Disabled YouTube Video

[from_the_NEK]

Just received this from YouTube:

Dear FromTheNEK,

Video Disabled

A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video Jay Peak 2006-2007 Season. The audio content identified in your video is Keep Hope Alive by The Crystal Method. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue.

Replace Your Audio with AudioSwap

Don't worry, we have plenty of music available for your use. Please visit our AudioSwap library to learn how you can easily replace the audio in your video with any track from our growing library of fully licensed songs.

Other Options

If you think there's been a mistake, or you have other questions, please visit the Copyright Notice page in your account.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

That is the first time that has happened. They might as well disable all of my ski movies if they are patrolling for violation of "music rights" issues. It's not like I was using the video to make money.
Are there certain artists who don't allow their music to be used this way and others don't care? Seems like if I was the Crystal Method guys, I would dig having my music used in someones homemade ski video.
Anyone else have one of their ski videos banned?

 

[dmc]

It's happened to me as well...

 

[gmcunni]

I've had several YouTube videos blocked for content + a few had advertising added. We were talkign about it in the Vimeo thread a little bit. http://forums.alpinezone.com/40868-embedding-vimeo-videos.html

 

[bvibert]

Seems to be a crack down going on right now. I haven't been hit, yet...

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Well you guys can PM me and I'll be glad to provide my Mad Steezy raps free of charge for all your videos..

 

[Greg]

Yep. I'm done uploading to YouTube. I've had probably close to 10 videos blocked. [thread="40868"]Vimeo[/thread] is a million times better anyway. I'm going to start trying to use free music for soundtracks too.

 

[JasonE]

Yep. I'm done uploading to YouTube. I've had probably close to 10 videos blocked. [thread="40868"]Vimeo[/thread] is a million times better anyway. I'm going to start trying to use free music for soundtracks too.

I just love this kind of attitude! Sheesh!

You violate federal copyright law by including music in a video that you neither own nor have licensed. You post the video on the internet where anyone can see it. The copyright holder of the music finds your video, complains to YouTube that you are using their music illegally (which you are!), YouTube takes the video down (which they are required to do under federal law) and e-mails you to give you options you can take to change the video to remove the music that never should have been put on it in the first place.

Then you get pissed off at YouTube and storm out the door. Get over it. You violated copyright law and got caught. You're damned lucky that getting your videos blocked on YouTube was the worst thing that happened - if the owners of that music decided to come after you directly instead of notifying YouTube, you'd end up having to pay damages and a pretty hefty fine.

Legitimate television and movie producers pay tens of thousands of dollars for the rights to use songs in their broadcasts -why should the publishers and artists of those songs let you do it for free?



However ... I will say this... the quality of the Vimeo videos is astounding - so leaving Youtube isn't a bad thing. Just don't be surprised when Vimeo also blocks videos for copyright infringement, since I am sure they get complaints, too.

 

[bvibert]

Legitimate television and movie producers pay tens of thousands of dollars for the rights to use songs in their broadcasts -why should the publishers and artists of those songs let you do it for free?

The BIG difference is that the 'legitimate' TV and movie producers are using the songs to make money. Someone who makes a home movie for the soul purpose of sharing it with their friends is not making ANY money from it..

If I was a music artist or producer I'd love it if people were using my work in non-commercial videos. Talk about free advertising...

 

[o3jeff]

Why doesn't youtube just mute the video instead of deleting it?

 

[Greg]

I just love this kind of attitude! Sheesh!

You violate federal copyright law by including music in a video that you neither own nor have licensed. You post the video on the internet where anyone can see it. The copyright holder of the music finds your video, complains to YouTube that you are using their music illegally (which you are!), YouTube takes the video down (which they are required to do under federal law) and e-mails you to give you options you can take to change the video to remove the music that never should have been put on it in the first place.

Then you get pissed off at YouTube and storm out the door.

Come on. Get over it. You violated copyright law and got caught. You're damned lucky that getting your videos blocked on YouTube was the worst thing that happened - if the owners of that music decided to come after you directly instead of notifying YouTube, you'd end up having to pay damages and a pretty hefty fine.

I used to have to deal with this crap for a living, and I gotta tell you it's amazing the sheer volume of people who feel absolutely entitled to do anything they want with a song they bought on CD for $15 at WalMart. Legitimate television and movie producers pay tens of thousands of dollars for the rights to use songs in their broadcasts -why should the publishers and artists of those songs let you do it for free?

The morality police are here... :roll:

If you took the time to read what I posted in the above linked thread, I said that YouTube and the music publishers are totally within their right to do this. You would also notice that I'm going with Vimeo for a number of more important reasons for future videos, including significantly better video quality and much faster processing. I'm not "storming out the door."

