I got flagged for "copyright issues" on Facebook

[Bob Womack]

Here's the basis in copyright law: A person who owns a copyright must pursue all infringements that he discovers or the next person whom he takes action against can point back at his leniency in court and show arbitrary enforcement.

Many musicians have scorned Gibson's lgeal persuit of their copyrights. In fact, Gibson they lost their suits. However, they lost their suits because there were periods when they didn't enforce their copyrights and trademarks and the defendants were able to point that out. Therefore, in the U.K., the Gibson Flying V body is considered as ubiquitous and general as the word "Xerox." It is an exact parallel to the music copyright issue above.

The Eagles are famous for their utilization of their manager Irv Azoff to enforce their copyrights on YouTube (Glenn Frey said, famously, "He may be the devil but he's our devil.") It is ironic that on the amateur side, musicians tend to despise copyright enforcement but on the professional side, they seek to use it to protect their art. They even attempt to use it to demand that some are allowed to play their music and others aren't.

Bob

[captain_jack]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

The issue is that covers are a violation of copyright law. Youtube's monetization scheme is a work around to provide payment to the original artist, the person doing the cover, and Youtube, but if the copyright holder objects to the process then that artist's covers are removed and the poster gets a strike.

We, as players, often try to justify why it should be OK to post covers, but our rationalization doesn't make it any more legally OK to plagiarize the work of others.

What we do as listeners when we listen to covers is irrelevant to the concept of copyright.

I have a Youtube channel and I only post my own compositions or pieces that fall within public domain works. I think there is a way to check ahead of time to verify that a cover is OK to post, but I've personally never needed to do that.

Rick Beato has some really great videos dealing with the whole copyright strike issue on Youtube, which he has occasionally ran into when doing some of his "What Makes This Song Great?" videos.

It would only be plagiarism if the person posting the cover was claiming it was their own work.

I really don't understand what the artist gains by taking this approach. If the video is monetized properly, they are getting money generated from it anyway. The video is effectively free advertising for the artist. All they are doing is creating a toxic relationship with their fans (a person who likes something enough to learn to play it and then post a video is likely to be the same person paying to you see perform live when you tour and buying your merchandise).

(yes, I understand that legally the artist is within their rights, I'm not making a legal point here, just a practical one)

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by TBman

I don't think the restaurant comparison you make is accurate. I'm not getting paid to play the tunes and I'm not making money directly or indirectly from the covers. I'm not expecting Gin to give me his cd or notation for free.

It's not a perfect analogy but I think it's an apt one. The restaurant owner will tell the musician that the live music doesn't really change his bottom line. After all, the owner still charges the same amount for food and drink with or without the musician playing. The argument he will make is that the exposure is more beneficial to the musician than the live entertainment is to him. He'll say more people will know the musician's name so more people will buy the musician's music; therefore, he should not have to pay the musician. The same argument can be made for any service: If you pave my driveway for the cost of materials, I'll tell all my friends about the great job you did and they'll want to hire you.

No matter how you nuance it, publishing your own recordings online is a way to increase the value of your brand. You can argue that it increases the value of the music but the owner of the music didn't hire you to do that. Even if your goal is not to become a paid performer, the road you're taking is one that many take with that goal in mind, so when you play someone else's music, you're pirating someone else's property for your own purposes that have the potential to earn money for you at some point.

The bottom line is people have a right to be paid for their intellectual property. It's true that some will waive that right in some cases, but that doesn't mean they give up that right nor does it mean that because they give it up in one case that they have to give it up in all cases. If composers cannot earn a living from their work, we'll have far fewer composers in this world.

I understand your argument but I have to side with the owner of the publishing rights.

[KevWind]

As usual (in copyright threads ) lots of misunderstanding and misguided notions being posted

First as captin jack noted, technically Rudy happened to use the wrong legal term, I am guessing his meaning was however IMO basically correct .

The discussion in this thread is infringement not plagiarism

The statutes on infringement clearly state that "for profit" is not a necessary qualification to still possibly be considered infringement .


And what ever we (as the ones recording the covers) might think of the possible promotional benefits of covers.. That personal thinking is functionally irrelevant statutorily.. Only the copyright holder gets to determine if they will allow covers or not, unless otherwise allowed by statute or agreed upon fee structure .
Some do, some don't.....its just that simple, the "ifs" "ands" and "but's " are irrelevant legally..

