YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM

The post by Yorgos Papavgeris is slightly misleading - the licensing issues he refers to are to do with local authority licenses for the performance of music and other events. Copyright issues in the UK are dealt with by the Performing Rights Society. There are lengthy threads on here if you search.

As a performer, you are covered by the PRS licence which the venue must have. In theory, a licence is required for other public places, hence the occasional shock-horror when PRS demands a licence for a radio played at work.

If someone records your performance and then posts it, I don't think the owner of the copyright would have any comeback against you - they get their royalty from the PRS licence for the venue where you performed. They would have a claim against whoever posted it. I think you might also have a claim against the poster, as you would own the copyright in your own performance, but not copyright in the material.

The fact that copying music has been going on for decades doesn't alter that it is wrong, both legally and morally.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:50 PM

It is not the performance of a song in public that is an issue (assuming the song is published already) but the posting of a recording of that performance that can be a copyright infringement.

Permission and/or mechanical licenses must be sorted out to republish a recording of copyright protected material. And of course that is important to the owner of the intellectual property.

I have had this happen to me with Youtube on a surprising number of occasions. I have posted my own videos of me performing my own songs. No issues there. And I have posted one video of me singing someone else's song (Bill Staines). I ask for and obtained permission to do so. I posted proper credit info and links to Bill's website.

BUT I have had people film me performing - sometimes my own songs, sometimes songs written by others. In some cases they asked for permission - and in others they did not.

In truth, there are some of the videos that I wish they wouldn't post because the film quality was poor, the environment was bad - or the performance less then stellar - but I would never say no for any of these reasons. I just hope the videos wouldn't be noticed!

And when people have asked my permission to republish MY songs or my performance of Public Domain songs I've always said YES and asked for the appropriate copyright and publishing info to be posted along with the video.

BUT when I find these "bootleg" videos - that is someone republishing MY songs or my performance of Public Domain songs - I have always contacted them and asked them to post the appropriate copyright and publishing info. I do not ask them to remove the video and I can see no reason why I would do so.

For me, the credit info that is specified by copyright and publishing is is important. I don't have any issues with it for my music - except as I said, matters of taste, and I would never voice those concerns.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:14 PM

Our local high school recorded one of their concerts as a "give away for a sports fund-raiser. (free to anyone donating x number of dollars or more. Theystill had to pay mechanical copyright (in addition to the copyright they purchased to perform the piece in the first place) for each copy of each number on the CD.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:09 PM

Up above, performances by school choirs, etc. were mentioned. From years ago, I remember decisions made by students and music teachers at our schools to perform certain pieces or musical plays. The school bought copyright songs and plays. Some were too expensive and had to be dropped from consideration. The school agreed to certain performance conditions and made payment for this material.

If someone records the performance of a copyright composition and puts it on youtube or whatever, open to the public without charge, they are stealing from the copyright holder.

Composers rights must be upheld. Paroles.net, Honking Duck, and other internet sites as well as youtube have violated these rights.
We might have enjoyed the free pass, but that does not make it either right or legal.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: bald headed step child
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:06 PM

VT, Your singing in a session is not the problem. The person who records and posts the recording is the one who would be in trouble.

If you are not being paid for your performance, you don't owe the royalty, the club owner does, as that is who would profit.

The main people they are going after are not people doing an interpretation of a song, it's the people using a recording of the original artist to make their video. Also, the people who buy a DVD, and then post the entire DVD on Youtube in little pieces. Both of which are theft.

As for showing off growing prowess on your instrument, why in the world would that have to be done with a copyrighted song when there are MILLIONS of PD songs to choose from?

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:01 PM

Don't be despondent, VT. As Will Fly says, the subject is contentious at its extreme, but real life goes on.

Currently, the onus for licencing live performances is on the Venue owner/manager, not the performer. It has brought significant unrest as to the likely status of singarounds, sessions and small folk clubs. The recent report on the workings of the licencing laws states clearly that they have gone too far, and recommends relaxing the law for venues of less than 200 audience, which should make it all right (er).

