Halloween Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wow!

I just received an email from YouTube that my 2007 Halloween video has been blocked due to copyright infringment:

"A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video Pirates of Hollin Hall - Halloween 2007. The audio content identified in your video is Wheel of Fortune by Hans Zimmer. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue."​

Yes, I did use Hans Zimmer's "Wheel of Fortune" in my 2007 video, but seriously?? They felt the need to have YouTube block my video?

My display is essentially an homage to the Pirates of Caribbean movies and ride. I dunno, I'm just having a hard time believing this....it's not like I'm making any money from it or am pirating (pun not intended) the music out to others...

Anyways, beware of using copyrighted material in your videos!!!

-dgm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
Other users are having problems with similar issues on the LOR forums... This was posted over there...

Mom fights music giant over DMCA takedown notice

This is why I use Viemo, way better then youtube any day....

It is going to get to the point where you can't even play music at all because record companies are afraid they are going to get recorded and redistributed.

I don't see how having music playing in the background of video could be considered copyright infringement. If they really wanna get technical they could slap everyone who does computer controlled displays or displays in general with a law suit or make them pay royalties for every time you play a song over a transmitter or speakers in your yard. I am surprised ASCAP and BMI have not gone as far as enforcing that. It is pretty much the same situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
A quick check on YouTube, and there are tons of videos that use the POTC soundtrack. It begs the question, "Why me?"

Texan78, I totally agree. How can they see background music in a web video as a threat?

Guess I need to look for a new video host. Now I'm debating whether to put a soundtrack to my 2008 video at all.

Total buzz kill.

-dgm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,632 Posts
If you use original music that you create, music in the public domain or pay for licensing then you don't have a problem. Otherwise you are enhancing your video with someone else's talent and ripping them off. Posting things on YouTube or like public services is a public broadcast and I would say legally is always prohibited without the authorization (ie letter to use or royalty fees) from the owner of the copyrighted material. I suppose that if they are cracking down on copyright issues on YouTube they will be getting around to the other services too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
If you use original music that you create, music in the public domain or pay for licensing then you don't have a problem. Otherwise you are enhancing your video with someone else's talent and ripping them off. Posting things on YouTube or like public services is a public broadcast and I would say legally is always prohibited without the authorization (ie letter to use or royalty fees) from the owner of the copyrighted material. I suppose that if they are cracking down on copyright issues on YouTube they will be getting around to the other services too.
That only applies when you are distributing for profit, I.E. a commercial for a product, etc.. Otherwise you are just advertising for free for that artist or label and that counts as your royalty. So I don't know what artist would have a problem with free advertisement.

Also in the case of the lady above from the link I posted. The music was coming off the TV and was just background noise on the video and they had a problem with that. That is a little ridiculous if you ask me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
So I disputed the claim by stating I consider it fair usage since I own the soundtrack, and that I made no representation that the music was my own. They put my video back up, but we'll see for how long.

I'm not sure how the artist is being "ripped off" by someone using it as music for a web video that does not generate profit. If anything, it gives the music greater exposure and increases the likelyhood that someone will actually want to buy it.

-dgm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Most bodys will grant you the rights as well . Ie my videos this year for my home haunt are using Midnight Syndicate music as the background.> I simply emailed and they got back to me and said no problem.. Just include this copyright info in the video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Yeah, Midnight Syndicate is great about that. I remember reading on their website that they encourage folks to use it as long as they're given credit.

FWIW, I did edit my videos' descriptions to include "Music by Hans Zimmer." I have no problem giving credit where credit is due.

-dgm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Copyright is a constitutional protection. When you purchase a track, on a cd or download, you do not own it. You are actually purchasing a license to use the track for a private performance, only. Using it for non-profit purposes might be free exposure but the "owner" might not agree that it is exposure they want. I say "owner" because you also have to account for the "performers" and their rights. For example, a classical piece might be so old that it is considered "public domain" but if you are playing a version performed last year by the London Philharmonic, then they own that particular performance. They have rights that they may or may not choose to exercise. It's nothing personal when someone stumbles upon a track being used in a video. ASCAP and BMI are two organizations who artists pay to find unlicensed uses, and try to get paid for them. You really cannot argue that it's unfair when you consider all of the writers, composers, lyricists, performers, producers, mixers, distributors, etc. that should get paid for the work they do. If we enjoy a piece of art that someone created then we really should support them and pay for their work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
That only applies when you are distributing for profit, I.E. a commercial for a product, etc.. Otherwise you are just advertising for free for that artist or label and that counts as your royalty. So I don't know what artist would have a problem with free advertisement.
Wrong. If you make copies of copyrighted material and pass them out to anyone that comes along, except in several narrowly defined ways, you're violating their copyright. It doesn't matter if you receive any compensation for it to be a copyright violation. See U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use for a description of "fair use".

