|
09 Nov 16 - 10:12 AM (#3819290) Subject: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Will Fly I was checking through my YouTube videos this afternoon as I have been planning to record and upload an alternative version of "The Lakes Of Pontchartrain" - which I recorded some years on tenor guitar. I was annoyed to see that a Copyright Claim for the video had been made by Kobalt Music - whoever they are - and they were getting "monetarisation" for it by the usual YT ad popping up when the video is played. So I checked my facts, clicked on the "Dispute this claim" link in the YouTube video manager page, and lodged my dispute on the grounds that the origin of this tune/song was unknown and that it was a traditional piece, composer unknown. I also quoted the Wikipedia article which supported this. Less than 30 minutes later, I got a message from YouTube saying: "Good news! After reviewing your dispute, Kobalt Music Publishing has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video." It's only a small matter, but it demonstrates (a) that there are probably lots of cheeky buggers out there trying to make money from traditional music and (b) if I can challenge that practice successfully, perhaps others can. |
|
09 Nov 16 - 10:19 AM (#3819292) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Will Fly What I should have said was: "that there are probably lots of cheeky buggers out there trying to make money by claiming copyright on traditional music" |
|
09 Nov 16 - 07:06 PM (#3819397) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Guest Try that one with PRS and wait for the lawyers letter. They are the biggest rogues of all with regard to traditional music. |
|
09 Nov 16 - 08:16 PM (#3819414) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: leeneia Good for you, Will. |
|
09 Nov 16 - 08:44 PM (#3819418) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch All of the major rights management companies use botnets. Orchard Enterprises is BACON; Kobalt is KORE. KORE tracks 600,000+ titles. Odds are pretty good you are the only human in the loop at the beginning. |
|
09 Nov 16 - 10:19 PM (#3819425) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Leadfingers There are countless cases of copyright on traditional or public domain pieces purely on the grounds of an 'arrangement' !!!!!!!! |
|
10 Nov 16 - 03:19 AM (#3819447) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Some bloke Look on the bright side. A song of mine is down as traditional arr the duo from The US who play a very good arrangement of it on their YouTube channel. The only other version on YouTube I know is my own rendition where I introduce it as one I wrote. I'm so chuffed to have a song thought to be traditional I've kept my mouth shut. Well done Will. Both commercially advantageous claims and its counterpart sheer ignorance are buggering up the provenance of songs. I've heard people in pubs reckon so many traditional or U.K. Songwriters to be Dubliners or Christy Moore songs that I've almost given up trying to say anything. |
|
10 Nov 16 - 03:35 AM (#3819452) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Will Fly It'll be interesting to see what happens when I post my next version of "The Lakes Of Pontchartrain" on YouTube. My latest guitar/vocal version (a) doesn't use DADGAD (b) is firmly in Bb and (c) has been changed from 3/4 to 4/4 time with a solid fingerpicked background. Mmm... perhaps I ought to copyright my arrangement... :-) |
|
10 Nov 16 - 06:08 AM (#3819469) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Nick Dow Unfortunately it used to work that way when you made a recording with the MCPS. If you record a contemporary song the songwriter should get some dosh, no problem with that. I have got a problem with third parties taking a cut. I remember having a lively conversation with some moron from a publishing company wanting me to pay them for a well known Folk club songwriters number. I said I would be happy to send the money straight to him. You would think I had just buggered the Pope with the expletives he used at me. The fact is the whole system stinks, and as far as I can I have nothing to do with it. When Jim Moray took a couple of songs from me (one of which I wrote the tune) he went on to record them both and get a folk award. Bloody good for him! I want nothing from anybody, and he was good enough to credit me and that's enough. The musicians and singers in the business are for the most part kind and trustworthy, the hangers on are sometimes the opposite. Nobody should tell you what to do with your music least of all YouTube or some publishing company full of suits. Here endeth the rant! |
|
