Wednesday, 14 January 2009

User Choice and Music Licensing

Music licensing can get very complicated, but we try to make your experience as simple as possible. We want you to have options when uploading videos with music in them. And if your video is subject to a copyright claim, you should have some choices too.



Previously, when a music label or other rights owner issued a copyright claim to block audio, the video was automatically taken down. Uploaders had two choices: dispute the claim (in the case of fair use, for example) or use our AudioSwap tool to replace the track with one from our library of pre-cleared music. Now we've added an additional choice. Instead of automatically removing the video from YouTube, we give users the option to modify the video by removing the music subject to the copyright claim and post the new version, and many of them are taking that option.



Our content management tools have revolutionized the ways in which users and content owners are distributing, marketing, and making money from video online. As we continue to build out this system, we are working to find the right balance between encouraging creativity and free expression and respecting the rights of copyright holders and the law.



The YouTube Team

52 comments:

SteveBeck said...

Most people will opt for the audio muting option because they either can't be bothered to use the audio swap tool or don't know how to use it effectively.

I think a better option would be if a video gets flagged for copyrighted music suspend the video and advise the user to put a link on where to purchase the song in the video description, or enforce a pop-up ad for the song.

People don't use youtube to avoid buying music. If people hear a song they like in a video they usually ask what the song is or who the artist is.

Can't the music industry see that this is an opportunity for free advertisement for their music, not a form of piracy?

loserkid1246 said...

go stevebeck!!


to be frank..the guys right.

i dont go on there to be a rebal all like ooh look at me im listening to a song i havent paid for

if i like a song.. ill take a listen..

then buy the album later (Y)


x

sunkawakanska said...

the reason audio swap isnt used is that its not the audio we want on that videoit wouldnt have the same effect the taking down of videos is stupid.
record companies have beed making millions for over 30 years, but i notice its not all music thats stopped.
or the peorn or the racists or the spam or the rubbish its always the good songs
if all copy right was taken off the tube there wouldnt be a youtube.
what i want is a youtube email that i can write to and tell them some thing
you would think for a big company as this that if they can spend so much time evaluating video content that they would have some where you can send a email and get a response, .......thats called customer services.

RogueBlueJay said...

that sounds like a really good idea

lolage2008 said...

I have got two videos without audio now and i can't find anything else to put on the video so it gets a bit boring without any good audio.

mikec300 said...

Music if used should fit with the images on screen the music on audio swop is not known and i see no button to listen. the record companies should allow free use on videos on you tube as fair use we dont profit from posting. you tube should argue for this against the RIAA and others a little user support not user bashing goes a long way.

TheBorzoi said...

The Audio Swap tool isn't very accessible and the selection of songs on there are not very good. There also needs to be a preview option to preview the song without having to select a video to preview it with.

SourProductions0 said...

Me and other users like me create videos which rely heavily on music tracks; they're not just for background entertainment...
I believe "AMV" makers are suffering the most from this Record Company pull, and the most popular user joined the suspended accounts today because of the tracks she used.
I hope an authoritative member of the YT board of directors reads these reponses, and SteveBeck's fantastic alternatives before it's too late and entire groups of video makers relocate to other video sites (AMV makers have already begun this process.) =[

xSynapse said...

There's also the issue of programs that make the downloading of music directly from Youtube possible.

xSynapse said...

I don't think the above commenters are being very honest, or proportionate to the huge amount of Youtube users. I for one will play a song on Youtube on repeat all day rather than fork out 80pence to purchase it on iTunes. I don't think I'm the only one.

ahahahaha15 said...

Okay, firstly in response to xSynapse's comment, I think you are strange. If I like a song, I find the artist and buy the album. I'm not so cheap that I have to play it over and again on YouTube, where the quality of the audio is never any good.

This copyright business really annoys me. I mean, it's not as if the people who post these videos are saying they own the rights to the song, film clip e.t.c in fact most of them go out of thier way to make sure credit goes where its due. All they uploaded it for was so that people can enjoy some really good music. So WHAT ON THE HEAVENS AND EARTH is going on?

dorsetbay said...