Given that most music streaming web sights that we here on AGF use (mainly Sound Cloud and Youtube etc. ) have fairly effective search algorithms for copyrighted material, which will as noted, notify you if there is an issue.... SO in practical terms there is likely no consequence or change for AGF Show and Tell covers .....

Also TB be aware, many name songwriters/artists if they have a deal with a label or publishing house ,,, may have assigned the Publishing half of their Copyrights, in which case, it may be the label/publisher who exercise control over who can publish (upload a cover to streaming sight) , and not the artist themselves

[6L6]

Your cover was probably BETTER than the original artist's version. Torqued he or she off and they had it pulled.

Just jealousy.

[captain_jack]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Also TB be aware, many name songwriters/artists if they have a deal with a label or publishing house ,,, may have assigned the Publishing half of their Copyrights, in which case, it may be the label/publisher who exercise control over who can publish (upload a cover to streaming sight) , and not the artist themselves

I realize this often happens and I should have been more clear, I was referring to cases specifically where the artist is exercising that right (eg the Eagles).

IMO, there are three very broad categories of how music gets used on the internet when relating to copy right discussions:

1 - posting somebody else's work and making it available for free (like simply posting somebody's songs on YouTube). To me, this is very clearly infringement and I agree it should be taken down when it happens

2 - using somebody else's work in something you create without paying for it. an example could be making a short video about something where music is playing in the background, and is not central to the content being created. I think there is a bit of grey area here, but in most cases it's probably clearly infringement and should be taken down

3 - using somebody else's work in a way that is very clearly fan appreciation, eg cover songs or Rick Beato's what makes this song great series. In this case, if the person is making money from the video then I agree that it should be taken down. But if the copyright holder is making money from it, then having that taken down is mind boggling to me.

In the case of the Beato video's, he's putting out a commercial to his 2+ million viewers explaining why your art is amazing. It is an advertisement extolling how great you are. You couldn't get that kind of content if you actually paid for it. yet you're fighting to take it down?

Like I said, I'm not making a legal argument. I'm only saying that in the case of #3, I just don't understand why an artist would have that taken down.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by captain_jack

I realize this often happens and I should have been more clear, I was referring to cases specifically where the artist is exercising that right (eg the Eagles).

IMO, there are three very broad categories of how music gets used on the internet when relating to copy right discussions:

1 - posting somebody else's work and making it available for free (like simply posting somebody's songs on YouTube). To me, this is very clearly infringement and I agree it should be taken down when it happens

2 - using somebody else's work in something you create without paying for it. an example could be making a short video about something where music is playing in the background, and is not central to the content being created. I think there is a bit of grey area here, but in most cases it's probably clearly infringement and should be taken down

3 - using somebody else's work in a way that is very clearly fan appreciation, eg cover songs or Rick Beato's what makes this song great series. In this case, if the person is making money from the video then I agree that it should be taken down. But if the copyright holder is making money from it, then having that taken down is mind boggling to me.

In the case of the Beato video's, he's putting out a commercial to his 2+ million viewers explaining why your art is amazing. It is an advertisement extolling how great you are. You couldn't get that kind of content if you actually paid for it. yet you're fighting to take it down?

Like I said, I'm not making a legal argument. I'm only saying that in the case of #3, I just don't understand why an artist would have that taken down.

Hey no I understood what you were talking about when the artists issue take down notifications
I was simply pointing out to the OP that is not always the artist/songwriter who issues the notice

[rick-slo]

Hard to figure when something will be flagged. Have not posted anything on Facebook so don't know if consistently applied rules or more happenstance.

I find tabs of my originals (I provide for free) that are copied and monetized
on internet websites.

Regarding Gin there are a number of covers of his stuff on youtube.
I think the song in question is "Sakaura Wish"

For example :

Gin himself:





Cover by Daria

[KCharlesD]

Originally Posted by TBman

A video I posted about 3 years ago, a cover of one of Gin's tunes, was flagged and it was removed/blocked in "279 countries."

So I was given the choice to delete it, which I did. I could care less.

The only thing I wonder about is that in as much as I don't sell covers and it is basically just advertising for the original artists, what's the issue? (Also it was posted on my personal Facebook page).

When I see a cover on YT, for instance, that I like of an artist I'm not familiar with, I always check out what else the original artist has done, not just the person doing the cover. I guess other people don't do this?

I'm still wondering who Gin is...

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by TBman

What would happen to our "Show & Tell" section if people couldn't post covers?

Isn't every recent tune created covered by copyright law? Wouldn't every cover here in our sub forum be a violation of copyrights unless permission is received by the original artist to post it?

