Youtube had one of the videos I had in my favourites removed for copyright violations (the song nothing to lose which I personally don't like). On this basis wouldn't most workout vids be removed as guys do a workout in the gym with some form of music in the backgound. Or is it hit and miss with these sort of things?
Youtube and copyrighted sound tracks
- Thread starter tribal1
- Start date
They remove videos if a soundtrack is on top of the video. If a song is playing in the background it is generally not a big deal.
Actually for the soundtracks to be taken off the copyright owner has to file a complaint with youtube. Then the soundtrack is taken down.
They generally leave the video up with no sound. You have the option of putting music over it using the YouTube audioswap. You choose from approved songs and then your video will not get tampered with.
Basically it is only a matter of time until the audio track gets pulled off. Sometimes it is a week, other videos may be up for a year or more. Just depends upon who gets caught.
If you go to your video you will see that about 10sec in there is an advertisement on it. That is the punishment for using copyrighted material. Once you use a youtube approved song they have the right to advertise the sale of it on your video.
Actually for the soundtracks to be taken off the copyright owner has to file a complaint with youtube. Then the soundtrack is taken down.
They generally leave the video up with no sound. You have the option of putting music over it using the YouTube audioswap. You choose from approved songs and then your video will not get tampered with.
Basically it is only a matter of time until the audio track gets pulled off. Sometimes it is a week, other videos may be up for a year or more. Just depends upon who gets caught.
If you go to your video you will see that about 10sec in there is an advertisement on it. That is the punishment for using copyrighted material. Once you use a youtube approved song they have the right to advertise the sale of it on your video.
My brother in law had to take a school project he did on social reactions to primates, or some crap like that, down because the music company complained about his use of 'hey hey we're the Monkey's'
It's crazy, it's not like people would watch his short film on You Tube rather than going out and buying the CD. I don't understand how they think a school project containing a small piece of their music could be a threat to music sales
It's crazy, it's not like people would watch his short film on You Tube rather than going out and buying the CD. I don't understand how they think a school project containing a small piece of their music could be a threat to music sales
It is not that the school project is a large threat in and of itself. It is the use of copyrighted material to distribute to the general public and the right of the copyright owner to get paid for the use of their product.
If there is copyright infringement the copyright owner has to deal with all known cases, regardless of "threat" level.
For example, lets say that the copyright owner for "hey hey we're the Monkey's" allowed all youtube and other "incidental" use of the music. Then lets say that someone started putting the song on the internet for free download. If the copyright owner goes after the person releasing their music for free they have one problem.
There are 100's of other times that the copyright infringement was allowed. Though they were only school projects and some people sticking up a video on youtube. Each time an infringement is allowed it sets a precedence for allowing free use and distribution of their copyrighted material.
If the precedence is that you allow free use and distribution, how is this one guy providing the free download of the material any different from the 100's of others that were allowed to distribute the copyrighted material without any action taken?
So, yes, music used in a school project is a threat to music sales because the company has set the precedence for general distribution of copyrighted material without payment.
I hope I explained that well.
The same holds true for patented products. If you patent a product and some guy copies it and puts it in his basement, you have to go after him because you need to set the precedence that copying the patented product in any manner is unacceptable.
If a company starts building an exact copy of your patented product for sale and distribution, but you did not go after the guy in his basement, you set the precedence that it is OK to build copies of your patented ideas.
It is the nature of the legal system.
If there is copyright infringement the copyright owner has to deal with all known cases, regardless of "threat" level.
For example, lets say that the copyright owner for "hey hey we're the Monkey's" allowed all youtube and other "incidental" use of the music. Then lets say that someone started putting the song on the internet for free download. If the copyright owner goes after the person releasing their music for free they have one problem.
There are 100's of other times that the copyright infringement was allowed. Though they were only school projects and some people sticking up a video on youtube. Each time an infringement is allowed it sets a precedence for allowing free use and distribution of their copyrighted material.
If the precedence is that you allow free use and distribution, how is this one guy providing the free download of the material any different from the 100's of others that were allowed to distribute the copyrighted material without any action taken?
So, yes, music used in a school project is a threat to music sales because the company has set the precedence for general distribution of copyrighted material without payment.
I hope I explained that well.
The same holds true for patented products. If you patent a product and some guy copies it and puts it in his basement, you have to go after him because you need to set the precedence that copying the patented product in any manner is unacceptable.
If a company starts building an exact copy of your patented product for sale and distribution, but you did not go after the guy in his basement, you set the precedence that it is OK to build copies of your patented ideas.
It is the nature of the legal system.
It's also the nature of the legal system to be vague; my business sells copies of TV advertising which contains soundtracks. Music companies have tried to take us to court countless times over the last 20 years but it's been thrown out everytime. Why? Because we sell a digital copy, not an original, of something that has already been in the public domain.
Say for example you're David Beckham. He owns the legal rights to his image so if you were to sell something with his image on then you would need to pay royalties. However, if you were to take a picture of him walking down the street and put it in a magazine and sell the magazine then that's fine as you aren't selling the picture but a digital representation of a picture that was taken legally from an image in the public domain.
The grounds for taking legal action again Youtube videos is unstable. So long as the song was being played (legally) at the time the video was filmed and not placed over the top afterwards then the record label doesn't have a hope in hell of winning a court case
I know it was, I wasn't disagreeing with what you said
I just posted what I did to expand on everything that had already been said and to show that there are ways around the law so long as you know what the law is You can get basically the same quality sound from background noise if you know what you're doing