Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Vimeo and copyright laws - any thoughts?

The Google bots are amazing at discovering the source of the mixed, temporally shifted and intercut music.
The bots reach out to the agents - giving them the opportunity to monnitize content from adverts shown when your video is played (great compromise if you really want the music) - or for agents to disallow the content.

Vimeo puts the onus on you the individual to locate all permissions. You could have your account closed.

AJ
 
Last edited:
I know, I know Justin. I'm just marketing an idea while avoiding the negatives, just play along with me ;) . Yes, desirable music is the only music to use, unless you are doing a very small corporate training video then you might be tempted to use music that us do bad that people can't help but laugh at it,inputting them in a positive mood for training. ;).

In general, you can put some restrictions on a computerised market place mechanism, which leaves recent hits and big hits and classics for negotiation, but once your music hits elevator music status they night as well give up. It is a paradigm shift, and there is nothing to stop a group from starting such a organisation for licensing.
 
Funny that last post didn't go through before.

Antony. sounds great. us there some formal agreement basis with industry bodies that allows people to use music this way on YouTube, or is YouTube just presenting an 'opportunity' not to sue them?
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Funny that last post did nothing t ho through before.

Antony. sounds great. us there some formal agreement basis with industry bodies that allows people to use music this way on YouTube, or is YouTube just presenting an 'opportunity' not to sue them?
Click to expand...

On Youtube if you use Beyonce's song on your video - 'Tube will flag it and give the rights holder (lets just say Beyonce holds all the rights to her music) the option to A) have it removed. B) leave it up and claim all pre-roll ad revenue. C) leave it up and disallow any pre-roll advertising. D) leave up the video, but strip out the audio.

I make at this point 80% of my income from syndication of content I make / own to online media companies. I send out paperwork 2-3 times a week to defend my use of music that I've purchased the rights to. Happens all the time.

To the guys who don't think that they should have to pay for music... what if a :45 second clip that you shot ended up in an ad for BMW, or in a hit TV show, or a blockbuster movie? You'd be pissed, and want to get paid for all your hard work, the equipment that you own, etc, etc. No different for the musician.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I was interested in official deals that paid the artist in this case (we have a one stop industry association shop in this country from memory for licensing rights to much local content. I assumed YouTube would negotiate terms with an American equivalent ). I would like to put up public performances of artists I know, but don't because of copyright issues. I'm getting around to letting them arrange that (covers licensing) even though it is my experimental filming work. I'm busy with other things. Maybe I can catch one tomorrow to see how the early footage came out that I did on his camera.
 
Don't delay on watching this video - Taylor Swifts people will have this pulled down in minutes...


Maybe?
 
Well, I just read it and they had it down seconds latter when I looked at it ;) .
 
Glen Powell said:
To the guys who don't think that they should have to pay for music... what if a :45 second clip that you shot ended up in an ad for BMW, or in a hit TV show, or a blockbuster movie? You'd be pissed, and want to get paid for all your hard work, the equipment that you own, etc, etc. No different for the musician.
Click to expand...

In the commercial world this Is absolute. People ought to get paid for their work if you use it. Doing that is complicated, time consuming and usually expensive, but it should be done.

But there's an area of usage I've been thinking more about lately that is truly personal use, or family use. I'm not talking about a "personal piece" that you produce and put up on the web as "artistic expression." At some level, if you're hoping for an audience at all, that really is a commercial act. But the Internet has taken on such a big part of our personal lives, that truly personal stuff ends up on YouTube.

When my granddaughters were younger, they made up dance routines to songs they knew. The songs ranged from Molly Cyrus to Ella Fitzferald -- whatever they were listening to. Sometimes I'd film them and cut a video with them to show the family. If you did that on a DVD, it was no problem, but we don't do that any more. The Web as killed the DVD, so you go to YouTube to share thiese personal/family creations with your brother's family two states away. But after a while these started getting flagged for copyright violations, so we stopped doing it.

Is there a point at which the work is personal enough that it should be OK to use the elements of popular culture, or should this kind of use be prohibited on the web?
 
With the copyright thing the don't sue you, they go after Vimeo which would be a risk to their company for posting it.
 
I agree David. It is not too much like when I am allowed to do some personal footage of local bands, and would like to put in t up, saying great band/performance which is promotional for them, but they might be doing somebody else's song. I am totally against having copyright come into it if you are doing a documentary and it just happens that something is on a TV screen or playing in the back ground that does not feature (even if it does feature, where do you stop? You could be interviewing somebody and they start bopping to the music and comment how great it is, or point to the TV set within shot and start talking to you about it). We have gone all whacko on copyright these days, with any fair use being gradually eliminated.

Do we say that past x percentage of a song played while your daughters dance to it and you have to pay copyright or cut audio, or x percentage of a scene. In the old days it was said playing your song on radio was a free promotion to the benefit of the right holder, but since then the before mentioned trade association over here managed to get fees from the radio station and from clothing stores and the like that had the radio on in the background. I think we need to go back to the free promotion and fair use principle ideas. If it is not a feature we should not have to worry about copyright, and if we are doing a documentary (educational) music, the band, the song, then it should be more lenient again, even if we have to auto pay fees based on proportion of time of the whole production (our work and their work). Given a few constrictions so it doesn't firm a defacto unofficial album (like not too much of one artists work, swell as a limit of 10% music based on pristine bit rate exponentially reduced based on the quality (every time you double the time past 10% you have to reduce quality 4 times on average). But we don't have simple laws like this. We could do similar things with video. Though with your daughters dancing I imagine the audio quality is already low. But when you look at those one off personal productions without pro audio overlays, then it is obvious that it should be fair use. There are some fundamental principles there, if only the legislator and industry, or Michael Moore would listen ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top