Jump to content

The Youtube copyright claim nightmare


Chordite

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Those who know me know that I am paranoid about copyright of photos and music. On youtube I only put up my own songs. It seems that paranoia is now vindicated.

Here is a video by Paul Davids, Rick Beatto and many other formerly successful teachers are all being robbed blind by wall to wall copyright claims for teaching or even discussing songs. Even though it is obviously fair use.

There really needs to be a class action by guitar teachers and analysts, the situation is appalling and, it seems, an orchestrated assault.

 

 

[video=youtube_share;JwG0bQ7WC3c]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

He can blame the publishing companies for being 'greedy'. but they do own the rights to the music. Had they licensed the material through the HFA, they might have been able to contest this, but absent the license, they are infringing, no matter how you want to look at it.

 

Claiming they have the right to 'fair use' of these songs, but not being willing to license the song, when they are making money from the display of their usage? Sorry, we have laws to protect the owners, and you have been flying under the radar illegally using other people's IP. Now who is the greedy one?

 

I know it seems petty, but if it was your song, and it was being used, unlicensed, so that someone else made money from your legally protected IP, you would feel violated.

 

Bottom line, pay the license fee, avoid the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
He can blame the publishing companies for being 'greedy'. but they do own the rights to the music. Had they licensed the material through the HFA, they might have been able to contest this, but absent the license, they are infringing, no matter how you want to look at it.

 

Claiming they have the right to 'fair use' of these songs, but not being willing to license the song, when they are making money from the display of their usage? Sorry, we have laws to protect the owners, and you have been flying under the radar illegally using other people's IP. Now who is the greedy one?

 

I know it seems petty, but if it was your song, and it was being used, unlicensed, so that someone else made money from your legally protected IP, you would feel violated.

 

Bottom line, pay the license fee, avoid the problem.

 

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you can't tell me it's fair that one of the copyright claims came about because he played a Dsus2. That's all he played and it got claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
He can blame the publishing companies for being 'greedy'. but they do own the rights to the music. Had they licensed the material through the HFA, they might have been able to contest this, but absent the license, they are infringing, no matter how you want to look at it.

 

Claiming they have the right to 'fair use' of these songs, but not being willing to license the song, when they are making money from the display of their usage? Sorry, we have laws to protect the owners, and you have been flying under the radar illegally using other people's IP. Now who is the greedy one?

 

I know it seems petty, but if it was your song, and it was being used, unlicensed, so that someone else made money from your legally protected IP, you would feel violated.

 

Bottom line, pay the license fee, avoid the problem.

 

have you watched the video, from beginning to end? also the detail that he got blocked, because someone else used his song and claimed copyright? and that youtube blocked him because youtube said he infricts his own songs copyright by him self?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

have you watched the video, from beginning to end? also the detail that he got blocked, because someone else used his song and claimed copyright? and that youtube blocked him because youtube said he infricts his own songs copyright by him self?

 

Yes, but I saw no actual evidence, just hearsay. Look, if it is his song, and he owns the publishing and author's rights, then YouTube was way out of line, but considering the number of noted infringements, they may have been erring on the side of caution...but he certainly is well within his rights to force that correction, and he should, even to the point of going to court, and there are likely a number of attorneys who would take that case pro bono.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you can't tell me it's fair that one of the copyright claims came about because he played a Dsus2. That's all he played and it got claim.

 

That one made me laugh...you can't copyright a chord. The publishing company was absolutely way off base on that one. Even if it is absolutely immediately recognizable, [like the opening chord of 'A Hard Day's Night'] it is not the 'melody', it is arrangement, and therefore not a copyright issue per se.

 

As I said above, with so many claims of infringement, YouTube likely was just tagging anything they got a complaint regarding, and he needs to make the case with them, and in that particular D2 issue, as with his own material, he has a valid case. But whining on the internet about it isn't getting him anywhere.

 

The 'fair use' claim he is making likely will not stand up, since he expects to make money from his use of someone else's copyrighted material, and therefor the 'fair' part falls apart, and he is left with 'use'.

 

YouTube is not a soapbox in the public square, it is a service which makes its income from advertising, which relies on corporate 'goodwill', and freedom of speech and expression are not necessarily protected under those circumstances. But protection of IP and copyright is. Look at their TOS sometime [it is painful :) ], and pretty much all of this is spelled out in there.

 

Again, had these people paid the license fees through the Harry Fox Agency, there likely wouldn't be anything to discuss. [We have covered much of this, ad nauseum, in our sticky threads on copyright law in the Music Business forums, which I moderate].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who know me know that I am paranoid about copyright of photos and music. On youtube I only put up my own songs. It seems that paranoia is now vindicated.

Here is a video by Paul Davids, Rick Beatto and many other formerly successful teachers are all being robbed blind by wall to wall copyright claims for teaching or even discussing songs. Even though it is obviously fair use.

