Youtube And Copyright

[spinneaussplit]

Hello,

decided to start to upload some 45s at youtube like many others here. But there is a mate who asked immediatley if this is legal? Maybe it is kind of naive but never thought about that. Sure i am not the owner of the copyright, so my question goes out to people who have specific experiences. Ever had Problems with posting music on youtube or the net in generally. If you have your own chanel on youtube are you paying for the right to do that???

best,

spinne

Edited March 17, 2012 by spinneaussplit

[p0stscript]

I've just received similar messages to this at times:

Your video may include the following copyrighted content:

Acknowledged claims

• Musical Composition administered by:
  
  
  EMI Music Publishing
  
  

What does this mean?

Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases, ads may appear next to your video. Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. Learn more about copyright on YouTube.This claim does not affect your account status.

videos still get viewed and a lot of the rarer songs are not picked up.

[Guest Phoenix8049]

Everything on you tube is copyrighted material,even if its a home made video with a musical backing track,and even if its not the full song.

Unless you have permission from the music publishers it is illegal.

It is surprising how many people do not know this.

You tube do try and weedle out the copyright stuff and give you a warning if you are sharing it.

I think they use a 3 strikes policy,after 3 warnings your subscription to you tube is terminated.

No one to my knowledge has ever been prosecuted for illegal sharing copyright material on you tube.

Yet i have been told you can find any song on there that made the u.k. charts from the early 50s to the present day.

[Chalky]

I thought YouTube paid a fee to the authorities for the use of cyrighted material...

[Pete S]

Everything on you tube is copyrighted material,even if its a home made video with a musical backing track,and even if its not the full song.

Unless you have permission from the music publishers it is illegal.

It is surprising how many people do not know this.

You tube do try and weedle out the copyright stuff and give you a warning if you are sharing it.

I think they use a 3 strikes policy,after 3 warnings your subscription to you tube is terminated.

No one to my knowledge has ever been prosecuted for illegal sharing copyright material on you tube.

Yet i have been told you can find any song on there that made the u.k. charts from the early 50s to the present day.

I had 250 clips removed and received a threatening letter from Motown's lawyers in the USA for using one clip from the show Motown 40. They also closed my account.

[p0stscript]

There is a lot of free to play songs you can download for your videos that do not infringe copyright, the artists ask you to acknowledge them in your video. The companies who own the copyright to songs you put on a video receive a small fee every time your video is viewed and that is why youtube put adverts next to/onto videos. Yes you should have permission to use copyright material and yes it is a bit of a cop out by youtube.

[Guest Phoenix8049]

I thought YouTube paid a fee to the authorities for the use of cyrighted material...

Not as far as i am aware of Chalky.

The reason that the BPI and Riaa do not go after them is because they do have a copyright policing policy to try and ensure no infinging material is posted.

Pretty hard for them to keep track when there are millions of them posted on you tube,and more added daily.

[Amsterdam Russ]

For rights owners there are three main options when copyrighted material is published to places like YouTube:

1/ Require that the site hosting the copyrighted material remove it immediately. A 'take no prisoners' approach.

2/ Take a commercial view and allow songs exposure they might otherwise not get. This is a financially useful option for music publishers as they effectively receive 'royalties' every time a song is played. The most obvious way in which money is generated is by showing ads before and during videos, and having ads placed on the video page. Music publishers will receive small amounts from the ad revenue generated by YouTube/Google.

3/ As 2, but with territorial restrictions. Often videos with copyrighted soundtracks are blocked from being watched in specific countries.

One way of looking at YouTube is that it is a new form of radio, with the difference being that the public decides what it wants to listen to rather than a dj/presenter programming tunes.

On radio, copyright owners and artists receive 'royalites' every time a song is played. YouTube - and the more forward thinking music companies - are working towards developing the same system for the online world.

For music companies & copyright owners, this represents a whole new revenue stream - and a rather large one at that!

[Guest]

if you loose your sound, just go to the dispute bit, and copy and paste the following in

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

you then get your sound back.

[Quinvy]

Amazing coincidence this thread, we were just discussing the legalities of John Manship posting up his auction records on You Tube. These records are for sale, so how can that be legal? Think we could all post our sales up on there if that is the case.

[Guest]

John Manship has nothing to do with the youtube channel, so he has no legalities to worry about.

[Chalky]

John Manship has nothing to do with the youtube channel, so he has no legalities to worry about.

You should change the name of the account then cause the uploader etc is John Manship.

[Guest Phoenix8049]

John Manship has nothing to do with the youtube channel, so he has no legalities to worry about.

But he is still infringing copyright like everybody else that does not have the permission of the publishers.

And i cannot see that he has done that cause it is a long winded and tiresome processs for each song individually.

I am not being disrespectful to him or anybody else,but that is the way it is suppossed to work.

The chance of anybody being hauled against the courts for it are vitually Zero though,as nobody to my knowledge like i stated earlier has been prosecuted for uploading a song onto you tube.

