So apparently a video of me playing my own arrangement of a professional artist's song is considered infringement on youtube..

I just got a copyright notice from youtube (filed by Television broadcast limited ( TVB )). It was of the op song i transcribed from a chinese tv drama series called sweetness in the salt.

You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7ymaIY6-8o
On Veoh now http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/v18363085zwb3wSrK

So this is what it has come down to... Cant even post vids of our own transcriptions anymore . It sure wouldn't be the same if youtube only contained original work. Its one thing to use the "exact same copy" of the music, but you would tend to think something as transcribing would be ok right....


Aeth-
http://youtube.com/aethynyc

You can try to file a counter complaint, I'm sure most of this removing is done through bots, and they can make mistakes.

Yeah, I think they just automatically remove a video once a major publishing writes them. Less hassle for them. Flame away. :)

I don't think it was a mistake as a lot of other similar videos have been removed (including the one i made a video response too) and she re-uploaded and got another notice..
Whats the point of even transcribing if you cant show it. We should fight-o *waves battle fans*

At most our transcribed arrangements would help them advertise. There are many people who view transcribed pieces then go onto the original. But then again, the music pirates say the same thing (^)-_-(^)

Hmm, I had a video removed a while back for copyright infringement as well. Though arguably that might have been because I played the original song's off vocal version in the background while I filled the vocal part with playing.

Still, I think Youtube hardly cares about one or two people complaining about their videos being removed. It's much safer to anger a single user than not complying with a company's demands and risk lawsuits. So on that note, I'm not sure how much complaining will do.

When professional artists ripoff others, its called "cover". when you do it, its called "copyright infringement".

Go figure :mellow:




*You haven't done anything illegal, go whine to someone with a brain

All iv got to say is youtubes gettin gay~ You should just transfer all your videos to veoh. Youtubes bound to be dethrone soon enough.

GO PIRATE BAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nice song btw.

I'm done ranting about youtube :P and im not counter-filing (too much work) for something little. I just wanted to share some news and maybe spark a thought to people in the community about how ridiculous it is that they treat transcriptions as infringement.

Ehhh thats quite annoying. is there anything that we will be allowed to watch/put on youtube soon? i mean, does anyone ever get a copyright infringement for playing..Mozart, for example? rrrrrr.

rrrr, no, rrr, Mozart didn't copyright, urrrr


...durrrr

Oh but, Im sure like, Boosey and Hawkes copyright the music... *thinks of other publishing companies*

And Mozart was just an example D:

Ehhh thats quite annoying. is there anything that we will be allowed to watch/put on youtube soon? i mean, does anyone ever get a copyright infringement for playing..Mozart, for example? rrrrrr.

They can if someone can claim an arrangement of it that you played. :-/

Really, for a public performance you need to seek permission from the copyright holder of the song to play it.

What you need to do is get a third party that is willing to aquire the permissions for you. This in itself will cost money. Sometimes the original copyright holder will want you to pay royalties in order to have permission, which is even more money.Also, any transcriptions and arrangements become property of the original copyright holder.

My band had to buy the rights to Old Time Rock 'n Roll in order to play it in the Rosebowl Parade. I believe for that situation it cost us a hefty price.

Oh but, Im sure like, Boosey and Hawkes copyright the music... *thinks of other publishing companies*

And Mozart was just an example D:

I know, it's just you're really teaseable :smartass:

I know how you feel i hate it when youtube pulls one of your videos down It's hapening to me right now

Psssssh Phard. Considering im the only one in IRC who calls you Phard as well. ¬¬

I think it sucks how we can't use the music since were advertising it for them for free which can get them more money

eg
someone watchs the video and likes the song
becomes a fan and buys song/album
goes to concert

so if you have hundreds to thousands of people watching it then that is more money for them. I should know I first found linkin park on a youtube video

I think it sucks how we can't use the music since were advertising it for them for free which can get them more money

eg
someone watchs the video and likes the song
becomes a fan and buys song/album
goes to concert

so if you have hundreds to thousands of people watching it then that is more money for them. I should know I first found linkin park on a youtube video

That's not how it works. I'm pretty sure how you would do it is hear the song, download it from a website, or whatever. It promotes piracy in many ways.

Paying them money to use their song for a public performance guarantees them money, which in turn allow you to use their song under contract.

This was the main reason why I swayed from the music industry, and now studying for an IT career. The Internet definitely ruined the music industry in a billion ways.

That's not how it works. I'm pretty sure how you would do it is hear the song, download it from a website, or whatever. It promotes piracy in many ways.
I'd rather have someone hear my song on a youtube video and maybe decide to pirate it than have that person never have heard of my song at all. At least with the youtube video, the person has a CHANCE of buying my album if he deems me worthy of his money. =P

I'm just staying away from the music industry because it's saturated with garbage that's backed by giant companies with ridiculous amounts of advertising. It seems that good music sells nothing, while complete dredge sells by the truckload. Not a good field to enter as your main career, I don't think.

