IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

The following may interest readers.

I posted a video on YouTube of my daughter's class at school dancing to "The Ugly Bug Ball" sung by Burl Ives (don't worry I'm not including a link here!).
Within minutes it had been flagged (no surprise there).
I disputed the claim citing, the IAC licence scheme (of which I am a member).
I've just received notification the my dispute has been rejected:

Your video may include the following copyrighted content:
Disputed claims

"Burl Ives-The Ugly Bug Ball", sound recording administered by:
EMI Dispute rejected; claim has been reinstated.

It goes on to say that the video will be blocked in 54 countries (including Belgium, Willy will be grateful to know) but still available in 193 including the UK and USA.

I'm not clear whether this is because the IAC scheme only covers the UK or whether YouTube simply doesn't recogise it. The scheme does specificly allow for inclusion in YouTube

MCPS protects the Rights of the Composer and permits the licensee to record (dub) musical works owned by its members which have previously been released as a sound recording on condition that the recordings are privately used only:
...
g) For inclusion, as clips and short videos, in YouTube - provided there is no financial gain and no commercial advertising is attached. Such clips may be "embedded" in IAC and club websites so long as they are hosted by YouTube.

Hi Tim

I wrote a piece for FVM about all this last year. The gist of it was:

The music industry is coming to terms with how people want to use music on the internet. Arrangements for licensing have changed, organisations have merged or allowed others to act as their agents. YouTube (UK) has made agreements with UK trade bodies, which ease the restrictions in return for a quarterly payment. The industry focus is on commercial and indie usage. The IAC Copyright Scheme remains in place but does not specifically relate to web use.

YouTube and Us

99% of YouTube processing is totally automatic. It has to be. About 35 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every single minute! Their “Content ID” computer programs gradually check all uploads for music and video copyright violations. When they find a match they generate a message to the copyright holders and a warning to the video maker.

In Britain there seems to be four levels of YouTube response:

• 1. No action may be taken.
  2. They add a pop-up advertisement to your video – a nuisance, but viewers can close it. That's not a bad compromise considering the free video hosting they provide.
  3. Sometimes they remove the soundtrack, which is much more annoying. They offer access to a bank of music which is cleared for use, but if your work contains dialogue and sound effects that is little use. If the video project is still in your editor you could, possibly remake the soundtrack using their music.
  4. Very occasionally they remove a video altogether.

So far as I can tell, notice of the possible copyright infringement is passed to the music company concerned and they choose whether to do nothing, insist on a change etc. That decision may be computer-generated or made by a human being.

Dealing with the Problem

No software is perfect and YouTube’s Content ID programs can make mistakes, but usually they are right. If your music came from a royalty free CD or download from a supplier who allows internet use, the supplier is notified and will do nothing.

If the music came from a normal commercial CD or download, the company concerned is notified and may, or may not, take action.

If the track came from a "music library" of the sort usually only offered to film and TV producers, or to IAC members through the music advice scheme, the way the supplier responds depends whether or not they identify you as a customer who has bought internet rights.

Music supplied through the IAC Advice scheme is not automatically cleared for internet use.

I suggest that if your videos remain on view, do nothing. If they are muted or removed tell YouTube that you have rights either through direct purchase from the music supplier concerned or through the IAC licence scheme. YouTube will pass that claim on to the music company concerned. Most of them will respect that view and allow the video to remain. Some will not.

Wider Issues

The notes above refer only to YouTube in the UK, because in other countries music rights are owned by other companies. I know of no other video hosts with music industry agreements, but they all run checks and may remove videos which infringe copyright.

As responsible citizens we want to obey the law, but it is not clear how to do so. That is unsatisfactory, but it arises because copyright is a complex area with many fingers in the pie. Ultimately those who own the rights can lay down whatever rules they want.

The safest ways to avoid trouble are:
- use Royalty Free recordings which include internet rights
- compose your own music, perhaps with a suitable computer program
- negotiate fees with the bodies concerned. (That is expensive and is tricky because different companies own the rights in different parts of the world.)

This article was prompted by a query from Geoff Caudwell, who noted “I have successfully removed blocks on my videos by mentioning the IAC licences, but does that really mean that I have complete clearance; or is it just someone (perhaps with little knowledge of copyright law) ticking a box, on seeing that I have some sort of official bit of paper?”

My personal view is that someone is demonstrating the general goodwill of the music industry towards us. There is no formal agreement between IAC and YouTube or any other video hosting company. The YouTube (UK) deal serves all YouTube users in Britain … including us.

And for the future? The British music companies have established a new type of licensing for people like wedding videographers who want to sell small numbers of DVDs which include copyright music. Search for “Limited Manufacture Licence” on http://www.prsformusic.com. Maybe they will get round to a new type of licence for our sort of use.

Let me stress: I am not a lawyer or copyright expert – nor a spokesman for the IAC. This article is based on practical experience and some online research. Bear in mind that images may be copyright too and that copyright applies whether or not we intend to make money from our work.

Yet another reason to use Vimeo..!!

Many thanks for your message, Tim. It is very good to know that your video is blocked in 54 countries including Belgium. I am not surprised. Here filmmaking is in decline just like anywhere else (apart from the UK), but I think it is also because the copyright rules are too severe in Belgium. I mean for hobbyists like you and me. Our two national umbrella organisations (similar to the IAC) complain about the policy of SABAM which has the copyright monopoly. They complain on their websites. Even politicians are powerless. Swear words like "mafia" are used in the media, but without any results. SABAM protects the rights of composers, artists, filmmakers, ... A noble objective, but ...

Copyright and tsunami
Once I asked SABAM the permission to sell my film "Wildebroc", a documentary about my town. Why ? Because I wanted to raise funds for the tsunami victims. The Mayor of my town had asked every club and other organisation to do something.