I can't find the 'additional choice' mentioned in the blog. Where is it hidden? "Instead of automatically removing the video from YouTube, we give users the option to modify the video by removing the music subject to the copyright claim and post the new version"

siggy75 said...

Where's the option to post a new version. I made a video with a song in the background early on in my YT career and it has been "found out". It's had of 65,000 views so I'd love to keep it however it is useless without the audio as it has cut out me talking. I'd love to be able to replace the audio.

realcelestialphoenix said...

3-things

1- this is stupid, it called fair useage

2-why pay for i-tunes when there are multiple easy FREE ways to get FREE music from youtube

3- F.A.C.T.
(federation against copyright theft)
actually stands for:

Fascist Alliance of Cock-sucking Twats

dorsetbay said...

I fear that "we give users the option .to modify the video by removing the music subject to the copyright claim and post the new version" is no more than
1) Take down muted video (lose comments, faves, stats etc
2) Upload new one
:-)

xin0 said...

what happened to my video "DOA2U: Sexy Girls".
I keep getting the Spam links from those bots, I keep removing their comments.

Each time I visit the video page to remove the comments, I found out that the video's watch count and ratings are the same.


It's like you made the video invisible to users:/

There is no nude in the video, and making that video did take up my time.

Technix22 said...

Copyright Law and licensed rights:
-----------------------------------
At the risk of becoming massively hated... I'm affraid that for the most part, I have to agree with the move to enforcing copyright protection.
Since a lot of the 'youtube generation' seem to think that they have the right to do what the hell they want... not only with regards to posting 'hate' comments but also with anyone's work. Something needed to be done.

It's not just a matter of making profit from using professional-copyrighted material, it's about the LAW and RIGHTS of the original composer/creator or distributors. We all know that the big companies make a hell of a lot of money from released songs, that's because it's a business. A band is a business. Simple rule of business is: If it doesn't make enough money, then it ceases to function as a viable business, therefore it stops.
When anyone can listen to (or download) a song (or see a movie) online for free the MAJORITY of people will not go out and buy that content.

Technix22 said...

If you're willing to ignore the fact that companies forewarn you, well in advance, about the copyright laws and restrictions of how you may use their music/films or other content.. then expect to pay the price for it and don't sit there moaning & claiming 'Fair use' without actually knowing what fair use is.

BTW, the 'Fair use' argument will only (to my knowledge) ever be granted in your favour legally through a court of law, should they decide that your argument is worthy. Either that or if the company itself decide that your argument for fair use is a good one (highly unlikely for the sort of stuff most music on here's used in).
So if you seriously think that your vid's usage of copyrighted material is fair use, take it to court! If you're not sure and can't be bothered (or afford) to get the correct licensing rights, then go and use some of the thousands of royalty free music tracks out there, just waiting to be used (especially for non-profit projects). Failing that, befriend someone who's an upcoming musician and work with them to get the kind of music you want for your vid (there's plenty of them out there too).

Technix22 said...

AS FOR YOUTUBE: I hope for their own sakes that this is going to be a complete 'Blanket' rule. For instance: Some of the tubes sponsors 'appear' to be ignoring these laws themselve's e.g. FrijjFourRidges to name one. Frijj, not so long ago, held a competition to allow tuber's to upload their ideas for Frijj adverts. To my knowledge they didn't seem to mention ANYTHING about not using copyrighted material's in their submissions. As a result some of submitted entries (even the winning entry) actually had copyrighted music tracks within them. I did actually make a comment about hoping that the Frijj company were going to pay all the necessary licensing rights to the respective copyright/license holders.
The Frijj company are supposed to be a professional law abiding business. They used this competion as a 'cheap' advertising campaign to get potentially global coverage for whatever fees they may have paid You tube. I think that they should also fully adhere to these regulations and also be made to pay the licensing fees of all the respective entries that they chose to post onto their page (http://uk.youtube.com/user/FrijjFourRidges)

Technix22 said...