Even sharing a link from you tube to somewhere else on the net is actually infringement,That is why the RIAA are trying to shut down Bit Torrent and torrent sights and all they do is give people a link.

[Guest]

You should change the name of the account then cause the uploader etc is John Manship.

the personal details held by youtube are not for John Manship, i can assure you.

[Chalky]

the personal details held by youtube are not for John Manship, i can assure you.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

[Guest]

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[Chalky]

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

But isn't fair use a sample only of the recording? Not the full recording?

[Amsterdam Russ]

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Sorry, but sticking a tune up on YouTube is not fair use!

I've seen so many people use that text under the videos they've uploaded of songs they do not own the copyright or broadcasting rights to and think they're protected by some sort of magic spell.

Wrong!

People need to look a little closer at what Fair Use actually means. Using a clip of a song can be considered Fair Use depending of the context in which it is used, but not the whole bloody thing!

Also, Fair Use is a term applied in American copyright legislation. In the UK, there is a similar principle called 'Fair dealing'.

[Guest]

i didn't see people complaining when soul-source had a huge illegal library available for download.

isn't it fair that everybody should be able to listen to a record rather than just those with enough money to afford to buy it?

i remember seeing a thread talking about The Tiaras - Foolish Girl on Op-art, people were talking about this record as their desert island disc, i'd never heard it, couldn't find it anywhere on the internet to hear it, how could i make comment.

it certainly dosn't weaken the value of a record by putting it on the 'all sharing internet'

i can imagine how people would react if they had to visit the louvre everytime they wanted a glimpse of the mona lisa, so much easier to just type the words into google images.

[Quinvy]

MMMMMM, think I might try it myself then.

[Guest]

i do it for the love of it, and because its the only way i'd ever find out whats on the flip.

i certainly don't do it to make money.

so please don't hang me, just yet...

[Chalky]

i didn't see people complaining when soul-source had a huge illegal library available for download. isn't it fair that everybody should be able to listen to a record rather than just those with enough money to afford to buy it? i remember seeing a thread talking about The Tiaras - Foolish Girl on Op-art, people were talking about this record as their desert island disc, i'd never heard it, couldn't find it anywhere on the internet to hear it, how could i make comment. it certainly dosn't weaken the value of a record by putting it on the 'all sharing internet' i can imagine how people would react if they had to visit the louvre everytime they wanted a glimpse of the mona lisa, so much easier to just type the words into google images.

I don't think people are complaining just debating the question and challenging your comments and the disclaimer you claim make it all ok.

[Guest]

But isn't fair use a sample only of the recording? Not the full recording?

havn't got a clue chalky, and i'm not about to start educating myself.

[Quinvy]

i didn't see people complaining when soul-source had a huge illegal library available for download.

isn't it fair that everybody should be able to listen to a record rather than just those with enough money to afford to buy it?

i remember seeing a thread talking about The Tiaras - Foolish Girl on Op-art, people were talking about this record as their desert island disc, i'd never heard it, couldn't find it anywhere on the internet to hear it, how could i make comment.

it certainly dosn't weaken the value of a record by putting it on the 'all sharing internet'

i can imagine how people would react if they had to visit the louvre everytime they wanted a glimpse of the mona lisa, so much easier to just type the words into google images.

The idea has always been that you have to get off your arse and go and hear the records at an all nighter. That's why it's called the rare soul scene. That's the reason nobody goes out anymore, why bother when you can sit at a pc and listen to almost anything.

[Guest]

I don't think people are complaining just debating the question and challenging your comments and the disclaimer you claim make it all ok.

thats the disclaimer i submit to youtube, and they decide thats its ok, surely its down to them for agreeing.

[Mike]

i didn't see people complaining when soul-source had a huge illegal library available for download.

isn't it fair that everybody should be able to listen to a record rather than just those with enough money to afford to buy it?

i remember seeing a thread talking about The Tiaras - Foolish Girl on Op-art, people were talking about this record as their desert island disc, i'd never heard it, couldn't find it anywhere on the internet to hear it, how could i make comment.

it certainly dosn't weaken the value of a record by putting it on the 'all sharing internet'

i can imagine how people would react if they had to visit the louvre everytime they wanted a glimpse of the mona lisa, so much easier to just type the words into google images.

wind your neck in

refosoul wasnt illegal and clips were not available for download

if you are going to start shouting the odds and drag this site actions in to your dodgy arguments then spend some time in looking the actual facts up and get it right

[Wiganer1]

ive uploaded 418 records so far,,just to share my collection to the soul world...got 12,000 hits so far in 3 months,.,...loving it ..

[Guest]

The idea has always been that you have to get off your arse and go and hear the records at an all nighter. That's why it's called the rare soul scene. That's the reason nobody goes out anymore, why bother when you can sit at a pc and listen to almost anything.

its not the same though is it.

anyway, i'm off out

the mighty Stute beckons...

[Guest]

I've had many nofifications from the Orchard Group. It's a scam to make themselves known amongst the music world. None of the tunes in my vid's are owned by Orchard.

