You Tube .......again

[Alwyn Anne]

Hi all,

Once again, on uploading a video onto You Tube, they have muted my video because of the music content. I presume as a member of the IAC and hold a music licence I can still show my films with music?

I have disputed the claim that I have breached copyright but it seems every time I upload a film You Tube dispute my music.

The only reason I upload films onto You Tube is to then put them onto our club's website, I presume there isn't another way to get them on to a websites?

[John Roberts]

I'm not sure about this but as far as I am aware the IAC licence should cover the use of, presumably, the commercial music you have used. I'm fairly sure somewhere you ought to state the music licence numbers as well. Perhaps someone with more precise knowledge of exactly what IS covered will comment.

But having said that, 'YouTube' appears to be a law unto itself. As far as I understand it, the muting of the music might be lifted upon appeal, as long as whoever made the copyright claim can place adverts (and therefore potentially make money) at the start of your production. The copyright claim is an entirely automatic process in the first instance because of the sheer volume of videos being uploaded on a daily basis.

I say 'YouTube' because they pretend not to get involved. I recently uploaded the two music videos I made to my own YouTube channel - and both videos were immediately hit with a copyright breach notice, from 'The Orchard Music'. I looked into them and found they operate out of an office in New York, so I sent an appeal telling them they had no legal right to claim copyright to a song from a band based in Rotherham that I was a member of, that they had no connection in any way whatsoever with the band, they had no authority from the band, that I had permission from all the band members and written permission from the songwriter to produce the promo video and use the music, that all the said band members appear in the video, are credited at the end etc etc etc, and guess what...? The appeal was rejected and they stated that I could use our own band's music as long as they place an advert at the start of the video, potentially making money out of our song that has nothing to do with The Orchard Music at all! I was also told that further appeals might result in my account having a 'strike' and the video being removed altogether!

Good luck with it, Alwyn - I would appeal and wait to see what the outcome is. Adverts are unfortunately a necessary evil that are used to fund expensive servers so that we can host our videos for free, so if you're stuck with the adverts it will be better than no video at all. Or you could use Vimeo instead and embed into your club's website from there

John

[col lamb]

Forget YouTube

John has given you a far better alternative in Vimeo

[Alwyn Anne]

Thank you John. I have looked at my video after 'disputing the muting' and it seems to play ok now. That seemed very quick!! But won't complain.
It certainly is a minefield!! Good luck with your problem.

[Alwyn Anne]

Thank you Colin, keep meaning to try Vimeo!

[Dave Watterson]

I seem to write this quite often in various places ...

The IAC Licences do NOT cover use of music on the web. You can see what they do cover on the main IAC website.

The IAC scheme was negotiated in the 8mm days, when only modest quality of sound copying could be obtained and when almost no amateur films were copied/duplicated. The scheme covers what was normal amateur film use in those days - at home, in the club and at a couple of public shows where all receipts are for charity.

YouTube itself made a deal with the major UK music agencies. YouTube pays them a fee in return for very little interference with the material on its website. (The rights owners/artists/their management can ban the work in any specific case. They usually only do that when the music has been used in a way which associates them with a cause they do not support.)

As John explained a computer program checks all uploaded video soundtracks on YouTube. If it finds patterns which are a close match for music it has on file, it reports to the rights owners. (The system is very good but not perfect at recognising music as John has found.)

The rights owners then respond as they wish. Many do nothing, some insist on advertising links, some bar the music. For the large agencies their responses are almost all automatic. (Hence, I suspect, the continued pursuit of John. I guess no human being, or no person with any discretion and authority, read his message.)

The other problem is that YouTube is inherently international and the music agencies in UK only hold the rights to the music in Britain. So you may find that a film you can watch in UK cannot be watched in Germany or Australia etc because the music has not been cleared.

Around 300 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute of the day.
300 hours! Every 60 seconds!
You cannot blame them for automating everything as much as possible, even if it upsets a small number of users who are - let us face it - getting a free service.

Vimeo uses the same music recognition software but there seem to be fewer problems there.

You can upload films to Vimeo or to the oddly named DailyMotion website and embed the films on your own website.

[John Roberts]

Dave W is of course correct, although it has taken me a further and more thorough 'read-through' of the IAC website pages to find a phrase that states: "This gives you clearance for private use and/or exhibition to a non-paying audience."