The interesting thing is that some publishers like UMG allow copyrighted songs to be used in YouTube videos so it's not a blanket music industry issue. UMG probably sees the value of having their artist's music used in this way. I've gotten a lot of "cool song" comments on the videos I've done and always include an artist/title credit. That's great exposure IMO. And you comparing using a soundtrack in a YouTube video to pirating or sharing MP3s is a stretch. Sure there is a capability to extract audio from YouTube videos, but I struggle to believe a lot of people bother to do that.

But you're welcome for the opportunity to climb up on your soap box. :-?

 

[JasonE]

The morality police are here... :roll:

Uhm... no morality police here. I actually have no problem at all with people using songs in youtube videos. I don't have an issue with people downloading songs off limewire or bearshare or whatever. I don't even have a problem with people using bit-torrent to download movies or tv episodes. At one time, napster was a staple on my computer desktop (until RIAA started suing people - then I removed it as it wasn't worth the hassle if I got caught). So, no, I don't have a problem at all with what people are doing.

What I have a problem with is people whining and complaining when they get caught doing it. That's all. If you're going to drive down the highway at 90 miles per hour, don't bitch when you get pulled over and ticketed. That's all I'm saying.

If you took the time to read what I posted in the above linked thread, I said that YouTube and the music publishers are totally within their right to do this. You would also notice that I'm going with Vimeo for a number of more important reasons for future videos, including significantly better video quality and much faster processing. I'm not "storming out the door."

You're right - and actually, you responded to my post much faster than I expected - if you notice, I did edit the post a few seconds after I posted it to change a few things because I in fact clicked through to your post about vimeo and saw some of what you point out, so I did edit my post a little in retrospect to that - you just read the post much faster than I thought anyone would and thus you got a little more "brunt of it" than the final post turned out to be.

The interesting thing is that some publishers like UMG allow copyrighted songs to be used in YouTube videos so it's not a blanket music industry issue. UMG probably sees the value of having their artist's music used in this way.

The difference is that UMG expressly permits this for their songs, whereas other music publishers do not permit it. The reality of the way the law works is that copyright holders have three choices:

1) They can totally ignore all illegal uses of their songs and just let everything go.
2) They can pick-and-choose situations in which they specifically endorse usage of their songs without a licensing fee.
3) They can require a licensing fee from everyone who uses their songs.

UMB is obviously taking tactic number 2. Other publishers are taking tactic number 3. NO ONE takes tactic #1, and the reason is that under copyright law, ignoring copyright violations can cause you to lose the right to enforce those copyrights in the future.

Let's put it this way. Let's say Ford Motor Company decides to do a commercial. They use a song in the commercial without licensing the rights to it. The music publisher sues Ford for copyright violation. When they get to court, the music publisher says "they didn't pay us for the song. We owe the song, they have to pay it." But Ford has an ace up their sleeve. They pull up, say, 50 YouTube videos that each one contains that song. They say to the judge, "Judge, there are 50 videos on YouTube all using that song. The music publisher never granted permission for those videos to use the song, but they also never went after them for using it without permission. Therefore, it is our opinion that this music publisher chose not to enforce their copyright and should not be allowed to enforce it now." The judge would be every bit within his power to agree with Ford and dismiss the lawsuit.

That is why music publishers crack down on illegal usage. Even when that usage doesn't make money or isn't for financial gain, it opens the door for other people (who may themselves be using it for financial gain) to get away with using it without a license.

Now, if the music publisher went to YouTube (in advance) and said "we want to license YouTube the rights to use our entire music library, therefore allowing your users to use our music in their home-made videos", that would be an awesome thing and more music publishers should do it. But unfortunately, that type of thing is the purview of the lawyers, and lawyers don't usually thing things through as "right or wrong", they only think things through as "legal or illegal". Plus, music publishers in general are much too greedy to think of things like that.

 

[Greg]

What I have a problem with is people whining and complaining when they get caught doing it. That's all. If you're going to drive down the highway at 90 miles per hour, don't bitch when you get pulled over and ticketed. That's all I'm saying.

You but I don't see where I was "whining and complaining"...

As far as the rest of your post, I totally agree and again, I don't have any problem with the publishers cracking down. In fact, when I first started making vids, violating copyrights was a concern, but after doing a few and never having a problem I didn't worry about it anymore. I was also getting messages from YouTube many months ago that UMG was cool with it so I assumed other publishers were okay too. They are apparently not so it is what it is. Like I said, for future videos I'll try to find good soundtracks from places like this:

http://www.freeplaymusic.com/

It would be cool to use some obscure music anyway.

