Question about people singing covers on youtube and then selling the songs on itunes

[Arthur Stone]

This is pure irony considering my previous posts: Someone has stolen my music and used it on a Youtube video!

I spent 6 months as producer and contributing musician on a demo album with an artist "X"; the only copies of these demo tracks were on two copy-protected CD's - I have one and X has the other one. Yesterday X phoned me to say an acquaintance of his "Y" has used the tracks as an accompaniment to some seriously sh*te videos with terrible audio quality.

I'm aware I can contact Youtube to get the videos withdrawn (if I can prove I'm part-owner of the demos) but I'm unsure what other action I can take.

I'm tempted to cut my losses and walk away as this is a distraction from current projects; the Content ID option looks interesting though.

EDIT: Sorted now - DCMA notice served.

UPDATE: The videos have been taken down. Youtube were very quick - about 2 hours - they deserve credit for that!

[dickyrader]

Originally Posted by LaLa

so lets say i license a song from katy perry and do a poor dance remix...

can i upload this track under the name "katy perry - last friday night (lala remix)"? or is it forbidden to name katy perry?

if not naming katy perry and just "lala - last friday night" i dont get many hits.

does anybody got such a license? here in the netherlands most publishers only give you a chance if you can prove to sell many titles and if you are paying the most to the publisher.

I'm not exactly sure how the law works as far as naming the artist in the title. Most of the time in the pop world the artist is not the songwriter so I don't think that it would matter. They are just the artist performing the song, so as far as royalties go they don't really matter. But in this case Katy Perry is one of the cowriters.

ASCAP ACE - Search

I would say that it doesn't matter if you put Katy Perry's name in the title of the Youtube video. You are just putting her name in the title, I mean, you can't copyright a name. Also, you cannot copyright a song title.

So, I wouldn't think that it would be against the law to put the artist and the song title in the Youtube video title.

But again, I'm not 100% sure so don't quote me. You might want to do some more research.

[cowboycoalminer]

Originally Posted by Chris Lago

Hey,

I've been checking out some singers on youtube and some of them have millions of views for covers they sung. Then at the bottom of their info, they usually have a downloadable version for itunes... This is quite alarming, is this even legal at all? Do you honestly think that they cleared the song? Is this becoming a trend? An unknown singer sings a cover and then sell it to the public?

I Tunes can sell any song even if the song has not been cleared through Harry Fox, but the publisher such as CD Baby or the most notorious, Tunecore can't award funds from the sale until they are cleared, which makes that form of publishing the biggest ponzi scheme since full tiit poker. Guess who keeps the money?

[cowboycoalminer]

Originally Posted by MicDaddy

every gig I've worked with a 'cover band' is doing just this are they not?

By law, cover bands should pay 9.1 cents to the writers every time they murder one of their ditty's. But the infringement police are way backed up on their workload. I think tonight they are working a string of bars in Kabul . . .

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by cowboycoalminer

By law, cover bands should pay 9.1 cents to the writers every time they murder one of their ditty's. But the infringement police are way backed up on their workload. I think tonight they are working a string of bars in Kabul . . .

Should be covered by a venues license (varies according to territory and this is one area of copyright law I'm not au fait with in the USA). In the UK, a venue must have a PRS license for public performance of published work.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by LaLa

so lets say i license a song from katy perry and do a poor dance remix...

can i upload this track under the name "katy perry - last friday night (lala remix)"? or is it forbidden to name katy perry?

if not naming katy perry and just "lala - last friday night" i dont get many hits.

does anybody got such a license? here in the netherlands most publishers only give you a chance if you can prove to sell many titles and if you are paying the most to the publisher.

You would need permission to do a "remix".

It would involve two sets of rights: the rights to the recording and the rights to the song. As a derivative work you are not entitled to do it without permit.

[Arthur Stone]

OK - after 5 months I've heard back from the publishing company regarding my request to show a home-made video of a cover song (for which we have already purchased mechanical rights) on Youtube; they have denied permission to use the video with no reason given.

So to recap - there are 12 unofficial uploads, and 20 unofficial covers on Youtube alone yet a legitimate request has been denied for no reason.

Personally I'm not bothered (apart from the time-wasting) but it will be a disappointment for the guys (who are big fans of the artist), also the song (and video) are IMO better than the other covers on Youtube so they will have difficulty understanding why they have been discriminated against for acting in a legitimate and honourable manner whilst 'pirate' videos are tolerated.

