy the official songbook rather than NOT buying the soundtrack. But the law is on their side and it can be used in a way where common sense has nothing to do with things anymore.

As for artists, possibly ROB would have been perfectly happy, if those restaurant people had asked, whether they might continue using his piece, and maybe put a link to his website on an about-page on their's.

There is a very good presentation on digital property and the remix culture held by Lawrence Lessig (caution - it is 83 minutes long):


Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 04:07 AM

Originally Posted By: LaRate
The biggest problem is, that "common sense justice" could be but more often is not applied because the party we're dealing with is usually not a musician but a company. Companies try to protect and make money of assets, not art.
This is why the Internet feels so important to me. I actually did my whole thesis on open office 3 (freeware, and open source). This type of software would've never existed had there not been for the Internet and piracy!

Quote:
They have no sensitiveness which use is actually more like advertising the original product rather than ripping it off. A beautifully played cover might make we wanna buy the official songbook rather than NOT buying the soundtrack.
This is where it gets probably more complicated. PW is filled with grown ups and even "old" people (compared to me at least, at the age of 32 and compared to pretty much any other forum I've been in). Piracy, which is very linked to what we're talking about here (and this is why I keep bringing it up) is about ignorance and mostly greed. People pirating are treating art like an asset (and a worthless one at that). Sadly musicians who just like to do covers and provide a service to the rest of the world (I REALLY believe that), are also thrown in the pit.

Quote:
As for artists, possibly ROB would have been perfectly happy, if those restaurant people had asked, whether they might continue using his piece, and maybe put a link to his website on an about-page on their's.
True enough and I agree! A little courtesy would take those restaurant people a long way... Not that there's much that Rob can do (unless he does visit the restaurant, in which case this actually I'd like to see! :D)

Hope to find some time and watch the video, it looks very interesting! Thanks! smile
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 05:41 AM

There's nothing magical about the year 1923 - the copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the composer no matter when the music was composed.

So.... if you composed something in 1918 when you were, say, 18, but you lived until 1992, then your music will still be in copyright (even the stuff you composed in 1918) until 2062. It used to be 50 years, but a contingent of interested parties lobbied to have this extended to 70 years, and whenever that changeover happened the extended period was not extended back an extra 20 years. So music by Bartok is now public domain (he died in 1945) for instance, while music by Poulenc is not (he died in 1963) and won't be until 2033.

Copyright in the edition lasts for 25 years. So if you buy a 2nd hand copy of Beethoven's Sonatas published in 1970 you are behaving quite legally when you photocopy it, but if you photocopy your new edition (published 2009) you are breaking the law.

And then there are the rights inherent in a mechanical recording, and rights to broadcast (different to rights to perform). No wonder there's a big trade in copyright law.....
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 08:48 AM

Just to clear up any mis-understandings, I post my music on Soundclick.com

I am aware that any member can embed a player with a single track, or a whole playlist, on his/her website, with, or without permission from the artiste, so I am not really in a position to complain.

However, I do feel for those artistes whose music is used without their permission, and who receive no recompense for their efforts.

As a former member of the UK Musicians Union, I feel it is my duty to support any musician, making a living from their craft.

Edited to add:
The cafe is not a place I would visit, out of choice, and neither is the music of any quality.

I was just experimenting with some electronic stuff, at the time.

The website is here: (music takes a few minutes to load)

To be fair, they do at least, have a link to my SoundClick page :-)

http://moutiers-cafeteria-des-salines.e-monsite.com/accueil.html



Posted by: hv

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 09:33 AM

The reason pre-1923 is a rule of thumb in the US is because every US copyright act which changed terms also provided that any published work whose copyright was already expired, stayed expired. Could you imagine the problems if it were otherwise? Works published here Pre-1923 entered the public domain after 75-years at the end of 1997. Sony Bono got his law passed 1st extending the term to 95 years in late 1998.

Howard
Posted by: R0B

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 09:49 AM

Copyright expiry varies from country to country.

For example, in Canada and new Zealand, it is the lifetime of the author, plus 50 years.
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 11:47 AM

Originally Posted By: R0B
Edited to add:
The cafe is not a place I would visit, out of choice, and neither is the music of any quality.
I won't comment on the music (in fact I quite liked it for what it is!), but actually the website is quite awful, filled with ready made pics (or pics without getting permission), a link to soundclick :O, and everything compressed to no end.

I would be seriously scared to eat anything there! wink

BTW, the pirate party (elected in the European Union 'congress' (<-not the right word) last year) is aiming for a copyright lasting 5 years after the creation of the work! shocked While I think this is amazingly silly, I still find that copyrights should expire a few years after the death of the composer and not last 3 generations of people to feed of them! frown
Posted by: BillM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 07:27 PM

Wow! I must not be living right. I just got home and opened my e-mail to find:

We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from Alley Music Corp. claiming that this material is infringing:

Under the Boardwalk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZbns4-uPY

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.