 

[JasonE]

You but I don't see where I was "whining and complaining"...

Ok... point well taken. I apologize for accusing you of whining and complaining. The first time I read your post, I mis-interpreted your statement of "I'm done with youtube" - it sounded at first read like you were, like I said before, storming out the door in a huff, which I would classify as the same thing as whining and complaining. And, unfortunately, even after re-reading your post and the linked thread (which made it clear that in fact you weren't storming out the door, but rather making a move for very logical and obvious reasons), the initial impression was still stuck in my brain.

So, yes, I do apologize. In hindsight, my reaction was inappropriate. You weren't whining and complaining (and, in fact, none of the other posters in this thread were, either). I should have re-phrased my post to be a bit more educational (i.e. - this is why they are doing it) and less confrontational. I'm sorry.

Oh - and for the poster (I can't remember who it was) who suggested the youtube just mute the videos instead of pulling them down... at first glance it makes sense, but the problem with that is that if youtube were to do that, then *they* would be violating *your* copyright. Because even though you didn't have the licensed rights to use the music you've used, their may be other sound elements (people talking, for example) that are not part of the copyright music but rather are part of the video itself. If they were to edit a video to remove copyrighted music and they also removed other aspects of the video unrelated to the music at issue, then they would be violating the original copyright of the person owning those elements of the published video.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Let's put it this way. Let's say Ford Motor Company decides to do a commercial. They use a song in the commercial without licensing the rights to it. The music publisher sues Ford for copyright violation. When they get to court, the music publisher says "they didn't pay us for the song. We owe the song, they have to pay it." But Ford has an ace up their sleeve. They pull up, say, 50 YouTube videos that each one contains that song. They say to the judge, "Judge, there are 50 videos on YouTube all using that song. The music publisher never granted permission for those videos to use the song, but they also never went after them for using it without permission. Therefore, it is our opinion that this music publisher chose not to enforce their copyright and should not be allowed to enforce it now." The judge would be every bit within his power to agree with Ford and dismiss the lawsuit.

That is why music publishers crack down on illegal usage. Even when that usage doesn't make money or isn't for financial gain, it opens the door for other people (who may themselves be using it for financial gain) to get away with using it without a license.

Your analogy = Crap

Ford = Selling multi-thousand dollar vehicles and using the song to sell them.

Me = Not selling anything.

Any lawyer could make it plainly obvious that there is a big difference in intent of use here.

And I did buy the CDs that contain all of the songs that I use.

How the hell am I supposed to finance both buying the CD and then licensing the song that I would probably get charged for everytime someone views the video. I'm not attempting or planning to make any revenue off of the video and I fully credit the artists.
As others have pointed out, this is more like free advertising for the artist.

I suppose there are a lot of youtube videos out there that do not credit the artist. The robo video deleter that they are apparently using, likely does not take credits into account.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Your analogy = Crap

Ford = Selling multi-thousand dollar vehicles and using the song to sell them.

Me = Not selling anything.

Any lawyer could make it plainly obvious that there is a big difference in intent of use here.

...

I suppose there are a lot of youtube videos out there that do not credit the artist. The robo video deleter that they are apparently using, likely does not take credits into account.

Or course we are being a little narrow minded here in that by no means are all videos that have "stolen" music in them created by skiers to share their fun (i.e. no intent to sell anything). The are MANY video out there that do have questionable intent.
To be fair to YouTube, are it would be really hard to evaluate each video by "intent of contents". They have chosen to go the route of complete shutdown of all videos with "stolen" music rather than try undertake the task to evaluate each one individually.

 

[JasonE]

Your analogy = Crap

It may not make any sense to you, but that's actually the way the law works.

Any lawyer could make it plainly obvious that there is a big difference in intent of use here.

When it comes to copyright law, intent of use is totally irrelevant. Copyright law is very very black and white.

And I did buy the CDs that contain all of the songs that I use.

Owning a CD gives you the right to utilize those songs for your own personal, private listening pleasure. Owning a CD does not give you the right to use the songs for public consumption. For example, if you own a store, and you want to have music playing in your store, you cannot legally bring a CD in from home, put it on the store's CD player, and play it. In that situation, you must actual buy a license for public performance - the license costs about $200 a year and covers you for everything you play in your store (you don't have to license specific songs).

Owning a CD does not equate to owning the song or the rights to that song. Just like if you buy a movie on DVD, you can watch it at home all you want, and if you want to invite a couple of friends over to watch it no one cares, but you cannot rent out the local VFW hall and invite (even for free) the public to come watch the DVD - that is a violation of the limited-use license that you receive when you buy a DVD.