[initialsBB]

I'm confused. why did you ask permission? you don't need it. you just pay the compulsory license and you're done.

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I'm confused. why did you ask permission? you don't need it. you just pay the compulsory license and you're done.

I purchased the cover song license for audio (which I can still use) but I needed permission/clearance from the publisher to show the video of the cover song performance on Youtube - I think it's called 'syncing.'

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I'm confused. why did you ask permission? you don't need it. you just pay the compulsory license and you're done.

As mentioned above - requires permission.

As for your decline - unless it involves money AND froma recognised corporate entity - labels pretty much auto decline everything. Too much paper work to chase everything so they just decline. This was why the compulsory license came into play for cover version. There is not, and never will be, a compulsory visual or third party media license for the simple reason that the music could be used to promote something "out a line"..... (far right politics etc)....

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by narcoman

...As for your decline - unless it involves money AND froma recognised corporate entity - labels pretty much auto decline everything. Too much paper work to chase everything so they just decline. This was why the compulsory license came into play for cover version. There is not, and never will be, a compulsory visual or third party media license for the simple reason that the music could be used to promote something "out a line"..... (far right politics etc)....

Thanks narcoman - I haven't taken it personally (it was a favour for friends) and it's been a valuable insight into the workings of a sector of the music industry.

Re: auto-decline - that's the conclusion I came to (as the video hasn't been previewed). I understand that motivation but if it is policy to auto-decline requests then they should have done so when I first applied 5 months ago.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

I understand that motivation but if it is policy to auto-decline requests then they should have done so when I first applied 5 months ago.

I agree. Thing is - they probably would have declined straight away; but they get thousands of requests a week..... just takes time to get round to it all. Heck - my company is offering money on such licenses and I STILL have to chase chase chase even for a decline!!

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by narcoman

I agree. Thing is - they probably would have declined straight away; but they get thousands of requests a week..... just takes time to get round to it all. Heck - my company is offering money on such licenses and I STILL have to chase chase chase even for a decline!!

That's a good insight, always useful to see things from another perspective even if it is a logistical issue that needs managing, lol. I've thought about it from the artists perspective too; as an artist myself I understand the need to control how my music is used in relation to images & ideology...that seems reasonable enough but hopefully I will never be so famous as to need to auto-decline (although that is no inherent critcism of those who do).

My story is that I was testing my new camera at a friends one day and he played the cover song; it was the same song we duo'ed in front of a packed church at our friend & mentor's funeral also a regular song at our beach gigs. I didn't particularly rate the video (although it is beautiful) mainly due to the soundtrack which was a Lowden acoustic and fine vocal but recorded via the camera mic. It still sounded great though - lots of mojo.
Anyway, a friend who is seasoned veteran, saw the video and insisted we put it on Youtube immediately. I insisted we respect the artist and seek permission before uploading. If I had uploaded the video without seeking permission (or obtaining a license) then it's likely the video would have been up for the past 6 months & for the forseeable future. IMO, in the long-term this culture of ambiguity will diminish respect for legitimacy & strengthen the unregulated market.
I'm happy as the new album we are recording is our original work and I can set-up the video shoot properly - no publishing or copyright clearance to get bogged down in; but the guys will be disappointed...they revere the artist and many people were looking forward to seeing the video.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

I purchased the cover song license for audio (which I can still use) but I needed permission/clearance from the publisher to show the video of the cover song performance on Youtube - I think it's called 'syncing.'

Ah sorry, I totally didn't understand that distinction until now. I never thought of the youtube video as needing a sync license.

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Ah sorry, I totally didn't understand that distinction until now. I never thought of the youtube video as needing a sync license.

In theory you do need sync permission but evidently not in practice - I was trying to do it legitimately but it's not possible.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

In theory you do need sync permission but evidently not in practice - I was trying to do it legitimately but it's not possible.

Even "in practice" you do. Most of the videos you are referring to are in breech. ... the free for all of modern living !!

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Even "in practice" you do. Most of the videos you are referring to are in breech. ... the free for all of modern living !!

Technically, yes - although it is true that there are 22 un-sync'ed cover videos on Youtube despite the fact that they are in breach. I guess there's nothing more rock n'roll than unapproved status.

One thing I should add is that everyone I've dealt with on my quest has been polite and helpful and I've received some great advice.

[narcoman]

just about everything on Youtube is in breach somewhere down the line. Nasty company - like so many online organisations - who profit on the loss of others. Life eh ?

