You Tube .......again

[Lee Prescott]

I refer and reply to John's "Blast".......

Re "Pointless"! No way hosea! Dave might "currently" not be a squatting member of the IAC hierarchy he is far from being an "outside" influence! Of course I cannot speak for him and I would never attempt to do so but the foregoing IS my opinion. His wife Jan and he are responsible
for the IAC web site and that includes this Forum and a first class job they do. Dave is influential and he is also President of UNICA, (not before time)!

As to addressing members of the "hierarchy" - if any of them ever bothered to read through these Forums they would quickly learn a lot of what concerns IAC Members. Also, if the IAC Council Members were not banned from responding to PPL posting in these Forums then we might - just might - perhaps achieve some gains. (If any of 'em do trot through these Forum subjects nothing at all happens as a result)!

Item - "Filming in Public Places":-

I discovered that the RPS had covered this problem for their members - 'some time previously'!
I add that it was myself who drew the attention of the IAC Council via FVM to the then complete lack of guidance and advice with regard to
Filming in Public Places" which resulted in a certain member of the said IAC Council communicating with the Association of Chief Police Officers! ACPOs reply was published in FVM. I always carry a copy of that letter with me along with my IAC Membership card - which I present when necessary! --- Yes I drew the attention of the "hierarchy" to this matter - a thing that you state we should do.....The point I am making here John R is that my comments were taken as nothing more than a criticism, something they very much dislike I have learned to my "cost"! The result was that I was "tipped off" that anything further I offered for FVM had to, should I say, be scrutinised before publication was "permitted" (which is why I rarely if ever write anything for FVM anymore! So, what's the point of following your suggestion?

Finally: I first joined the IAC in 1960 left twice and re-joined twice, so I have seen and heard a lot in half a century plus! I mention this simply because many arguments / comments regarding the IAC and its methods never change! ------}

[John Roberts]

It appears I am in trouble again I'm sorry you took my post the wrong way, Lee - it certainly wasn't meant in any way to be a blast, so please accept my apologies.

In respect to the OP we should return to the topic of YouTube copyright.

[Lee Prescott]

Nah...worry thyself not John! Apologies certainly not needed! "Blast" is just one of my terms of use culled from things thrown at me from the IAC over the years. In truth I've become "immune"! You are however quite right it's got Off Topic but I felt my reply was essential following your comments. So, Youtube, or as some Youngsters call it here, "OO-OO-Toob", we'll no doubt return to now and again as their naughty harassment of us Great Brits. continues!

[John Roberts]

Interestingly, I've seen this disclaimer appearing on a number of YouTube videos lately:

** Advert choice allows royalties to the copyright holder for music use with their full approval **

Curious...

[Lee Prescott]

** Advert choice allows royalties to the copyright holder for music use with their full approval **

Umaah John,

Well I aint never seen that, all I know is that "OO-OOtoob" has become a "pain" in the "?" Was it ever anything but?

[Pqtrick]

You Tube again. I have used 'Audionetwork' for all my music either for personal films to friends and family or for festivals and competitions. The cost is minimal only £1 for each piece. I feel safer with this than the IAC licence. To my knowledge and having asked the question to several of the IAC upper echelons about various aspects of the music licence the whole issue has not been revisited for years. I was in communication with the PRS/MCPS about another enquiry and the person I spoke with had no knowledge of the IAC arrangement.

The sort of response I have had from the IAC contacts is on the basis of 'let sleeping dogs lie' and 'we don't want to stir up a can of worms'. Perhaps it would prove that finding out that the whole arrangement in todays terms is invalid.

That is why I use 'Audionetwork'. If you contact them you get a reply. They apply the student rate for our sort of films and advise if you have problems with YouTube et al.

Pqtrick

[Michael Slowe]

Patrick, I also mentioned Audio Network a few posts ago. Your cost of £1 amused me though. I was charged £200 to licence one of my films some years ago, and the channel that was broadcasting it had to settle with them also. Mind you, I still feel happier knowing that I have worldwide clearance, can sign any form with a clear conscience and, the most important thing, their music is fantastic! Huge choice, I have over 200 CD's from the days they were sending them out to customers, all brilliantly catalogued. The IAC is a good scheme to belong to because, even though we aren't sure what it entitles us to do, we can hide behind it should we get picked up for something. The same as having our IAC ID card, useful to produce if in trouble, as Prescott mentions.

[Lee Prescott]

.........useful to produce if in trouble, as Prescott mentions.

Mr. Slowe, as you know, my name is LEE you're quite welcome to use it...it's not of itself actually © copyright!!!
However - I wouldn't like to get mixed up with Lord John version!

[TimStannard]

PThe IAC is a good scheme to belong to because, even though we aren't sure what it entitles us to do, we can hide behind it should we get picked up for something.