However, on the actual page regarding the copyright clearance details it specifically states in section 6:

"It is an offence:
To make a recording of Copyright music, even if that recording is not played back
To record, or copy, any recording without the consent of the maker and or performer(s)
To play or reproduce Copyright music in public without the appropriate permissions

Any group of persons including neighbours and friends outside the family circle have been held by the Courts to be PUBLIC.

THE IAC COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE SCHEMES PROTECT MEMBERS FROM THE ABOVE RISKS."

The upper case letters are not my addition, they are on the website. So one could read that although, as stated, it is an offence to reproduce (i.e. copy into ones film) copyrighted music in public (public held by the courts to include ANY group of persons including family and friends outside the family circle, i.e. potentially the rest of the world) the IAC COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE SCHEMES PROTECT MEMBERS FROM THE ABOVE RISKS. One could also argue that viewers of YouTube or Vimeo are indeed a non-paying audience, and what are YouTube etc if they are not "a public show where art or other interesting things are put so that people can go and look at them"? (one dictionary definition of an exhibition).

I don't think the wording on the IAC website is clear enough, obviously justified by Dave W having to explain several times what must be the single most important issue we have with copyright. Some clarification might therefore be needed on the website, possibly utilising the same bold red typeface from Dave W's post. Then we'll know for sure


Regarding my claim, YouTube's computer program correctly and perfectly identified both music tracks that I uploaded - my issue is that YouTube's third party 'rights owners' are absolutely NOT the rights owners - we are - yet they are still claiming advertising revenue with a threat to strike my profile and delete my video if I don't shut up. I'm a stickler for copyright clearances and would actively and ruthlessly pursue breaches of copyright of my own works, but fair's fair!

[col lamb]

If the licence does not allow web use then, why bother with it, and why bother staying with the IAC?

[Dave Watterson]

I have just made the sort of changes John suggests on the Copyright pages.

[TimStannard]

If the licence does not allow web use then, why bother with it, and why bother staying with the IAC?

Because you can still use it in competitions and festivals and indeed it is usually a stipulation of those festivals that copyright clearance must be obtained.

As an aside, I am absolutely 100% positive that the Copyright page once stated (maybe 8 years ago) that it did cover YouTube but ONLY YouTube on the web.

Anne, whilst there appears little doubt that Vimeo is "better" I'll restate my arguments that YouTube is better if you want to tell people where your videos are and if you want people to "come across" them.

I hit another issue with Vimeo at the weekend. My daughter wanted me to put up a 20 min edit of her wedding (her edit decisions, I was simply the techie) but I couldn't get it down to the 500MB I'm allowed free with Vimeo at anything like a decent bitrate. Off to YouTube and upload the 1.6GB original, no problem.

Oh, and it correctly identified the commercial music I'd used and was quite happy with that. Daughter and her mother cried. Everyone happy

[Michael Slowe]

What a muddle copyright has become! For years we've got away with using other people's music so we can hardly complain. I've got about eight of my old 'cut to music' impressionistic films on You Tube, I think that there was a claim on one of them some years ago, but otherwise all OK.

I now only put stuff on Vimeo. I much prefer it, I can easily get my documentaries down to my limit of 3GB's per film and the quality is fantastic. I agree that the site is not easy to navigate, but then You Tube can be a mess too. As to music clearances, I now only use music for which I pay a small fee. I use Audio Network who have a magnificent library, especially compiled for film makers and I can't speak too highly of them. If you're going to all the trouble entailed with the making of a film then it makes sense to ensure peace of mind regarding the contents.

[Lee Prescott]

Hi Anne and everyone:

"Youtube" should be sent down the tube...I've recently had similar problems to Anne and also John R. Very recently on several items I've had this © copyright c**p from Youtube. Twice their system claimed some so called infringement about music I / we don't even possess! Twice also related to
music used from COPYRIGHT FREE (AKM) discs! Frankly, having scanned their listings from which I gleaned their referred to information I chose the option to "ignore" it all. So they stated that adverts would appear on the videos concerned. These did and of course in the form of short bars along the bottom of the frame but by clicking on the X at the top right of the ads. they immediately "slid away" and stayed away!

Dave is quite right on what he's posted and as others state: Vimeo is a much better proposition - at this time!