[Arthur Stone]

I reckon I could identify ALL the unofficial uploads (of the artist) in a few hours...another few hours to detail this to Youtube...and a few more hours for DCMA notices to take effect. In 24 hours it's possible to remove ALL of the unofficial content attributed to the artist...quite easily. In a week 7 major outlets could be checked.

I don't believe that the publishers couldn't do this; so there must be a motivation for them to leave the content online and this has been mentioned in previous posts.

I can understand the benefit from the artists perspective too...more control over how content is used; rather then give uncontrolled permission to someone it's better to create a sub-class of artworks that can be DCMA'd at will.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

I don't believe that the publishers couldn't do this; so there must be a motivation for them to leave the content online and this has been mentioned in previous posts.

... you'd' think!! I work with labels on a daily basis, and trust me - the level of technical retar.dation is beyond belief.... yes even with those claiming "IT departments " (like Universal). They are so Luddite as to be laughable. The amount of hoops you'd have to jump through to get them to even recognise an issue is incredible.......

Case in point - I've been working on and off with a major label artist for 4 years. The A&R absolutely seriously came in to a meeting just before Xmas about "this new thing he's heard about called "Facebook"...... it's the new thing man - trust me " i know". It's who people will communicate to the audience soon enough"...... He then proceeded to tell us all about "selling thru download" and that single tunes are the way ahead... forget the album. Um - yeah. You mean the way we've been operating ANYWAY for the last 4 years?

The level of "out of touchiness" is amazing!!

[Arthur Stone]

It does sound totally plausible - from my perspective it's a bit like when they pull back the curtain & find the Wizard of Oz

[marcreeves]

Just thought I'd point out you don't need to pay a license for a cover video on youtube. Youtube automatically matches 3rd party content, does the syncing for you, and pays the artists royalties from advertising (adverts will get put on your video.)

They set this up to cover their backs - because the majority of youtubers are not going to understand or even be aware of syncing. Myself, I have many cover videos on youtube and they are synced without me even having to do or pay anything.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by marcreeves

Just thought I'd point out you don't need to pay a license for a cover video on youtube. Youtube automatically matches 3rd party content, does the syncing for you, and pays the artists royalties from advertising (adverts will get put on your video.)

They set this up to cover their backs - because the majority of youtubers are not going to understand or even be aware of syncing. Myself, I have many cover videos on youtube and they are synced without me even having to do or pay anything.

Not true Marc (although I can see why you'd think it bearing in mind it's what Youtube says and what a couple of articles on the 'net are claiming), even if Youtube tell you it is (either that or most of last years business for my company was based on us getting it wrong.... ). The ONLY thing that youtube covers is "incidental" use. Doing a cover version is NOT covered by this. It's for the accidental use when some music "happens to be on" when you film yourself. No direct use is covered by Youtube's publisher agreements..... how could they be? There is no legal mandate to base it on. Even the PRS agreements are for incidental uses... not direct covers. Using licnesed background music? Sure. Placing uncleared covers? No. You can only do a cover for an audio only product.

Content ID - the Youtube "after the fact" facility, is not a mandate to place covers. It is a mechanism for copyright holders to ALLOW video to STAY up even though it was initially unauthorised.

Having said that - it doesn't mean anyone is going to bother chasing the covers down; but it STILL does not mean they are licensed. The communication right to the public (the proper name for a sync license) is not something the PRS, MCPS or Youtube has any mandate to grant without approval from the rights holders AND performers. Youtube like to make a big deal about there "auto"licenses. Unfortunately they are talking boob!!

A communication license is not so much about money as a decision of endorsement. Synchronising visuals places a song endorsement of a viewpoint or visual..... any rights holder will want to know what a song is being used for (you also can't perform it in public willy nilly without PRS etc approval .... so your hardline political rally is going to get a PRS decline for such performance licenses). It's why the only compulsory license is for a "song performance" - any deviation would need permit. The deal is for accidental use and most certainly not for direct covers or intentional performances!


Youtube may claim to have a facility to deal with it after the fact - but it's only in the same way that most sync licences are STILL being cleared up when the game hits the shelf or the movie is in the theatre. Dotting i's and crossing t's and a very dangerous game if

a) you get 10 million hits
b) you've made £100k out of your youtube page.....

wait for THAT problem. In other words... YOutube have NO mandate to carry out such an operation even though they claim it. What happens in practise is the videos get taken down. The only LEGAL advice you can give anyone is "clear it first"!

there are a couple of basic blanket deals from some publishers... Warner Chappell has one (but with a lot of content still restricted).... you still need to ask the publisher first. And generally 99% of requests get declined.