Hi Barry,
To be quite honest I do not know how AGF deals with copyright protection / infringement. It may be that when someone posts a cover that "AGF" considers it to be the responsibility of the poster to make sure they are not violating copyright. As I stated earlier, another forum I participate on handles it by an agreement they have with the respective groups. From memory I remember BMI, ASCAP, and some other organizations being involved with that agreement.

My posts in the Show and Tell area are Youtube videos of either public domain material or songs that I own the rights to. In those cases my material is not copyrighted, but is published / posted with full knowledge that it may be used by others. That does not mean I waive all rights to my music, though.

Public publishing of material that is not copyrighted, along with all matters relating to copyright and/or protection is a sticky subject and that's why there are teams of lawyers out there who deal with this stuff on a daily basis.

Although many folks really like to herald the idea that their covers help promote the artist, the cold, hard fact is many covers are just sub-standard versions of the original work. Casual listeners may be just as likely to never seek out the much better original because the cover was generally unappealing. The original artist or publishing agency representing same certainly has a right to try and limit "covers" that might make the artist "less appealing" to the listener.

All this stuff is highly entertaining to contemplate, but the rapid change in technology has made the entire field of writing and performing music a bit of a moving target. The only thing that made music "patent-able" was the ability to control it, which was easy when mechanical reproduction was a specialized and difficult process. Now that music is subject to file sharing it has proven to be much more difficult to control. The ability to control content has really only existed for about a century, and it may well be that music will revert to what it always was in the past, an aural tradition, and not the marketable commodity that recorded media enabled it to be for only a short period in history.

All of that is a whole other subject to debate, but the entire Youtube "strike" system and algorithms to detect copyright infringement are simply examples of an industry that's trying it's hardest to maintain that control.

Also, as KevWind noted, I used "plagiarism" in it's loosest sense and technically incorrectly, but only to highlight what is actually happening if the copyright holder doesn't want their material used.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Hi Barry,
To be quite honest I do not know how AGF deals with copyright protection / infringement.

As Kevwind already noted, users here are only posting links to other sites in the Show and Tell forum. When you click on a link, you're watching the music streamed from YouTube, Soundcloud, or wherever. AGF is not hosting those files. The fees are paid by site that hosts the files.

[reeve21]

I posted an audio only YouTube of a folk song that is several hundred years old. YouTube told me it did not meet their Commnity Guidelines and would not be available to certain viewers (kids, I think). They said it was not a strike, but I took it down anyway. Reposted same tune, same title and no issues.

My YouTube channel has very little content and minimal traffic. I took it as a compliment that the algorithm was pretending to listen

[phcorrigan]

If the song is in their catalog, you can register it with WeAreTheHits.com and then post it to YouTube. I post my covers to YouTube because I can't do this on any of the audio-only sites.

[keith.rogers]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

If the song is in their catalog, you can register it with WeAreTheHits.com and then post it to YouTube. I post my covers to YouTube because I can't do this on any of the audio-only sites.

You can use something like SoundCloud without doing licensing now. The latest installment of the digital millennium copyright (US) put the onus on sites like that (of a certain size) to collect and distribute royalties. YouTube has actually been doing that for some time, of course.

In addition, YouTube now does a pre-check for copyright claims (but not copyright "strikes") so you'll know if your posting is going to be flagged, but unless you're monetizing your channel, it probably doesn't affect most of us.

The copyright strike part of YouTube or any other streaming site is still somewhat of a mystery. There are some artists/publishers that don't allow any covers, and require any infringement to be taken down immediately. YouTube is a bit harsher in their handling of these, with the strike assessment, but most of those artists are well known. Situations like the OPs, where someone else may have posted a cover are interesting, and may be the result of just getting noticed too much, or perhaps the other poster actually did acquire the rights to post a video, a longer, more expensive process than just getting mechanical rights for an audio cover.

Unfortunately, there's a "chicken and egg" problem that even YouTube seems to not want to tackle, because if they don't have a revenue/royalty agreement in place for something, they can't really know in advance if your specific cover is going to raise somebody's hackles. I.e., even if a song cover has been posted by someone else, it does not mean your version won't be flagged for take-down.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

You can use something like SoundCloud without doing licensing now.

Not according to SoundCloud. From their website:

"Based on current copyright legislation, you always need permissions or the appropriate licenses if you would like to cover a copyrighted song in public , as is the case when publishing a track on SoundCloud."