 

You can't copyright a chord progression, much less a single chord. :freak:

 

As far as discussion about a song being copyright infringement? Are you kidding me? :philpalm:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You can't copyright a chord progression, much less a single chord. :freak:

 

As far as discussion about a song being copyright infringement? Are you kidding me? :philpalm:

 

technically, if he posts or recites the lyrics, then it could be construed as infringement...but, jeez, that's really pushing the limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will say this about Paul. He often does covers and then monetizes the content. You can't do that. Rick Beato's series, "what makes that song great" and such he never takes the money. Yes he's been flagged but usually they get it cleared up. Paul did say on instagram, that most of the claims were overturned. A lot of this has to do with the Article 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Well I guess a lot of bands also get robbed when I buy used vinyl and sheet music. All quite legal too

 

To somewhat pick a nit... Fender doesn't get a nickel when someone pays $100k for a 54 Strat, nor Gibson if someone shells out $200k for a 57 LP... does up perceived value of the brands resulting in more sales of the new stuff, I reckon. Huge percentage of git geeks articles etc is comparing the old (profitless for maker) with new offerings. Sheet music and vinyl not so much... natch. Part of sales pitch for cars often includes "highest resale value" tho maker gets nothing from that... Dunno, just some rambling of my mind (all it seems good for these days.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I will say this about Paul. He often does covers and then monetizes the content. You can't do that. Rick Beato's series' date=' "what makes that song great" and such he never takes the money. Yes he's been flagged but usually they get it cleared up. Paul did say on instagram, that most of the claims were overturned. A lot of this has to do with the Article 13.[/quote']

 

Agree, I was going to bring up the thorny article 13 as a separate issue because that is EU whereas this seems to be a US issue.

Of course article 13 was desperately needed to deal with (speaking as a photographer) pinterest, which is an obscenity. If you have had the experience of seeing your work appear on the increasingly monopolistic pinterest with no attribution and their freaking logo on it! along with a demand to sign in with them to look at it you will know the sense of outrage. Plus the googlesque profiling which I think many people don't realize they do when the browse the images..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

technically, if he posts or recites the lyrics, then it could be construed as infringement...but, jeez, that's really pushing the limits.

 

It would depend on how much of the lyrics he recites. While there's no set percentage given in the law (so it's up to the courts to decide in each individual case) saying "there's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold" for illustrative purposes in the course of a review, discussion or educational video isn't infringement - it's going to fall under fair use. And while I don't doubt that there's frequent copyright abuse that they have to deal with, that's the aspect of this that is getting totally ignored by the license holders and YouTube.

 

As far as discussions about songs, if none of the lyrics are mentioned, and the music isn't posted, I can't see how a discussion would otherwise run afoul of the copyright laws. :idk:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

It would depend on how much of the lyrics he recites. While there's no set percentage given in the law (so it's up to the courts to decide in each individual case) saying "there's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold" for illustrative purposes in the course of a review, discussion or educational video isn't infringement - it's going to fall under fair use. And while I don't doubt that there's frequent copyright abuse that they have to deal with, that's the aspect of this that is getting totally ignored by the license holders and YouTube.

 

As far as discussions about songs, if none of the lyrics are mentioned, and the music isn't posted, I can't see how a discussion would otherwise run afoul of the copyright laws. :idk:

 

 

 

agreed, again, I think TouTube is just acting on filings by the publishing companies and not examining the details, which is not the right way to police this...it would be like us perma-banning for every infraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

agreed, again, I think TouTube is just acting on filings by the publishing companies and not examining the details, which is not the right way to police this...it would be like us perma-banning for every infraction.

 

I'd say it would be more along the lines of perma-banning for every alleged infraction... and not even bothering to check to see if the flagged post actually violates the ToS or not. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'd say it would be more along the lines of perma-banning for every alleged infraction... and not even bothering to check to see if the flagged post actually violates the ToS or not. ;)

 

 

now daddymack and phil i can agree with you. i'm not against intellectual property and i'm not against the owner gets his fair share, but this (automated) youtube policy is out of line.

 

anyone can file an infriction, without any proof of anything just by flagging a video, or a video gets automatically flagged by an algorithm who knows how it works, and the so called "offender" needs to defend himself and proof his innocense

 

thats a reversal of our common law principle of the "not guilty until proofed otherwise" and it makes it very hard for anyone who does not have a big law firm behind his back to secure his rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, if anyone has, as an experiment, tried flagging a friend’s video (with their permission) that contains nothing except material that the friend actually owns the copyright to...it would be interesting to see what happens.

 

It it is sad that it appears there is no recourse or avenue of appeal in cases where YouTube gets it wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It would depend on how much of the lyrics he recites. While there's no set percentage given in the law (so it's up to the courts to decide in each individual case) saying "there's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold" for illustrative purposes in the course of a review, discussion or educational video isn't infringement - it's going to fall under fair use. And while I don't doubt that there's frequent copyright abuse that they have to deal with, that's the aspect of this that is getting totally ignored by the license holders and YouTube.

 

As far as discussions about songs, if none of the lyrics are mentioned, and the music isn't posted, I can't see how a discussion would otherwise run afoul of the copyright laws. :idk:

 

 

 

If the lyrics and music aren't discussed...Whatda hell is the the conversation about? Lol.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Here's the video with Jeff Diamant. It should answer some of your questions.

 

I did a music industry course at the University back in the 1990s and that was up to the standard of one of the guest speakers on Music law. So worth the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...