Honestly, as many music pirates as there are out in the real world, the only musicians that are hurt are those that are past their cycle in time. Material that is brand new gains added popularity that effectually increases public appeal and money rolls in from other things (such as commercials and sponsorships), and for those that have been around longer, it provides a reminder of the musical work and inspires people to buy whatever it is.

Most people that pirate are "try before you buy" people. They'll try something, and if they like it, they'll buy the full product. If not, well, then it's up to the person if they keep the product or not. In a sense, it's favorable to that which the public understands as "good" and raises the competition a bit.

Piracy used to be a problem as most pirates used to be teens wanting to use software that was out of their budget or desired to have every type of music from everywhere, but as the children of the 90s are growing older, the philosophy of piracy is changing to something with a bit more duty. Streaming websites have slimmed the number of pirates down considerably, thanks to immediate content delivery. Music industries have embraced the concept of downloading individual songs for a smaller fee as opposed to purchasing an entire CD. The middleman is now being cut and product is being distributed for free with a donation-like system being implemented for product. Piracy surely has changed the industry, but I would never say that it was changed for the worse. More or less, piracy has turned the market into something that favors the customers rather than favoring the producers.

Nailing people for piracy is just a way for the producers to gain money that they lost due to failure in their marketing techniques. It's been proven with computer software the piracy actually produces higher profit, and pretty much all product follows along with this logic.

When I find music on videos I like I buy it
98.8% of the time. though once it was an old song that you can't get on itunes or from the store.

Hmm, I think we've gone over this on this forums a few times already, since it's a fairly related topic. I think the consensus is, without piracy, the music industry wouldn't be making money off the would-be pirates anyways, since they don't really have the budget to spend on music. And why companies would even mind a really low quality version of their song on youtube is beyond me.

Hmm... maybe that's why they're angry, because the quality is bad and actually portraying their music in a bad light. =p

I even bought the CD and used the music off that on the video.
what I think sucks is that they leave some peoples video's up who leave no credit what so ever and I put credit on the video and they take it down. Which seems unfair

I even bought the CD and used the music off that on the video.
what I think sucks is that they leave some peoples video's up who leave no credit what so ever and I put credit on the video and they take it down. Which seems unfair

I think you are mistaken. The thread originator had a video of his/her arrangement of a song taken down. What you are suggesting is you have your video taken down because you used copyrighted audio with you video which in fact violates copyright even if you do give credit where credit is do.

I know about the tread originators story
I just ment that some people's vids who stay up who give no credit
while others are taken down

I know about the tread originators story
I just ment that some people's vids who stay up who give no credit
while others are taken down

Doesn't change a thing.
If i made a song, and someone posted it in youtube without my consent and having no affiliation with me. I'd be damned furious he's releasing my music for free even if he gave me credit.

Doesn't change a thing.
If i made a song, and someone posted it in youtube without my consent and having no affiliation with me. I'd be damned furious he's releasing my music for free even if he gave me credit.

THIS ^

yes I understand that but the point I am trying to make is
how come the people who put no credit does not get theirs taken down either?

rrrr, no, rrr, Mozart didn't copyright, urrrr


...durrrr

Are you sure? You didn't follow the incredible adventures of the international music score library project...

I don't think youtube should take anything down as long as it isn't making and profit for it's un-original owner. God...I hope all my rewrites don't get taken off :(

I had to do this whole thing twice because it logged me out before I posted it and subsequently deleted the message. (edit: Only to figure out that it comes back once you sign in >.>)

*fuming*

AGAIN…

Transcribing should be protected by Fair Use, while transposing probably is not.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

“The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.”

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

Under “Fair Use and the Inter[webz]”

“In August 2008 U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the 29-second video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, not two weeks as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song.”

Under “Common Misunderstandings”
(The ones I find relevant)

If it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement. Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.[28]
It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose.
Note: In some countries (including the United States of America), the mere creation of a work establishes copyright over it, and there is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright ownership
Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A.

The lack of a copyright notice means the work is public domain. Not usually true. United States law in effect since March 1, 1989 has made copyright the default for newly created works. For a recent work to be in the public domain the author must specifically opt-out of copyright. For works produced between January 1, 1923 and March 1, 1989, copyright notice is required; however, registration was not required[30] and between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 lack of notice is not necessarily determinative, if attempts were made immediately to correct the lack of notice. Any American works that did not have formal registration or notice fell into the Public Domain if registration was not made in a timely fashion. For international works, the situation is even more complex. International authors who failed to provide copyright notice or register with the U.S. copyright office are given additional contemporary remedies that may restore American copyright protection given certain conditions. International authors/corporations who fail to meet these remedies forfeit their copyright. An example of a company who failed to prove copyright was Roland Corporation and their claimed copyright on the sounds contained in their MT-32 synthesizer.[/b]

Neko Koneko is right on the ball. Feel free to contact them and inform them about the situation.