What's more we can dub some relevant contemporary "chart" music onto our family videos (which has always been a great way of linking film to it's period) in the knowledge that we are doing it with a clear conscience.

[Michael Slowe]

Lee, do you have "two Jags"?

[Lee Prescott]

Michael Slowe » Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:24 pm .....Lee, do you have "two Jags"?

Umaaah! Well I suppose that I am expected to reply to the above ---although "off thread"! (I seem to remember
that you have asked me this once before)!

Well Mr. Michael Slowe and All...I do not possess any Jaguars, not even a hub cap from one! Neither do I have a wife
who needs to visit a Hairdresser every two days to have her hair styled! My only more recent claim to fame is
to have been awarded the IAC's "F A C I" . Most unfortunately too, this does not allot me a Cosy Dozy seat in
Lord John P's Emporium, (House of Lords), at £300. (GBP) per day............ Nor does it exempt me from "OO-TOOB's"
© copyright comments even though having contributed to Composers Coffers through the IAC's Licensing arrangements!
LEE

[John Smith]

As a 'newcomer' to the IAC forum - this makes rather interesting reading.

I suspect that the IAC Council would not be too keen to open negotiations with the various copyright holders in the UK in case those copyright holders suddenly realise just how little the IAC is currently paying for its three licences.

That could result in the IAC members losing the permissions that they currently enjoy.

[John Roberts]

Welcome to the forum, John

Actually, you make a very interesting point. The cost of any one of the three licences from the IAC, if they were to be bought independently, would be prohibitive for most people. I wandered into my local DJ shop and spotted one of the licences displayed on the wall (I think it was the PPL, but I'm not sure) so I asked to check how much it was. £221 for the year...!

It's more than likely that the IAC licence deals were struck many years ago, in a time before the internet was a gleam in anyone but Nikola Tesla's eye. They were and still are tailored for events the IAC support and encourage, i.e. the getting together of like-minded filmmakers and general public to be entertained with films made by IAC members. Putting films on the internet is an entirely different case altogether.

As an aside there is another issue to consider as well, one which I will make with my musicians hat on. My last album took 18 months of hard, solid work, cost me a fortune in recording and production and eventual replication of the CDs etc. I wrote all the songs, played all the electric instruments, composed and arranged the orchestra and even sang on it! I would be pretty peeved if an £8 set of licences allowed the unfettered use of any or even all of the songs from that album to be used ad infinitum on online films with absolutely no input or control from me, only to be told that the filmmakers use of my music is covered by a licence from which I make what amounts to no money (even though all my work is registered with the MCPS). I would be more than happy to allow the use of any of my work in films for free if I am asked, but very unhappy to think that for just a few quid a year access would be granted carte blanche for any piece of music to simply be grabbed, stuck in any number of productions and put out on the world wide web.

Besides, I think as filmmakers we have a duty to support and encourage not only other filmmakers but other artists as well. We spend countless weeks and months planning and searching for the right locations or actors, then filming and editing our masterpieces, so why not spend a couple of days looking for a bunch of hard up musicians that need a break - believe me most would be honoured to be asked about the use of their music for a film production. Failing that, look for copyright free music or pay a fee for licenced music such as the Audio Network CDs.

Just a thought

[John Smith]

Hi John,

Thanks for the response.

As a member of a number of different bands over the years I agree that it would be rather annoying if all your talent and hard work were just taken and used for whatever without you being asked ... or without any payment being received.

The only plus would be that your music would be being heard and appreciated but now in a much wider arena than the original licenses were intended for.

This is the thought behind the 'Creative Commons' licences where musicians freely place their work with a number of different criteria for how it can be used.

From reading one of your earlier posts it would appear that it is often not the musicians themselves who are trying to invoke the copyright claim but 'others' who, because of their size/power, are making a claim, for copyright payment to which they are not entitled.

Maybe the authorities should spend their time checking up on these people and asking them for proof of their legitimacy to make what is in effect a fraudulent claim!

John

[Lee Prescott]

Another halfpennyworth from me:

Anne originally certainly opened up a "can of worms"about © and Youtube!

Virtually all the experiences mentioned I have experienced with YT since only last August, (2015) when I first started to use it for
community TV purposes.

The recent comment that "Youtube is a law unto itself" is quite correct. They are often a pain in the 'sit-upon'
and frankly it just isn't about music in all its forms.

The position of regarding "adverts on a video" hardly matters because if one clicks on the X top right of the advert bar then,
currently it scoots off! (Just done it with someone's video about an air show).

With regard to Vimeo a much more amenable lot plus the fact that they have and respond to a Support e-mail address.
The other thing too is that none of c**p occurring with Youtube has, so far,arisen with Vimeo. Very easy to use also and....
they upgrade any SD video to HD in the processing.

LEE.