10 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM (#3819577) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: leeneia I just read a new book by John Powell, a physicist and musicologist from England. It was called "Why you like music", or similar. He said that a person can only copyright the melody of a piece of music. (Ergo, we cannot copyright an arrangement.) It makes sense. He showed the math of four flutes playing harmonious notes on this simple phrase: ba ba black sheep have you any wool? There are over 250,000 possibilities. That makes it clear why governments do not commit themselves to keeping track of arrangements, but why don't they come out and say so? |
|
10 Nov 16 - 01:29 PM (#3819585) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Some bloke Led Zeppelin set an interesting precedent in US courts this year and Stairway to Heaven remains theirs. |
|
11 Nov 16 - 08:33 AM (#3819836) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Howard Jones An arrangement can be copyrighted, but the copyright applies only to the arrangement and not to the original work. It has to be a substantial arrangement and requires the agreement of the copyright holder of the original work. Simple arrangements eg just adding guitar chords don't need the composer's agreement but aren't sufficient to obtain copyright. The system is certainly flawed, especially where folk music is concerned, but it's difficult to think of a practical alternative. Most seem to agree with Nick Dow that the original songwriter or composer should get some money, but how should this work? The UK folk scene is perhaps small enough that you could probably contact them personally, but that wouldn't work with Bob Dylan or Paul Simon, and they wouldn't want to spend their whole time agreeing terms with everyone who wants to cover their songs. The current system removes the obligation from the performer entirely and places it on the venue or the promoter, and for the composer it provides a one-stop shop which periodically pays them their royalties. Those who object to third parties getting involved overlook that the writer has chosen to have them deal with royalties on their behalf. There is no obligation on them to sell the rights to a publisher or join a music rights organisation. The system is clunky but it sort of works. Has anyone got a better suggestion? |
|
11 Nov 16 - 12:05 PM (#3819884) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: Will Fly My contention with YouTube was about a traditional piece for which there is no know origin, i.e. writer or composer. I asserted that copyright for such a piece could just not be claimed by anyone who wanted it. Obviously YT agreed with me. For non-traditional pieces on YT, i.e. those with a known composer, I get an occasional Google email which says that X has claimed copyright on Y, but there's "no need to worry", In other words, the copyright holder is happy to let me show the video on YouTube - and they get to draw any cash they can from the ads which appear. The video is thus "monetarised". I'm quite happy with that arrangement - I get to exploit a composer's work on YouTube and the copyright holder gets to exploit my video - but I do object to stuff I play for which there is no copyright to be "monetarised" and cluttered with an ad. |
|
11 Nov 16 - 04:45 PM (#3819952) Subject: RE: YouTube copypright claim relinquished! From: GUEST,Nick Dow I was referring to the MCPS system which covers traditional folk songs as well. It works on percentages. The percentages are then divided by sales and radio play logs. For example if you record your version of Died for Love, MCPS will check which was the best selling artist who recorded it then make a percentage payment right down the line. So if Joe Bloggs records it next year then you are supposed to be on the list. The problem is that the money is divided unequally. So if for sake of argument Steeleye record it and sell the most CD's they get the most money. Like I said it stinks. PRS are another kettle of fish. The big names have their own publishing companies, however on the folk scene internationally there are a few Labels who also have Publishing rights, and it usually ends up with the artist getting naff all. I will not deal with them. I took back control of my music after my first recording contract, formed my own company , registered it with the board of trade and stuck with it. It's worked since 1980. I was approached by a man who will remain nameless, who incidentally is trustworthy and a decent guy, to see if I wished to purchase back my own music from the label he had bought out. There is the rub, and you can't sit on the fence. So the big question is who has control you or some other individual. The musicians/writers have one answer the business man has another. I am no more important than any other singer who sings for the people. I have been lucky enough to have had a lot of success, but it changes nothing! Your song is your own, who you sing it to or for is your affair, and no suit with a lot of money is going to tell me otherwise. (No offence Howard!) |