But posting something that includes a copyrighted work on youTube's platform accessed by millions, is another thing altogether.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:58 PM

"The music that they used wasn't stolen if the person who made the video used an artist's music as a background and in the description of that video they said, 'I do not own or claim this song as my own', then usually it would be fine"

This just isn't true.    The copyright holder is the only one who gets to say what can and can't be done with the work. You're saying that if I bootlegged a copy of a popular movie, e.g., Star Trek, and posted in to my website for people to download, that would be OK as long as I added a disclaimer that I didn't have permission?

_Traditional_ folk music is open-source (see my blog entry on this from yesterday - The original open source music - but most contemporary singer-songwriter "folk music" isn't.

Whether the artist might benefit from the increased exposure is irrelevant because that should be up to the artist to decide, not someone who copies his work.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:42 PM

I am not posting. I am not even recording what I sing and play. I am not even being paid to sing. I just go to sing around sessions, where people do record and then later post.

Nothing I can do about that except not sing.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:14 PM

"Ok YouTube was taken over by google and now videos are being removed by the tens of thousands each day for issues dealing with copyrighted songs. This has NEVER been an issue before. I personally do not like this at all. What do you think of this?"

Copyright has always been an issue and f a video infringes on said copyright, then it should be removed. I'm a working musician, and, apart from benefits for worthwhile causes, I DON'T play for free.

"I do not own or claim this song as my own"

this is one of the worst cop outs I've ever seen, and doesn't alter the fact that you or anyone else have no right to post copyrighted material you don't own. The old hippy-dippy "everything must be free, in the name of the people" was BS back then, and nothing has changed since.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:52 AM

VirginiaTam said:

This is such a contentious topic. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they?

There are two misconceptions there:

A. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity.

"May" and "may be" and "could be". That's an argument about the (un?)wisdom of the copyright-holder exercising his right, but it has nothing to do with the legal fact that (s)he has those rights, and has the sole discretion in the matter.

and

B. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they?

That's irrelevant. Whether there's "commercial product" or "profit" are not involved. Contrary to folklore or what some might think of as common sense, the owner of copyright has the right to be protected from his property being sold or given away for free.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:52 AM

VT - in theory, yes, we can all be "done" for not paying a copyright fee when we sing a song "in public". I remember in my jazz days, playing in hotels, that the hotel manager would often bring a PRS form in for us to fill in with the titles of all the songs we'd performed for the dance - so that the hotel could pay, by the way - not us. We used to make them up - couldn't be bothered to fill them in properly.

However, the reality is slightly different from your scenario. There's a significant difference in posting your own version of a song on YouTube and you actually posting someone else's performance without their permission - particularly if you post a commercial clip which could reasonably expect to be sold and make money. The law is an ass sometimes, but not that much of an ass!

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:43 AM

Nods to JO, EF and YP. OK I get it, but I still believe that struggling unknowns would benefit from having their stuff posted to youtube.

Guess I am worried that if I sing a song in a session and someone films and posts to youtube, giving credit of the performance to me, can the original artist (or production company) legally come after me, simply because I chose this copyright song?

And thinking about the playing personally owned music in public. It means at a picnic in the park, one cannot have CD playing out loud or even sing a copyright song because the public may hear? And what of thumping car stereos? What about cover bands? Do they have to get permission to perform covers?

Very tetchy topic indeed. Extremely difficult to enforce and worrying to someone like me who just wants to sing without hurting anyone or breaking laws.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:40 AM

No Murray - that would be wrong (patronising, too). Because Joe may not be geared for appropriate production, and you'd be making claims on his behalf which he might not be able to meet and therefore damage his reputation. You would also be inviting unsolicited calls to his number. You'd be in a heap of trouble.

There is no way to dress this bear so that it looks like Goldilocks. When you buy the CD, the DVD or the download, you buy that particular physical/digital manifestation of the song or film, not the copyright. Furthermore, you buy it for personal use only and you are explicitly forbidden from renting it/playing it/showing it in public, whether for monetary gain or not. Next time you watch a DVD or buy a CD, read those sentences at the start; there is nothing equivocal about those statements, they have been honed to perfection by generations of lawyers.

Joe's example stands, and is a very good way of describing the situation.

VT, whether this is "shooting in the foot" or not will always depend on the circumstances of the individual artist, his/her level of recognition among the public etc. Michael Jackson does not need to be "advertised" any more through unauthorised use of his music - no, what he wants/deserves is the revenue from sales of CDs/DVDs. In any case, that would be a decision for the artists themselves. You cannot unilaterally take that decision away from the artist.