The "advertisement" argument has been struck down by every court where it's been heard. Basically, you had no agreement with the artist to use the work, and your claim of a "passive royalty" by advertising his work to a larger audience is also bogus, because you didn't have the underlying right to distribute the work in the first place.

If you are coreographing lights to music, you need a "sync" license from the copyright holder. Typically, copyright holders are not concerned with small infringers. It's just not worth their time to persue them. They want to stop people from using them for commercials, advertising, etc...

Hans Zimmer probably had one video on youtube which was "an issue" and decided to preclude a "selective enforcement defense" by the one that was the problem by blanket issuing a take down request to youtube for everything that had his music. Youtube complied and that was that.

Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Sounds like the record companies are getting out of control. First off what kind of quality music are you going to get out of a video playing on youtube? Especially, if it is just background music.

..and what about all the cover bands out there? So, I guess they all should go to jail too?

The RIAA is a joke. People are going to get the music if they really want it. There's a certain point that this stuff gets ridiculous and a waste of money/time. They have already past that point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
Copyright is a constitutional protection. When you purchase a track, on a cd or download, you do not own it. You are actually purchasing a license to use the track for a private performance, only.
This is absolutely true and correct.....

Using it for non-profit purposes might be free exposure but the "owner" might not agree that it is exposure they want. I say "owner" because you also have to account for the "performers" and their rights. For example, a classical piece might be so old that it is considered "public domain" but if you are playing a version performed last year by the London Philharmonic, then they own that particular performance. They have rights that they may or may not choose to exercise. It's nothing personal when someone stumbles upon a track being used in a video. ASCAP and BMI are two organizations who artists pay to find unlicensed uses, and try to get paid for them. You really cannot argue that it's unfair when you consider all of the writers, composers, lyricists, performers, producers, mixers, distributors, etc. that should get paid for the work they do. If we enjoy a piece of art that someone created then we really should support them and pay for their work.
This does not apply to personal non-profit use. It only applies if the end user is using it in a manner that is generating profit from there work. I.E. Restaurants, shopping malls, night clubs and bars, movies, commercials etc. In which case then you will have to purchase a license.

ASCAP and BMI really only protects the writers, composers, etc. Reason being is this is the only protection they have from there label as well as the public. When a new artist is signed the label gives them X amount of dollars for studio time, mastering, cutting the album, artwork, advertising and marketing the album, etc. The artist never makes a dime really except like 10% until all those funds are recouped by the label for what was loaned to that artist. So all the record sells go to pay this debt, as well as live performances. It is then the job of the artists agent to promote and get this act out there. For example we will use one of the largest agents out there, William Morris. They represent pretty much a large amount of artist from ever genre. It is up to this agent to book there concerts, appearances, etc. This is the only money the artist really makes until that album recoups it's costs. That is why you see new artist everywhere and being pushed and playing as many shows as they can. Also your local radio station isn't just playing there song because they like it. The label actually has to pay for each spin in to have it in rotation. The more money they pay, the more in rotation it will be, but that cost also is deducted from the artist and they have to pay it as well from album sales. This is where ASCAP and BMI comes into play because they protect the artists work, the label could careless less really as long as the music is not being pirated and they don't lose money on the album sales. So trust me, these artist could careless where there work ends up as long as it is being played and it creates the opportunity for someone to buy there album. If it isn't being pirated the free advertisement is all good for these cats.

So when you buy an album you are paying for there work and you have the right to "play" it freely as you wish as long as you are within the DMCA and not making profit from there work to benefit yourself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
Wrong. If you make copies of copyrighted material and pass them out to anyone that comes along, except in several narrowly defined ways, you're violating their copyright. It doesn't matter if you receive any compensation for it to be a copyright violation. See U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use for a description of "fair use".
Who said anything about making copies and distributing them? I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote. Also music does not fall under the Fair Use act. Music falls under the DMCA.

The "advertisement" argument has been struck down by every court where it's been heard. Basically, you had no agreement with the artist to use the work, and your claim of a "passive royalty" by advertising his work to a larger audience is also bogus, because you didn't have the underlying right to distribute the work in the first place.
Yes in cases where the end user was using the work to make a profit. The accused then stated it was free advertisement. It was then struck down because the labels had a problem with using this material without consent to make profit. For example, Nike uses a song by Donna Fargo in one of there ads. Nike could claim hey this is free advertisement on behalf Donna Fargo and it could make people go out and buy it. But what if they don't? Nike is still making money regardless because of there advertisement and that is where Labels have problems because they feel they should be getting a piece of that pie and why royalties where created. So this only applies in cases where the music is being used to make a profit.