That is the second infringement notice in the last two days. Both were from Alley Music Corp. Either they own a lot of music that I like or I have been incredibly unlucky in my song selections. I have also removed this video which was my March Piano Bar submission.
Posted by: BillM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 07:32 PM

Update: I think I have solved this mystery. Hal Leonard is the publisher associated with the publisher imprint Alley Music Corp. I used a Hal Leonard Fake Book as the basis for my piano/vocal renditions of the songs in dispute (Happy Together and Under the Boardwalk).
Posted by: Little_Blue_Engine

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 09:34 PM

Originally Posted By: b528nf7
Update: I think I have solved this mystery. Hal Leonard is the publisher associated with the publisher imprint Alley Music Corp. I used a Hal Leonard Fake Book as the basis for my piano/vocal renditions of the songs in dispute (Happy Together and Under the Boardwalk).

I wouldn't think they would have any way of knowing if you had used their book, so it must be the songs themselves. I never knew covers were being taken down until this thread started. I assumed no one really cared because the covers of the artists I watch the most never get taken down. Some of them have been up for years.
Posted by: BillM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 09:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Little_Blue_Engine

I wouldn't think they would have any way of knowing if you had used their book, so it must be the songs themselves.


You are right, of course, it is the songs themselves. I have 3 or 4 Hal Leonard Fake Books and a large percentage of the songs I post on YouTube come from these books.
Posted by: Larry Larson

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 10:06 PM

It's time to start singing Rickster songs.
Posted by: Mark...

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 10:10 PM

Originally Posted By: b528nf7
Wow! I must not be living right. I just got home and opened my e-mail to find:

W[b]e have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from Alley Music Corp. claiming that this material is infringing:




In a strange way this is a compliment. If your work wasn't so good, they would never bother you...:)
Posted by: Mark...

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Larry Larson
It's time to start singing Rickster songs.


or put words to your stuff... smile
Posted by: Little_Blue_Engine

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 03/31/10 11:25 PM

I think more copyright owners just need to calm down and realize youtube can be properly exploited for their commercial gain if done correctly. The little ads that come up with the option of buying the song through itunes is a win/win situation I think. I just used one today watching a music video that had obviously been uploaded fom an old VHS tape of MTV. I get to watch the video, they got my $1.29 when I realized that I didn't already have the song in my itunes library. Win/win!!!
Posted by: BenPiano

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 04/01/10 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By: b528nf7
That is the second infringement notice in the last two days.


What a bummer.

Well, on the bright side, at least you've had the chance to briefly share those with us. I would think those of us who have had the chance to see these missing videos are a privileged group. smile
Posted by: ladypayne

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 04/01/10 12:16 AM

maybe you can try to just upload mp3's for now on box.net until you figure out the youtube thing Bill. Your vids are great and it's a shame that youtube is taking them down frown
Posted by: appleman

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 04/01/10 05:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas
BTW, the pirate party (elected in the European Union 'congress' (<-not the right word) last year) is aiming for a copyright lasting 5 years after the creation of the work! shocked
It's usually referred to as pirate parties, since what they support depends entirely on which country you're in, since copyright is different in every country.

In the US, they want copyright to be returned to 14 years + one 14 year extension.

The 5 year plan is really neat in theory, but I don't think it's very practical. Copyright would expire in 5 years UNLESS it would be beneficial to the public for copyright to be extended. So, if everyone benefits from Microsoft having a copyright on the .doc format, it would be extended. Or if a band releases free and accurate sheet music, since they have helped the public, they could file for an extension.

Content creators would have to support the public or else lose their rights to their works. Good in theory, but I can't see how it would be anything but arbitrary in practice.
Posted by: hv

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 04/02/10 11:35 AM

LBE, I was curious about Under the Boardwalk so I checked and here's what I found... there seem to be two writers and publishers:

Songwriter/Composer......Publisher
RESNICK ARTHUR (BMI), ALLEY MUSIC CORP (BMI)
YOUNG KENNY ( ASCAP), TRIO MUSIC COMPANY (BMI)

Checking further, Alley Music is owned by Carlin International. They're one of the largest publishers around, having acquired numerous other smaller ones. They don't own Hal Leonard, however, but they're reported to be partnered up with them on numerous things like a big Stephen Sondheim folio. Their president recently got appointed to the Governing Board of ASCAP. Oddly, however, they're one of the publishers known to dispute their own performance assignments to BMI relating to Internet audio/visual usage, particularly YouTube. I assume their logic also applies to ASCAP licensing. I've known them in the past to use the Internet search service BayTSP to hunt down Internet video material and issue take-down notices. This activity must be impacting the efforts of their own rights organizations to license YouTube or anyone else. Based on this thread, I'm getting the idea they might also be impacting anyone who buys any Hal Leonard folios to learn material for audio visual based promotion because of the likelihood of stumbling into a piece they own.

Howard
Posted by: BillM

Re: Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement - 04/02/10 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: hv
Based on this thread, I'm getting the idea they might also be impacting anyone who buys any Hal Leonard folios to learn material for audio visual based promotion because of the likelihood of stumbling into a piece they own.

Howard


Howard - thanks. I found an e-mail address for Hal Leonard on their website and sent them an e-mail explaining that two of my videos were removed from YouTube for copyright infringement. I explained that I am a mere adult self-taught piano player posting covers of popular songs found in the Hal Leonard Fake Books for my own and others' (limited) enjoyment.

I asked them if it was their intent to prevent this type of activity and if it is I asked for steps I might take to make this type of cover posting "legal".

I have not yet received a response.