If you tube is going to enforce this, then it's fair enough to say that they MUST enforce it on everybody not just those who are individuals trying to make enteratining content. They shouldn't be 'Brown nosing' and allowing some people to not be affected by it just because they are sponsors, turning a blind eye because they may be making some money from those user's.
Of course for us ordinary people, how are we going to know that the sponsors have not been 'let off'?

EXEMPTIONS: I think that certain exemptions should be made for things like film/game reviewers etc.
However, I still think that reviewers should still have to email the necessary companies in order to get clearances to use any film/game content and those companies SHOULD HAVE TO allow the use of some of the content (even if they specify what scenes are the only ones allowed to be used etc.)

That way places like Viacom can stop getting their panties in a twist about people using some of their content for the purpose of reviewing. Because they SHOULD have a standard set of 'free to use for review purposes' content. Being able to use the content only for the allowed/agreed purposes.

Technix22 said...

As the net is still a pretty 'new' technology it's still settling down. What a lot of people seem to ignore is the fact that the net is a part of the real world, which has rules, regulations and laws. Admittedly, real world laws are still lagging behind somewhat but they are fast catching up. That said, copyright laws etc. have pretty much always covered themselves with regards to reproduction and distribution of content in any medium.

The 'bottom-line' here really is that IGNORANCE is not and never has been a viable defence. Just because you haven't bothered to read or heed the warnings, it doesn't make you immune to the consequences.

A simple analogy of the above 'bottom-line' statement is:
Just because you don't realise that sparkly candle thing you've just lit is actually a stick of dynamite... doesn't mean you're not in the Sh*t ;)

Wow, that's a lot of writing... but then you didn't have to read it all, did you? :P

Peace People!

Technix22 said...

Sorry one last bit... The audio swap thing does look fairly good but what YT seem to be lacking in here is the ability to OVERLAY the soundtrack onto the vid at any given point (it's just from the start til it finishes) and giving some editable flexability with regards to being able to cut the song down to fit (a certain scene)and also alter the volume. What they need is this pre-exsisting system but modified to be more like their subtitling and caption thing. Not erradicating the original audio but being placed at chosen points on another layer to the exsiting audio (as Steve Beck said also, you could then have a little caption of track artist and title pop up whilst it's playing). Once YT figure this out, more people will start to use this new thing. The more people use it, the more artists will want to be included (The Creed have quite a lot on there already). Good initial idea YT just do a lil bit of tweeking asap and you'll have it sorted!;)

Z058 said...

That's all fair enough, but when the sound disappears on these videos it pretty much destroys them.

royalecraig said...

I agree with this to a point, Artists need to be rewarded for their talents.
I do feel however that music and films are far too expensive and we the public are being ripped off.
Most of the money that we pay for DVD's and CD's doesn't actually go to the original artist anyway.
Something has to be done to protect talented artists, they enhance society but equally, the public need protection from the Multitude of middle men that muscle in on the artists and their appreciative public.
It's a bit like taxes, if Govt didn't Tax so much, people would be less likely to try avoiding paying them since it wouldn;t be worth the effort, similarly with music, film, if they were more reasonably priced, copyright infringement would not be worth the effort.

mikesey1 said...

I find that some artists, particularly from older bands, are very keen indeed for their tracks to be used, as it gives them publicity and goes to places that they may not previously have been heard. I always check to see if a band minds my using their stuff before uploading and usually get a nod & a wink from them. Some are MySpace friends too.

Superscape62 said...

Ok, fair enough, we don't have the right to use the music, but we should get a better choice of audio to go over the top of it (or our own)

And to the big businesses, free advertising!!

mikesey1 said...

It used to be fun to use YouTube, but with the ever increasing restrictions on its use it may become more fun to use another video-sharing site soon. More and more are appearing every day, without these restrictions, a lot of which seem to be bowing to the Politically-correct brigade. Do what they deem non-PC., and watch your video get flagged.

spongmana said...

i agree with mike....once again some fuckeing auto copyright claim fucked almost a month of work,i even baught the cdd to get the music.But still i got auto claimed and a whole vacation got fucked >:<

Jarren202 said...