In conclusion - the biggest problem is this: there is no legal mandate or suitable license for Youtube covers.... and without a legal mandate you cannot auto authorise ANYTHING without permit even though Youtube says you can. The big money making fact (for my lot )is... you can't!!

[unitymusic]

Can someone give me an update on the current status of youtube, or just explain to me if I'm getting this correct, and if so, why hasn't something changed?

I did a Beatles cover a while ago, I'd like to post it on youtube. Now I know most people don't clear their covers, but I'd still like to do the right thing.

My issues are: 1) I have no idea how many views it will get; I don't expect a lot but since people could stumble upon it you never know I guess. It makes no sense to buy X amount of distributed copies when you're not actually manufacturing a set amount of copies.

2) If I buy the rights to say 1,000 copies, I could actually monetize the video, right? Say I pay $.09 a copy, then youtube pays me $.00025 a view or whatever, that is actually costing me money everytime someone watches it, quite a bit actually.

3) What happens if I buy rights to distribute 1,000 copies but by some strange fluke of fate it gets 100,000 views? Does that mean I just took myself broke by trying to do the right thing?

Youtube should really be obligated to pay mechanical licenses on covers or take them all down. If not, it's only fair for people who ignore the law.

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

Can someone give me an update on the current status of youtube, or just explain to me if I'm getting this correct, and if so, why hasn't something changed?

I did a Beatles cover a while ago, I'd like to post it on youtube. Now I know most people don't clear their covers, but I'd still like to do the right thing.

My issues are: 1) I have no idea how many views it will get; I don't expect a lot but since people could stumble upon it you never know I guess. It makes no sense to buy X amount of distributed copies when you're not actually manufacturing a set amount of copies.

2) If I buy the rights to say 1,000 copies, I could actually monetize the video, right? Say I pay $.09 a copy, then youtube pays me $.00025 a view or whatever, that is actually costing me money everytime someone watches it, quite a bit actually.

3) What happens if I buy rights to distribute 1,000 copies but by some strange fluke of fate it gets 100,000 views? Does that mean I just took myself broke by trying to do the right thing?

Youtube should really be obligated to pay mechanical licenses on covers or take them all down. If not, it's only fair for people who ignore the law.

1/ It's a bit like food shopping...you don't know if you're going to need all those doughnuts but you still have to buy a packet of 6. Some will go stale if not eaten.
2/ Welcome to vanity publishing.
3/ You'd need to buy more units.

To do things legally you'll need a 'sync' license (for the video) and a mechanical license for the music.

I tried to do things legally but it's a mugs game and there is no intention to grant a sync license - you'll just get put in a queue for eternity. After my experiences (detailed in the posts above) I'm not at all suprised that so much piracy exists; the market passively encourages it.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck, but if you manage to get a sync license I will eat my hat.

[unitymusic]

So there's really no way to put a legit cover on youtube for most people? That's crazy; I wouldn't bother with a mechanical license if the lack of a sync license would still make it illegitimate. If that's how it works I wont even bother posting it.

[Arthur Stone]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

So there's really no way to put a legit cover on youtube for most people? That's crazy; I wouldn't bother with a mechanical license if the lack of a sync license would still make it illegitimate. If that's how it works I wont even bother posting it.

I was helping a friend out and bought the mechanical license first as a goodwill gesture before applying for the sync license. It's of no use without the sync.
Although I was naive, I've learnt a valuable lesson: use your own material as it's much easier (although people will steal that!).
The situation is nonsensical particularly as they are trying to stop piracy and also as they are failing to collect potential revenue on behalf of their clients. Few businesses operate this way.

If the argument was that an artist wished to protect his reputation, then OK...but the truth is that the artist will never even know that you've applied for permission.

[unitymusic]

Thanks for your input, it is a shame it operates this way. I do mostly do my own stuff, it would just be nice to have a cover or two so there's a possibility for people to stumble onto it without looking specifically for my stuff, and maybe if they liked it check out a song or two of mine.

[Arthur Stone]

Yeah, it's good to remain positive; that's just the way it is...no-one is to blame...perhaps the situation will evolve.

[unitymusic]

Eh, someone is to blame; I'm still trying to narrow down exactly who, but at this point my presumption is youtube and the publishing companies.