If you are coreographing lights to music, you need a "sync" license from the copyright holder. Typically, copyright holders are not concerned with small infringers. It's just not worth their time to persue them. They want to stop people from using them for commercials, advertising, etc...
Sync lic has nothing to do with "choreographing lights to music". It refers to when music is “attached to” or becomes a part of any production, ie; film, video, DVD, television program, commercial, multimedia CD-Rom, web site or audio CD, it requires a license when a profit is going to be made from using the material. It also may not be broadcast or distributed in film on any network not affiliated with ASCAP or BMI without expressed permission or obtaining a “DIRECT PERFORMANCE LICENSE”.


Hans Zimmer probably had one video on youtube which was "an issue" and decided to preclude a "selective enforcement defense" by the one that was the problem by blanket issuing a take down request to youtube for everything that had his music. Youtube complied and that was that.
The sad thing in all this which I refer back to the case I posted in my first post of this thread where the party is suing the label because they removed there video from Youtube simply from the fact the TV in the background of the video was playing something they did not what to be associated with. That seems to be a little extreme don't you think? There is also nothing illegal about it. I know Mark has used Linkin Park in some of is YouTube videos. He isn't making profit so it is legal and all he is doing is sparking interest to that artist and that label which might lead to someone purchasing the album or song.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
To add what I was saying about Artist really don't give a damn as long as it is giving them publicity and they are not making money off it. Here is a post over at the Christmas forum I was tell you about where a artist is thrilled to have so many people using her music and says play away as long as you don't use it for profit and she states that. So it is not just here, it is other videos too.

Forums of PlanetChristmas - View Single Post - Copyright violation notice

I say ditch BoobTube and use Viemo, it is so much better in quality.
 

·
Queen of the Night
Joined
·
1,801 Posts
YouTube was slapped with class action suits for copyright violations and as a result, I'm sure they have clamped down. An argument on behalf of the musicians, which I can support, is that if everyone uses their product without purchasing how will the music writer's and musician's make a living. Their music is their product. How many other products to you get to use for free?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
Who said anything about making copies and distributing them? I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote. Also music does not fall under the Fair Use act. Music falls under the DMCA.



Yes in cases where the end user was using the work to make a profit. The accused then stated it was free advertisement. It was then struck down because the labels had a problem with using this material without consent to make profit. For example, Nike uses a song by Donna Fargo in one of there ads. Nike could claim hey this is free advertisement on behalf Donna Fargo and it could make people go out and buy it. But what if they don't? Nike is still making money regardless because of there advertisement and that is where Labels have problems because they feel they should be getting a piece of that pie and why royalties where created. So this only applies in cases where the music is being used to make a profit.



Sync lic has nothing to do with "choreographing lights to music". It refers to when music is “attached to” or becomes a part of any production, ie; film, video, DVD, television program, commercial, multimedia CD-Rom, web site or audio CD, it requires a license when a profit is going to be made from using the material. It also may not be broadcast or distributed in film on any network not affiliated with ASCAP or BMI without expressed permission or obtaining a “DIRECT PERFORMANCE LICENSE”.




The sad thing in all this which I refer back to the case I posted in my first post of this thread where the party is suing the label because they removed there video from Youtube simply from the fact the TV in the background of the video was playing something they did not what to be associated with. That seems to be a little extreme don't you think? There is also nothing illegal about it. I know Mark has used Linkin Park in some of is YouTube videos. He isn't making profit so it is legal and all he is doing is sparking interest to that artist and that label which might lead to someone purchasing the album or song.
I think where the artist has the issue is that youtube IS making money using copyrighted material to make a profit by posting your or others videos.I.E YouTube has ads they get paid for.people come to the site to see yours and others videos,yours and others have copyrighted material in it so in lawyer terms YouTube in disturbing copyright material for profit.so there asked to take it down.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
YouTube was slapped with class action suits for copyright violations and as a result, I'm sure they have clamped down. An argument on behalf of the musicians, which I can support, is that if everyone uses their product without purchasing how will the music writer's and musician's make a living. Their music is their product. How many other products to you get to use for free?
The way it is being used on YouTube can not harm record sales. If you believe this you might has well quit playing songs on the radio too because it can be recorded just as easily.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
524 Posts
I think where the artist has the issue is that youtube IS making money using copyrighted material to make a profit by posting your or others videos.I.E YouTube has ads they get paid for.people come to the site to see yours and others videos,yours and others have copyrighted material in it so in lawyer terms YouTube in disturbing copyright material for profit.so there asked to take it down.
The ads on YouTube are click through ads. Those ads help support the site to keep it free. Yes some profit may be made but it is not directly related to the videos posted on the site.

MySpace is one of the largest music networking sites that allow uses to post and display there music for FREE, the same as YouTube. With the exception, the ads on MySpace are pre paid advertisement. The Ones on YouTube has to be clicked before any money is made and depending on the ad it is on mere cents.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top