(Music applies, in case you haven’t noticed.)

Transcribing should be protected by Fair Use, while transposing probably is not.

You lost me there. :think:
I don't see how that's plausable...

Give an example of what you mean.

You lost me there. :think:
I don't see how that's plausable...

Give an example of what you mean.

Transcribing (in this case) is the act of taking a piece of music intended for one instrument and altering it for another. Piano to harp, for example. Oftentimes, the same notes are not used because instruments have their own "flavor". Even though the piece is influenced by the original, (assuming it was changed a little), it is a different piece.

Transposing is merely putting the piece in a different key. I don't see why Fair Use should be an adequate defense for that.

The OP said s/he transcribed the piece. YT should not have taken it down.

Not really. The way you defined transcribing is perfectly acceptable. What YouTube may not like is that the transcription or whatever you'd like to call it was made into an audio file and performed on YouTube. That's where the border line of legal/illegal get blurry and why YouTube probably removed the video. It was also probably done by one of their many "spiders" they have to catch infringement and because the video's title and description had key words in it was removed. It's really a toss up if YouTube chooses to remove the infringement.

Yeah, I think they just automatically remove a video once a major publishing writes them. Less hassle for them. Flame away. :)

It's actually a hassle to get youtube take down a copyright infringement video from the site. I had to file a copyright infringement twice on some douche that took my work and claimed it to be his. Youtube kept bugging me to be more damn specific, so I did and gave them a crapload of proof. They took down the video right after. So it's not all just bots and all, they actually require proof and authorization from the copyright owner.

As for the transcription, you can counter-argue it but since you're taking it from an existing piece and modifying it as your own, you're still considered to take more than 50% of the original work without permission.

Not really. The way you defined transcribing is perfectly acceptable. What YouTube may not like is that the transcription or whatever you'd like to call it was made into an audio file and performed on YouTube. That's where the border line of legal/illegal get blurry and why YouTube probably removed the video. It was also probably done by one of their many "spiders" they have to catch infringement and because the video's title and description had key words in it was removed. It's really a toss up if YouTube chooses to remove the infringement.
You're (legally) allowed to perform covers and whatnot and vids (of others' work) without their permission. You just can't post the originals.

(Edit for clarity: It depends on the reason and the manner in which it is posted. That means that it does not apply to every case.)

Now Youtube might have their own little definition. I don't get that, however, from skimming through their rules. It might be an annoying battle; I wouldn't fight it, but you have a chance,


As for the transcription, you can counter-argue it but since you're taking it from an existing piece and modifying it as your own, you're still considered to take more than 50% of the original work without permission.
I posted a link to the gov document on my first post to this thread (few posts back). There's no actual amount of time that makes it copyright infringement. You can arguably get away with posting the entire thing, depending on the reason.

You're (legally) allowed to perform covers and whatnot and vids (of others' work) without their permission. You just can't only post the original song.

Wrong.

Between the PRS[1], ASCAP[2], BMI[3], and SESAC[4] -- all popular songwriter license distributors -- they've generally stated that music is not permitted to be performed publicly without written permission, unless such actions are done via fair use or they are classified by an exemption.

There are only two exemptions to performing a song without explicit permission:
Music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place.
As part of a teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions.

Of course, this then begs the argument of what exactly is a "Teaching" activity. Technically, if utilized properly, users could manipulate youtube services such that it would be classified as the second bullet. BUT! youtube has ads placed on each of their webpages. Therefore, even though you produced the content without any desire to make money, another party is, meaning that youtube cannot be classified as non-profit. Therefore the performer and the reception are responsible for obtaining permission from the original artist.

Just be thankful that Youtube takes the videos down rather than forward your information to the copyright firms. Otherwise, for every video removed, you're likely to be thrown into a class action lawsuit.


Now Youtube might have their own little definition. I don't get that, however, from skimming through their rules. It might be an annoying battle; I wouldn't fight it, but you have a chance

Youtube is a service. They are free to add additional constraints to legal rules whenever they wish to do so, so long as they do not violate other US Government laws (or the laws pertaining to where the actual content is being held at). In no way shape or form are they required to listen to what any of the users say, and, if they wanted to, they could add additional rules ad hoc. It's not only a losing battle, but one that will be lost.