[Guest]

wind your neck in

refosoul wasnt illegal and clips were not available for download

if you are going to start shouting the odds and drag this site actions in to your dodgy arguments then spend some time in looking the actual facts up and get it right

sorry Mike, i used to download from this site.

[Guest]

I've had many nofifications from the Orchard Group. It's a scam to make themselves known amongst the music world. None of the tunes in my vid's are owned by Orchard.

thats true, the Orchard group don't own half the stuff they say they do, but make lots of money from the adverts.

[Guest]

wind your neck in

refosoul wasnt illegal and clips were not available for download

if you are going to start shouting the odds and drag this site actions in to your dodgy arguments then spend some time in looking the actual facts up and get it right

How rude Mike, he wasn't shouting from where I was sitting.

And I was able to download and save ref-o-soul.

[Quinvy]

I was questioning the fact that JM's records are for sale, which is surely advertising?

[Guest]

ive uploaded 418 records so far,,just to share my collection to the soul world...got 12,000 hits so far in 3 months,.,...loving it ..check out some of my tunes on this link....https://www.youtube.c...y_videos_upload

your youtube link needs changing, it takes you to your own personal upload page.

[Mike]

sorry Mike, i used to download from this site.

then you were using a workaround method

all clips were delivered using a streaming method that prevented downloading

[Guest]

The idea has always been that you have to get off your arse and go and hear the records at an all nighter. That's why it's called the rare soul scene. That's the reason nobody goes out anymore, why bother when you can sit at a pc and listen to almost anything.

I do get off my arse and attend venues and dance all night to these magical records. I still like to be able to hear these tunes on my ipod walking like a pimp on the way to work or in my car on the way to a venue. It's called the rare soul scene because the records are rare, not where or how they're played.

[Guest]

then you were using a workaround method

all clips were delivered using a streaming method that prevented downloading

Streaming doesn't prevent nor stop downloading and it's not a workaround per se, it's freely and easily available to anyone with a bit of internet savvy.

[Mike]

How rude Mike, he wasn't shouting from where I was sitting.

And I was able to download and save ref-o-soul.

rude? yeah right

i find dodgy accusations about the legal nature of this site rude!

you get what you are given from me

[Guest]

what happened to all the soul clips on this site?

[Mike]

Streaming doesn't prevent nor stop downloading and it's not a workaround per se, it's freely and easily available to anyone with a bit of internet savvy.

yes it does prevent to a certain extent

the server software and method I used was choosen for this

plus extra steps were put in to prevent and make it as difficult as possible

eg as much as possible was done to prevent downloading as per legal requirements

Edited March 17, 2012 by mike

[Mike]

what happened to all the soul clips on this site?

they will return once have cleared the various ever changing legal requirements

why ???

[Amsterdam Russ]

Fair Use is when (for example) a TV programme uses a clip of a new film to give viewers a glimpse of a coming attraction. The use of the clip aids in the promotion of the film and is used by the programme for the purposes of critique and reporting.

Fair Use is when a magazine, newpaper or website quotes a few lines from a new book. Here copyrighted material is being used to promote, critique and educate - the core principles of Fair Use.

Fair Use is when snippets of tunes are used by music programmes for the purpose of promotion, criticism and education.

Also, when considering whether the usage of copyrighted material falls under the Fair Use principles, law courts use four important criteria:

• the purpose and character of the use
  
• the nature of the copyrighted work
  
• the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  
• the effect of the use upon the potential market.
  

Source: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

From this you can all too easily see that uploading a complete song to YouTube (or anywhere else) falls outside the principles of Fair Use. It is only because increasingly music companies tolerate this activity and see that they can in fact earn money from what is essentially an illegal act.

In a nutshell, the uploading of music to places like YouTube is being decriminalised because many companies now see that they can make money from it. However, some companies don't see the potential yet and have a blanket 'take down' policy. That, I'm sure, will change in time...

[Guest Phoenix8049]

I read quite a good article on the net recently,about what is counted as copyright infringment and what is not.

One of the things that i read in disbelief is that in Australia and not sure if it does not apply here,but singing a song out loud to yourself in the street is actually breach of copyright.

Some of these laws are not new they go back years, like home taping.

But the powers at be gace a blind eye to that cause it did not really affect sales.

But now with the digital technology it is rife.

Stu.

[Guest]

they will return once have cleared the various ever changing legal requirements

why ???

i love soul

[Guest]

i think the majority of people on the scene have spent more than their fare share of money on music over the years, its time we had a little something back.

[Mike]

i love soul

save it

all i see is you trying to drag this site in to your dodgy explanation for what you are doing elsewhere

as said go and look up stuff before you start calling this place

[TOAD]

very interesting so i doubt if i will upload any more on here its all one way take take and no giving back !

[Mike]

very interesting so i doubt if i will upload any more on here its all one way take take and no giving back !

lost me

take take ?

upload any more?

whats that supposed to mean

[TOAD]

will pm you

[Mike]

better if do it on forum Tim

as your post can be read a number of ways