I was recently made a YouTube "partner" and submitted around 40 videos for revenue sharing. I followed the rules including telling YouTube where the music came from (it's all royalty-free or written by friends with permission given). YouTube then deleted two-thirds of my videos, saying they were not suitable for revenue sharing. About a week ago I emailed to ask why but haven't had any reply yet. It's really quite annoying as I spent a lot of time uploading, tagging and linking to those videos and there were lots of comments and discussion on some of them. Not impressed!

don't you LOVE companies who have a "deny w/o explanation" clause? :/

I for one think the whole cracking down thing is a joke. (please save the ethics lesson) It's one thing for people....millions of people....sharing illegally downloaded music. I was one of them and I admitted it was wrong, and stopped. Threw all of my "burned" CD's away. I pay for everything now. Mostly through Amazon as they too offer single mp3's and full albums.

To start cracking down on people who are using someone's music as background music is dumb. It's not like people ripping video from youtube just to get the music from it. If they are, they are desperate. More times than not, people who watch videos on youtube, vimeo, etc. are seeing the videos posted......hearing the music added......and asking "who's music is that"? And then they (hopefully) go buy it. I know I've done it. If anything, the videos are promoting the music!

I for one just think this is a power play from YouTube to force people to use certain music for either their own promotional reasons, or YouTube is requiring record labels to pay them to be able to have their music played. At any rate, I had one wedding clip that had a Jack Johnson song in it and while JJ has a huge following, it really isn't anything compared to hundreds of other artists. That song got ripped from my video without warning or notice. Just gone. Then, on a product review video that I had posted, I had that old song from Dee-Lite "Groove is in the Heart" (if any of you know what that was). Just a fun goofy song and OLD. My whole video got removed for that one and it was on a separate account. No questions asked, just gone.

Vimeo > YouTube (at the time being until Vimeo gives in) which stinks because YouTubes player is better IMO, but then again Vimeo is more artsy and gets more respect from the serious crowd. I only continue to use YouTube because of the traffic for certain things, but if I want my work to be seen, I go Vimeo.

Warner is the absolute worst, and completely draconian, when it comes to copyright claims and fair use issues.

A few weeks ago I uploaded a fanvideo (a Watchmen/WALL-E trailer mashup, linked below), and YouTube's automatic system identified the background music as a Warner-owned track and preemptively disabled the audio. I used the protest system to dispute the preemptive claim, based on fair use, and the audio was reactivated a few hours later... fortunately, as the video has since become rather popular. The only problem with YouTube's dispute process is that the blurbs preceeding it seemed to be designed to intimidate most people who might want to use them into not doing going through with it.... stuff about how fair use is so subjective, and maybe you should consult an attorney before proceeding, etc.

@Atomic- Are you talking about how they try to scare you away from disputing anything and how it will result in account deletion if you falsely dispute something? I thought about disputing against my clips, but I guess I was one of the intimidated ones because I didn't go through with it. It's ridiculous how they're drawing the line. I PAID for all the music I'm using for the videos, but since I'm basically making another duplicate of that song into the video, then I'm breaking the copyright laws.

I'm tellin you, I'll bet you anything....the artists themselves probably don't have a problem with it at all. It's the suit and ties that have issues. Songs in videos are promotion, plain and simple.

@Atomic- Are you talking about how they try to scare you away from disputing anything and how it will result in account deletion if you falsely dispute something? I thought about disputing against my clips, but I guess I was one of the intimidated ones because I didn't go through with it. It's ridiculous how they're drawing the line. I PAID for all the music I'm using for the videos, but since I'm basically making another duplicate of that song into the video, then I'm breaking the copyright laws.

Yep. Before filing out the dispute form, I read all the pages and blurbs associated with the process. And to me, they read as if they were intended to intimidate most users into not going through with it. I did, though, and my audio was turned back on... so I guess I was lucky. It probably also didn't hurt that the same audio track was already up on YouTube in dozens (or more) of other videos.

In truth, most companies probably don't give it much thought, either... particularly given how many of them have now agreed to let iTunes sell their music free of DRM. Warner, though, is a few decades behind the times... it's almost embarassing how backwards they are.

We need copyright laws and we need respect for the law. However, when laws are obtuse and abusive there comes a time for rebellion.

I for one believe all creations belong not only to their "original creators" but to the culture in which they were created. I believe that lengthy and exclusive restrictive copyright laws are a form of robbery. Unfortunately, my beliefs if acted upon would often break the current laws.

I would really like to be able to legally use popular music in my videos. I believe there are many more like me. It is possible the music industry could turn this into a worthwhile revenue source. Something like this: From an itunes-like service, purchase a fair-use license - say $25 for use in a single video. They would issue you a registration number which you would be required to list in the credits. Make it easy and cheap enough and I think many videographers would use it.

Jerry

I would really like to be able to legally use popular pictures in my music filmclips. I believe there are many more like me. It is possible the picture industry could turn this into a worthwhile revenue source. Something like this: From an iPictures-like service, purchase a fair-use license - say $25 for use in a single filmclip. They would issue you a registration number which you would be required to list in the credits. Make it easy and cheap enough and I think many musicians would use it.

You can't have it both ways!

You can't have it both ways!

Australians seem to come pretty close.
Check out their organizations and see how they do it.
I'll leave it up to Bob, Serena and others from down under to comment on how well it does or doesn't work.
From what I can see, it's a win/win situation.

Mike

there's companies in the USA that offer music on a cheap one-fee per video deal too, but no major artists are part, all the little guys.

Maybe instead of challenging the music companies people should challenge congress to change the US copyright laws to no more then ~30 years from date of registration. As it is right now ALL recorded music in any format is copyrighted for long long long past the artists longest possible life span.

Change is coming, but it's not going to happen all at once or across the board.

-- RIAA has quietly stopped filing new suits against individual file-sharing, instead choosing a softened approach of issuing "warnings." (They are however, still trying suits that were filed before the policy change.)
-- iTunes has stopped DRM restrictions on its downloads.
-- New artists, seeing the 21st century market potential and exposure that was once the domain of FM radio, are openly encouraging people to copy and share their music.
-- Measures intended to impede CD ripping have largely disappeared.

Meanwhile, a few big players are still aggressively pursuing individuals who post their content online. It's their right; however, hoping that setting an example will stop others from doing the same is a historically unproven concept. So, it's not so much a matter of what you post, but whose material you are posting. Yes, the number of takedowns has increased since G took over Youtube, but their motivation is almost certainly about establishing future control for their own purposes.

Yes, the number of takedowns has increased since G took over Youtube, but their motivation is almost certainly about establishing future control for their own purposes.

See, I don't believe that one bit: they didn't go after tube while it was worthless. Once a $$ giant took it over, then they could get something out of it by threatening them. If a company believes they ARE protecting their rights then they treat a single poor person just like a billionaire & go after both.

That's an interesting concept, but not exactly where I was coming from.

I agree with you, when someone establishes a precedent these days, it's usually for a benefit, not a principle.

"What if" G eventually struck a deal to purchase blanket rights from "certain" publishers for posting their material, and then started charging 'tubers for the right to upload that publisher's content in their own videos? Everybody gets rich except the individual, but who really cares if it's a buck or two? This is how the industry thinks -- in terms of millions of dollars, one or two dollars at a time, and not a compelling concern for protecting their rights, unless they are still living in the last century.

Not trying to start rumors here, just posing a hypothetical outcome for what appears to be a growing trend.