Some years before I had given SABAM a list with all the songs being used in that film. SABAM didn't want to search for that list now. It was somewhere in their archives, a clerk said. They had no time to search for it. She asked me to add a new soundtrack to the film. The voice of my narrator and music... !!! And to fill in a new form. Maybe in that case I could sell the film to raise funds. Really I am not exaggerating. The SABAM lady told me this in a phone call. Actually I should have gone to the press with it.

We must also thank Dave for his reply, Tim. It is clear and very detailed. It all shows that this forum offers a fantastic means of communication.

Your message is important because in my second club the members post a video on You Tube every minute. Maybe they take risks and do not realize it.

Imagine !
In your fiction film your actor is in a pub. He is standing in front of a vintage juke box. He puts a coin in it. A record falls. You can hear "Jailhouse Rock" by Elvis Presley. Do you have to ask the permission to MCPS or SABAM (in Belgium) to use that song? Or let's say "We are the Champions" by Queen which is not so old.

Ten years ago we didn't have these problems. Now we can end up behind bars.
Luckily my wife Vera will come and visit me, she always says a bit scornfully.

Dave says: "Bear in mind that images may be copyright too". What are images? How do we know that they are copyright? Photos for instance? Some months ago I asked the permission to film a photo of Fernandel. I contacted an agency in Paris. They asked 295 euros for that picture. Of course I am not going to use it. There are limits.

Imagine!
In your film you show a "family quiz" in an acting scene. Your main actor shows his friends a photo of Nelson Mandela. He asks them who it is. Are you allowed to use this photo?

Actually we have ended up in a stupid situation, haven't we? Another few years and we can throw our cameras in the rubbish bin because then we will not be allowed to do this and to do that. Of course nobody can prevent me from making films for fun if they are only shown in my family within the four walls of my house, the four walls of my freedom.

Dave Watterson wrote: I wrote a piece for FVM about all this last year. The gist of it was:

Indeed, Dave and I read it - thanks for posting it here as a reminder and for the benefit of others. But not until now have I had a "test" case.

I was going to suggest that the IAC should remove the claim I mentioned above

MCPS protects the Rights of the Composer and permits the licensee to record (dub) musical works owned by its members which have previously been released as a sound recording on condition that the recordings are privately used only:
...
g) For inclusion, as clips and short videos, in YouTube - provided there is no financial gain and no commercial advertising is attached. Such clips may be "embedded" in IAC and club websites so long as they are hosted by YouTube.

but then again the web page does state it applied to the UK - other areas may differ (or words to such effect) and I suppose, whilst not specifically stated, YT hasn't removed the audio from UK downloaders so i should be satisfied with that.

Still, this is why for "serious" films I only use production music or music released under CC.

So YouTube will block some videos put up on their site at the request of the rights owners. In many cases they don't as there are hundreds of rip-offs of broadcast programs and copyrighted music that are on-line. How many amateur film makers have been charged with copyright infringement? The IAC music licence is great but it is essentially a UK licence; how strong is it where a film is entered in an International Festival? Here in the USA under the "fair use" terms of the copyright law educational use of protected material is permitted which is why AMPS is registered as an "educational not-for-profit". Parody is also not an infringement and this was tested in the Mattel Barbie Doll case. Are we over-reacting to a perceived threat? I am all for artists being recompensed for their work but perhaps their first port of call should be the record companies; art galleries and producers who regularly rip them off!!

ned c

Tim - the IAC webmaster has amended the copyright statement to indicate that it is not all clear-cut:

There is an asterisk by the section you mention and a footnote:
"* YouTube use is not always allowed. It depends on the decision of the rights holder/s who may insist on accompanying advertising or even withhold permission for the use of the music."

Dave Watterson wrote:Tim - the IAC webmaster has amended the copyright statement to indicate that it is not all clear-cut:

Thanks Dave (and Jan). I know its pedantic (I'm quite good at that) but it's best to be clear.
Most of my videos end up on YouTube - not because I'm after blowing my ego by getting lots of hits, but simply because it's a convenient way to share films with family, frieds and other film makers - particularly on another forum which has a pretty good section for critcising each others films. Whilst I'd been thinking of joining the IAC for a couple of years it was the fact that the "YouTube agreement" suddenly appeared which tipped me over the edge. Suddenly I could make films and use commercial music and reach the audience I wanted. But alas it seems it was too good to be true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining as I always imagined that it would come to this and in practice it has made little difference. Only if YouTube pull my account without warning will I feel peeved. At least I feel I have done the right thing morally by purchasing licences.

I understand what you mean, Ned. You wonder how many amateur filmmakers have been charged with copyright infringement. In the UK, USA, ... perhaps not any! But here it was shocking to hear that one of our best amateur filmmakers was penalized. That was about 10 years ago. It all began after our channel 1 TV had the brilliant idea to interview amateur filmmakers and give them the opportunity to show their films on TV. Maybe the copyright organization thought they had found a new source of income. In the mean time the filmmaker and TV programme have disappeared.

Every country is different. And indeed, the IAC licence is essentially a UK licence. What's happening in Belgium is not happening in Britain. That's good. Now I realize that over-reacting is not wise, but here in Flanders we get a warning from our umbrella organisation every minute. Because of this I fear I have been a panic-monger on this thread.

By the way, some hours ago I was still in the South East of England. The weather was excellent on Thursday. I filmed in Tonbridge and Rye Harbour. I have another few hours of footage. Good for editing my new films on rainy days. When I got home there was an envelope in my letterbox. A penalty from the French Republic. Two weeks ago I was in England, but on my way back in France drove 97km and the maximum speed was 90km. Oh, dear, they need money everywhere.