I posted a link to the gov document on my first post to this thread (few posts back). There's no actual amount of time that makes it copyright infringement. You can arguably get away with posting the entire thing, depending on the reason.

Not entirely certain how time became an argument here... What xpeed is talking about is the definition of plagiarism. If you post something and call it your own or claim some sort of rights to the work, and it's greater than 50% the same, it's plagiarized and therefore a copyright infringement.



Remember, lawyers don't just read the books, they have to be able to understand the environment around them as well. Reading the whitepaper on copyrights is not all encompassing in the arguments involving the topic. The argument at hand is not what defines copyrights, but what defines fair use.


----

[1] http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/Rights.aspx (http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/Rights.aspx)
[2] http://bmi.com/licensing/faq (http://bmi.com/licensing/faq)
[3] http://www.sesac.com/Licensing/FAQs.aspx (http://www.sesac.com/Licensing/FAQs.aspx)
[4] http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html)

Wrong. [+ more words]
"Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself."

That's what youtube says. That implies that you can post your own versions (e.g. transcriptions) so long as you created them.


Youtube is a service. They are free to add additional constraints to legal rules whenever they wish to do so, so long as they do not violate other US Government laws (or the laws pertaining to where the actual content is being held at). In no way shape or form are they required to listen to what any of the users say, and, if they wanted to, they could add additional rules ad hoc. It's not only a losing battle, but one that will be lost.
I’m trying to understand where you read all of that in my post. (I never said they couldn’t.)

Don’t put words in my mouth.


Not entirely certain how time became an argument here... What xpeed is talking about is the definition of plagiarism. If you post something and call it your own or claim some sort of rights to the work, and it's greater than 50% the same, it's plagiarized and therefore a copyright infringement.

Remember, lawyers don't just read the books, they have to be able to understand the environment around them as well. Reading the whitepaper on copyrights is not all encompassing in the arguments involving the topic. The argument at hand is not what defines copyrights, but what defines fair use.
"Depending on the reason."

---The part you missed. And, yes, you definitely can get away with it if you have the right reason.

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two different things. The OP talks about copyright infringement, which is why I am not talking about plagiarism. Please back up the “greater than 50% the same” bit. That seems a bit arbitrary. How do they judge that? (Quote doctrine please.)

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/10/06/copyright-infringement-plagiarism-and-fair-use/
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

The golden rule (in the USA) is that it is up to the courts to decide if you have infringed upon someone’s rights.

…What is the purpose of your last paragraph, anyway? To add an unneeded and snippy remark? (I don’t know how to decipher the tone.)


[1] http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/Rights.aspx (http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/Rights.aspx)
[2] http://bmi.com/licensing/faq (http://bmi.com/licensing/faq)
[3] http://www.sesac.com/Licensing/FAQs.aspx (http://www.sesac.com/Licensing/FAQs.aspx)
[4] http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html)
These are better but do not cover the question at hand. These all seem to deal with performing the original piece.

+ They only apply to their own members.

I have a question: does this site get permission from every composer whose (transcribed) words are featured on it? (I am asking because I am unsure.)

"Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself."

That's what youtube says. That implies that you can post your own versions (e.g. transcriptions) so long as you created them.

"unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself."
If you didn't compose the music, it's already breaking one of the laws, if not youtube "rules".

You're (legally) allowed to perform covers and whatnot and vids (of others' work) without their permission. You just can't post the originals.

I posted a link to the gov document on my first post to this thread (few posts back). There's no actual amount of time that makes it copyright infringement. You can arguably get away with posting the entire thing, depending on the reason.

I know the copyright infringement act and law since I do request copyright papers occasionally for my business. It's very broad and there are loopholes, but yes taking 50% is considered plagiarism and plagiarism falls into the copyright infringement category. That's why I said if you have taken 50% of an existing work it is considered "stealing" their work into yours. Like I said, it depends on how they want to come at you. Music is more strict. You're not legally endowed to perform an existing work in public without the music company's permission that owns those rights, especially if it's from a popular culture. They can care less about classical music because everyone in their life has heard or played it. But if it's a music from a popular culture, they will regulate it and if you're caught, you get the blame. It gets really hard to regulate your own copyright since it's such a broad society. For me example, I do a lot of designing. Mostly logos, tribal designs, and art. People have come to me with a legal action but all of them have lost because they had no solid evidence that I took their work and modified it to make it my own. And I can guarantee you that I designed them myself without knowing about those other existing work. Now, I have caught a few myself using my design as their own, they even modified it by changing colors and a few lines. Now, I won those cases because it was blatantly obvious.

For music, you can argue your case to Youtube. Music is very broad because a lot of composers "borrow" existing music as their starting point or inspiration and it gets hard to not copy some parts of those music into theirs.

But what is defined as taking "50%" of a work?