Another thing to is that it's impossible to communicate (e-mail) with Youtube but Vimeo has a Support e-mail address. I've used this about four times - nothing to do with copyright, (it's never reared it's head with Vimeo) just to do with technicalities. NOTE: In every case their answer came well within 24 hours GMT and over a name which one can address any reply to!

I only use(d) Youtube because a certain "on line" TV channel embeds video's from us, otherwise I wouldn't touch Youtube.

Oh and another item: A while ago I uploaded a video to Youtube and I got: "Your video is banned in four countries...Germany, Japan plus two obscure islands" I'd never heard of! The video is about Dogs! I never new they "ate" dogs in Germany and Japan! Never did when I was "gracing" their countries! I cannot think of any other reason in a totally harmless production! Utterly crazy!

[Lee Prescott]

If the licence does not allow web use then, why bother with it, and why bother staying with the IAC?

Re the quote above by Col Lamb.

In a discussion recently with Dave W. a similar thought passed through my mind.

I suggested to Dave that the IAC "hierarchy" on behalf of all members should address the business of our purchasing the BPI/MCPS licences.

OK, so these are apparently U.K. matters but: since Youtube is forever rumbling on about © copyright and since we cannot, certainly never afford to acquire some sort of International Licence" and since all music is international - then they should recognise that we "contribute" to the copyright owners coffers! Again, this is something that as an official organisation the IAC should be doing or at least trying to do on behalf of all members.

[col lamb]

Even before this topic raised its head about the parapet I had decided to leave the IAC and hence I will not be renewing my subscription and the DD has been cancelled.

OK so from now on I will only use copyright free music hence I do not need the IAC.

Any movies I have on the web with commercial music I will delete as I was under the impression that they were covered by the license.

I have wasted a few years on subscribing to the IAC when I have essentially been getting nothing from it via the licence so when I thought I was covered it seems that I have not, very aggrieved about that

(Please do not mention IAC benefits of the IAC Mag as that is the biggest money pit and a should be scrapped with only content only).

If I make a movie for my own enjoyment and use commercial music then so be it.

It seems like the IAC is being reactive and not proactive, if it had been proactive then this thread would not have been needed.

[John Roberts]

Col, if you had decided to leave the IAC before this topic was raised, then I assume there must be some additional underlying issues you have? If the licences had indeed covered the use of music over the internet, upon their lapsing you would no longer be covered anyway; as you know, producing a film in a particular year during which you had obtained a music licence does not entitle you to use that music ad infinitum.

The topic of IAC benefits has been brought up before so this is the wrong thread to start that discussion again. I know you are/were not a member of the IAC for selfish reasons but let's project what might happen if everyone, reactively, left the IAC and it no longer existed. There would be no central core of organising and funding for seminars, no training grants, BIAFF would no longer exist (check the financial reports at the AGM for IAC funding levels), the IAC regions would no longer exist, regional events and seminars would cease, hundreds of clubs would not have the support they are offered through the club liaison scheme, IAC affiliated clubs (if you are a member of one and show any of your films at any of the club's events) would lose access to the IAC subsidised music licences allowing public performances etc and therefore the club or its members individually would have to fund their own full-cost licence to stay legal, this forum would not exist, the magazine (and/or its content) would not exist, the music advisory service would stop, the young persons initiatives would no longer be available, the UK would have no voice at UNICA etc etc etc...

Everyone has a voice and if an IAC member wishes to raise a point for discussion then they can do so at the AGM or email any of the Council members and it will be added to the agenda of the next Council meeting where it will be discussed. It's fairly pointless, as Lee did, to 'suggest' to someone outside the 'hierarchy' that the 'hierarchy' should look into something or other; the Council need to know what concerns its members have. If no-one brings an issue to Council then it simply won't be addressed, in the same way that the oft-criticised content of FVM hardly ever receives fresh content from those doing the criticising. It's not a case of not being proactive but the IAC and its Council need to know what its members want and unfortunately the Council's ability to mind read falls a little short in these matters.

So, tell us what you want (Lee and everyone) or email someone in Council, or PM me, and I will offer it to Council to discuss. Col, if you wish to PM me about any issues you have I would like to hear them, maybe we can find some solution, or I can take them to Council if you wish. If it's something you prefer not to discuss then that's fine too. The IAC is nothing without its members, but if members want more/less/different things, then Council needs to know.

My apologies to the OP for temporarily hijacking the thread, maybe we should respectively start a new topic before this one goes completely off track?

John