With regards to the users who say they don't pay for music because they can listen to it on youtube, well I doubt they would pay for it anyway if they are content with the very poor quality that music on youtube provides.

Music videos on youtube are basically either advertisements for the artists (directly or indirectly), which is obviously a win-win situation or the tracks are rare and unavailable (hence no-one loses out as there is no money to be made).

I just hope the record companies finally realise that unless they ease up on the public, their businesses will die sooner than they are already.

We're never going to go back to the golden days of 1960's/1970's vinyl sales or 1980's/1990's cd sales. Evolve or lose your business. Just don't expect to live a life of luxury QUITE like you've got accustomed to...

dorsetbay said...

I'm out of here

groovindj said...

It seems that the recent claims are from Warner because YouTube failed to reach agreement with them for royalty payments.

Whether this is Warner being greedy or YouTube being tight is open to question.

As a DJ myself, when we play music in a venue, it is the venue that holds the PPL license and pays the fees to cover copyright/royalties. Therefore when we upload a video to YouTube, YouTube is 'the venue' for the performance - they are hosting it, so it seems reasonable that they pay for any required license fees.

syr1811 said...

Have Loved YouTube up to this point, and don't begrudge record labels, or artists (especially) getting paid. I own much of the music I search out here in one form or another. Seems like a workable solution to keep everybody happy has not been reached, and that maybe YouTube's time will be passing soon, and maybe it's time to start feeling around for a new video channel. Just my 2 cents.

electrotek said...

videos are still automatically taken down without any choice of `Music Swap`... It appears that WMG are directing this action !! I, have just deleted 20 plus videos that i considered maybe a possible copyright issue.. Methinks its an all lose situation with YTube viewers, Copyright owners and Youtube/Google owners...Times change and in 3 yrs on YTube i`ve seen so much change, good and bad.

vivalashae said...

This is completely ridiculous!And I'm not necessarily blaming Youtube,its the "law" thats out of hand.I'm not claiming the music to be mine..AT ALL!..The whole reason for music is because it puts the emotion behind the image or video footage.3 of my videos had to be deleted and considering they are all successful videos withs thousands and thousands of views I was not happy.I'm considering deleting my Youtube account because this is bull!

TheNewBob said...

I do wonder how far these copyright issues are spreading. If someone just uploads a tune with it's video then I don't think there can be much of an argument, I think the record companies should be uploading that themselves. If it's an unrelated video with a song in the background, I can see why they could be a little disgruntled, but as long as the artist and record companies are credited, with a link to buy the songs provided and recommended, then I can't see it being a problem. If it's a cover of a song by a fan, then that's where I find it to be wrong, as long as the original artist isn't slagged off in the process in the description or the video comments. I can't see what is wrong with someone wishing to show their appreciation for a particular artist as long as they aren't making any money in the process. The record companies need to protect their interests and make money, but they're also phenominally greedy.

supersmithnetwork said...

Well Warner Music Group is ticking us off and they haved removed videos from their channels. Google, you need to sort this out. WMG is starting to mute peoples' videos which have WMG's copyright or BG music such as Val Halen, AC/DC, Linkin Park etc. and also pull down music videos. And yes. WMG is destroying YouTube and their stock is going down since they force to pay for their music. Why can't we have their music in our videos. It's fair use, it's free promotion and it's also advertising the music. So what was WMG thinking? Think about it. Everyone on YouTube hates WMG because of their harsh copyright infrigement. Heck, they even own Winter Wonderland and Happy Brithday. You need to have a word with the CEO at WMG on what he has done to us. Please. It's YouTube for christ sake NOT THEIRTUBE! We can post we the heck we want. what we want!

miniballer01 said...

how can you gain the right to use companys such as warner music groups content?

BradThunder said...

Twice I've had pm's from other users asking about the music in my video and just last week, I received a reply from one telling me they went out and bought the album and can't stop listening to it - I have the message as proof! We are actually promoting these peoples work and in this case having them profit from that! How can that be a bad thing? I didn't and don't ever intend to, make a penny from this so how can it be called 'copyright theft'? I haven't stolen anything! When will these greed-mongers realise they can make a killing from this free advertising and promoting?

xGothicCharmx said...