As to the background music for the compilation you are considering: If it is for personal use it would probably not matter. But if it is to be shown in public/displayed/put on youTube, then the "proper" way to do it is either licence your product through the appropriate authorities (MCPS in the UK) or to request a waiver by the owners of the copyright. There are a couple of videos on youTube featuring songs of mine in the background; the people that made them asked for my permission, and I gave it freely, I had no reason to withhold it, indeed the free advertising is beneficial - to me.

theman, you say "this has NEVER been an issue before". This is incorrect - it has always been an issue, but it simply took some time for enforcement to catch up with technology.

I will give you another example: Someone builds a warehouse and stores food in it. But for a few days there are no locks on the door - the local hardware store was out of locks and had to order them. The warehouse owner takes the risk however and stores his food there for a few days, unlocked. The news spreads by word of mouth however, and by the end of the week much of the food is taken away from the warehouse - perhaps by people who are hungry, but also by people who then resell that food for profit. In either case it is theft. At the end of the week the locks go into the doors and the warehouse is secured. People complain that the can no longer get their free food from the warehouse, and claim the right to do so, because this hade "never" been an issue before. Well, guess what - they are wrong.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:23 AM

If Google is being a little more draconian with YouTube stuff than before, then perhaps its because they've been involved in a fairly tense legal stand-off with Viacom - and numerous other cases in Europe. Viacom claimed that Google was not doing enough to police the copyright issues, etc., etc.

You can use all the arguments you want but, in the end, if you've posted someone else's intellectual property without their permission, then that person is entitled to have your posting removed.

There's always been an assumption on the part of many, many people that because something is on the internet, the normal laws of ownership and copyright don't apply. But they do - just as much as anywhere else. The net is more diffuse, and is just so much more difficult to police.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 03:57 AM

Joe, your analogy doesn't stand up imo.

The analogy is more like : if you were a builder of custom cars, and somebody took the car without express permission and drove it all over America with a sticker saying "I do not own this car but you can buy an exactly similar car from Joe Offer Custom Cars phone [phone]".

You would make more from the advertising than you lost by the appropriation of one car ...

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:51 AM

But would that apply to a video of a singer performing a copyright song in a sing around session?

What about recordings of school choirs performing or people giving music lessons or showing their growing prowess on various instruments?

This is such a contentious topic. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they?

I have been approached to provide background audio to video photo compilation project. I will not be paid and neither does the videographer plan to profit by it. A hobby to do something with photos taken while he was a truck driver in the US. Does this mean we need to get permission for me to sing and play music still under copyright and for him to post the finished video on youtube?

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:23 AM

If you took my car for a drive and pasted a sticker on it that said "I do not own or claim this car as my own," would that make it legal for you to use my car without my permission?

Copyright holders have a legal right to control and charge for the use of their possessions. Sometimes I think they overdo it, but generally that's their right. I really like being able to listen to music on Youtube and other places on the Internet, and it often motivates me to buy music. BUT if the copyright holder doesn't want somebody giving it away for free, it's their right to control it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: theman
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:34 AM

The music that they used wasn't stolen if the person who made the video used an artist's music as a background and in the description of that video they said, "I do not own or claim this song as my own", then usually it would be fine. But no they will remove the audio or the video if the recording company finds that video and reports it.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: theman
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:23 AM

Also they have removed audio from videos for the same reason

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 11:41 PM

no it isn't. This qualifies under general music.

If there are copyright issues, that means thelegitimate owners are having their legal property rights violated. While I certainly understand why folks who are used to getting something for nothing wouldn't be happy, I wouldn't want my property stolen or misappropriated. Why should Google profit from my product without me getting my piece.

I'll get the old cap and wellies. Been around long enough to know where this is headed.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM

Considering that it is discussing the removal of songs from a video site, it could be considered a music discussion. Have you gone looking for specific songs that are now missing? Is there a "sorry, this was removed" message in place for those removed?

SRS

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: theman
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:31 PM

This is a BS thread

Subject: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: theman
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:31 PM

Ok YouTube was taken over by google and now videos are being removed by the tens of thousands each day for issues dealing with copyrighted songs. This has NEVER been an issue before. I personally do not like this at all. What do you think of this?