In other words, CDs or DVDs come with a personal use license. Creating a video which you upload to youtube requires a public use license, which costs a hell of a lot more.

How the hell am I supposed to finance both buying the CD and then licensing the song that I would probably get charged for everytime someone views the video.

You're not. Either find songs that the publishers have specifically granted rights to use on youtube or find songs that the publishers have specifically put forth unlimited use licenses for. Greg posted a link to a web site that provides such songs.

The reality is - you do not own the songs you are using. And the people who do own those songs have every right to dictate how they are used.

Here's a link to an article on HowStuffWorks.com about how music licensing works. I think you will find it interesting: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing2.htm

 

[from_the_NEK]

You're not. Either find songs that the publishers have specifically granted rights to use on youtube or find songs that the publishers have specifically put forth unlimited use licenses for. Greg posted a link to a web site that provides such songs.

The reality is - you do not own the songs you are using. And the people who do own those songs have every right to dictate how they are used.

Here's a link to an article on HowStuffWorks.com about how music licensing works. I think you will find it interesting: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing2.htm

I realize intent has nothing to do with copyright laws. :smash:

I think as we are finding out, with the evolution of technology, the black and white copyright law is being challenged more and more. Some record companies have decided to roll with it. And as you pointed out have chosen path #2.
And as I pointed out, using copyrighted music in personal ski videos to share good times with friends is a very small part of overall online video content (additionally, how do you stop the marketing dept of a resort from creating "home" movies and posting them online as a way of free advertising). Changing copyright law to take intent into consideration would be impossible to enforce. IMO more publishers should follow UMG's approach and stop being greedy.

1) They can totally ignore all illegal uses of their songs and just let everything go.
2) They can pick-and-choose situations in which they specifically endorse usage of their songs without a licensing fee.
3) They can require a licensing fee from everyone who uses their songs.

 

[Clarkl23]

Fair Use on YouTube

As a commercial photographer I obviously have more than a passing interest in copyright protection. That said, I'd think that a personal video, that wasn't somehow work related, on YouTube would fall under "fair use". I found a good article on fair use in Wickipedia which involved YouTube. The whole article is at http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use with an excerpt below.

In August of 2008 U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the 29-second video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube several weeks later that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song.[23]

I regularly check my web site stats to see who might be hotlinking to my images and is one of the reasons I changed most of my online web portfolio images into Flash slide shows. In some cases, depending on the nature of the use, I've left them in other cases I swapped the image to something that that hotlinker probably wasn't very pleased about ;-)


Clark

 

[evil]

Ahh, allow another professional photographer sound off on a personal level since the legal point was so well described.
if i take a picture, i own it, much like if i were to make a song, it is mine.
now, if i see that someone has published an image of mine without my permission, there are MANY different things to consider.
for me (and every single photog i know) it is not a problem if it is your work that is being showcased in a non profit manner.
for example, i shoot a lot of musicians, they are the topic of various blogs, my mag covers and screenshots of my website, are frequently used for this. my thought is, how can free publicity be bad? in fact, i have gotten work as a result of this exposure.
now if someone were to use it in advertising or any profit generating way, even better! i will get much more money in court from them then if they had they come to me to legally purchase usage.
there is whining and complaining going on, but it is not here, it is from the music industry.
the big labels have no one to blame but themselves, they are freaking out about current trends in music listening (rather then utilizing it, they should have had a system for paid legal downloads years ago) and lashing out like a spoiled little child. Suing 13 year olds for downloading the boy band du jour is just one example of this.
I would bet that crystal method has no idea about what is going on with your your tube silliness.
Also, I heartily disagree that copyright laws are "black and white".
For example, there is currently a lawsuit a friend is engaged in where he sent his portfolio to a company.
He didn't get the job but, 3 months later this certain companies entire campaign bears a striking resemblance to his work. If copyright laws were so definite, this situation would not be in its 2nd year of legal conflict. Don't forget, our media intake (movies, music, photographs, everything) has so radically changed in the past decade and continues to do so, that there is no "one size fits all" approach to copyright law.

 

[Clarkl23]

Stock photo agencies use to make it known to assistants that there was a $1000 reward if they knew they were working to a layout that was similar to a stock photo image that the client didn't want to pay for.

Absolutely agree, copyright law is the murkiest of gray. The rule on copied photographs is "significantly similar", so who gets to decide how similar is significantly?

If you've been in the business long enough you've got your own ripoff/horror story.

Clark