Hey i just realised a vid of mine has been muted and another taken of world wide viewing. The clowns of wmg need there heads sortin out its seriously not fair to us youtubers, who bring entertainment to others while promoting there bands and there songs wmg sucks !!!!!!!

leighhills said...

So all the hard work that goes into my videos will be destroyed. They are timed with the fucking music. Bastards.

CrimsomGuitar said...

Man... Your AudioSwap doesn't even have songs like Numb, Toxic, Money Honey, etc.
And if people have made a music video of a certain song, like me, how the hell can we change the song... All our hard work gone man...

emokid4663 said...

wait.. ya .....GOD THERE IS NO STABBING WESTWARD OMG YYYYY THIS VID TOOK MONTHS TO MAKE AND NOW ITS RUINED

toptechnosongs said...

They ruin everything

amarettaludia said...

Record labels are always complaining that they are losing money because no one's buying the full CDs. Yet they will terminate your entire website because of one song used in a video. Don't they realize that this is GOOD ADVERTISEMENT for their product. I've had many people message me as to WHO IS THE ARTIST DOING THE SINGING. I try to post Classic Rock music 'cause that's my Generation and this Generation doesn't even know what Great Rock Music is, that's why they want to know who the Band/Singer is. This will generate this Generation of kids to want to go to the store to purchase the music of this Band or Singer. That surely would put money in the Record Label's pockets. It's usely the Record Labels and not the Band/Singer that files the complaint. I've had 2 websites here totally terminated over 1 song yet can someone tell me how Terrorists are allowed to post their Fanatical videos here; Rappers with filthy, obscene lyrics and let's not forget the toddlers given WEED to smoke or the teenage girl bangers? How are they allowed to keep their videos here where it eventually makes the Headline News because of all the hits. Yet you post 1 damn song that some Record Label complains about and your whole Music Video website is terminated. Oh, also they don't let you know 'til AFTER THEY DELETE EVERYTHING ON YOUR WEBSITE.

amarettaludia said...

The Record Labels have really sabotaged themselves ever since the iPod and iTunes was developed. Fans don't have to buy the whole damn CD for 1 song, all they have to do is pay .99 for it. So to delete a YouTubers entire website all because of one song and cry "copyright infringe-ment" 'cause they are losing money, is purely ridiculous.
I found videos on 5 other YouTubers websites that I wanted the videos reposted on my website. My viewers would never look for these artists but they would watch the videos being that they're on my website. I got 5 permission via the YouTube message Inbox that it was okay to post their videos on my website. I did just that and was so happy that my friends would be introduced to these Artists. Hello! My website was TERMINATED 'CAUSE OF A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT COMPLAINT ABOUT ONE OF THE 5 VIDEOS. They didn't even allow me to send them the written permissions to post the video(s) on my website. They sent me an email AFTER EVERYTHING WAS DELETED and gave me a link to fill out a "boilerplate" form. Now why would I even do that when THEY ALREADY DELETED MY WHOLE WEBSITE FIRST.

amarettaludia said...

I finally got fed up with YouTube and had been using Google but Google is not in the business of "uploading videos" anymore and I need the Embed Codes for my MySpace website. Also, I've had a website on Google since 2006 and it will allow all of your videos to stay there but you just can't upload any more videos. I've recently had 2 of my videos that have been on Google since 2007, named as being "copyright infringement" and I had to delete them. Why did it take 2 years for the videos to now be considered as violating "copyright infringement laws"?

DiSCo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DiSCo said...

Really trustworthy blog. sesli Please keep updating with great posts like this one. sesli sohbet I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading.. sesli chat

DiSCo said...

Really trustworthy blog. sesli Please keep updating with great posts like this one. sesli sohbet I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading.. sesli chat

DiSCo said...

Thank you for sharing a nice article.
seslisohbet

San said...

nice article

Op Dr Ali Mezdeği said...

Thanks for the information. I really enjoyed, I would like get more
information about this,because is very beautiful, thanks for sharing
Web Tasarım

Post a Comment