I got flagged for "copyright issues" on Facebook

[TBman]

Originally Posted by KCharlesD

I'm still wondering who Gin is...

I'm not telling.

[MikeBmusic]

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?

This was Facebook, not Youtube? I've never seen a video on FB flagged for copyright.
Remember it is typically not the artist themselves who do this type of thing - is is the song's publisher (record label or a publishing company). On Youtube recently, usually, the warning comes with a monetization of the song by the 'owner' of the copyright - I have noticed a few times there are mutliple owners, depending on the country they are valid in.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

This was Facebook, not Youtube? I've never seen a video on FB flagged for copyright.
Remember it is typically not the artist themselves who do this type of thing - is is the song's publisher (record label or a publishing company). On Youtube recently, usually, the warning comes with a monetization of the song by the 'owner' of the copyright - I have noticed a few times there are mutliple owners, depending on the country they are valid in.

Yes it was FB, not YT. I took the video off of YT yesterday voluntarily. Let Gin do his own advertising.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

This was Facebook, not Youtube? I've never seen a video on FB flagged for copyright.

Hi MikeB…

I have seen friend's videos flagged. Both YouTube and FaceBook have 'bots' which actively scan uploads, and flag music (and they are accurate and fairly fast). They will at times flag it even if you have copyright releases and you have to contact them to show you have rights to post. And they are good about working with people, artists etc.

I've used Epidemic Sound for throwing behind video when editing, and neither YouTube nor FaceBook have flagged those. But Epidemic has a very specific (and precise) way of posting to both. It requires being posted at the same time music is uploaded.

If I record a copyrighted song of someone else's copyrighted piece of music (sometimes lyrics) for an album project, I MUST pay a mechanical license fee (& prove it) if it's going on Spotify, Apple Music, CD pressing house etc. That fee has changed on numbers and sources.

How many LPs - 1960s
How many CDs - 1980s
Which streaming service - 2000s
LPs - still ongoing

SongFile (dot com) now handles licenses and collects fees (perhaps there are others) for mechanical licenses for the USA.

I used Harry Fox agency for years, and the last time I googled Harry Fox Fees I was sent to the above agency. It is an HFA (Harry Fox Agency) company.

Their Q/A contains this…
"If you want to record or distribute a song that you do not own or control, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get a mechanical license. This is required regardless of whether or not you are selling the copies that you make. Many Distributors and online music sites require that you to have a mechanical license in place before they duplicate your recording of it or offer it online."

Since I've not posted actively copyrighted songs to YouTube, I've never paid fees.

So far (April 2021) you can Zoom music to listeners on Zoom without a fee. I'm assuming if you simultaneously (or delay) post it on YouTube or FaceBook I assume licensing apply…

I do not know about other platforms (Teams, Skype etc) when it's limited to listeners on that platform only.

People who have prior licenses and permission STILL sometimes get flagged (not the same as getting a strike), which triggers a couple actions.

• You can take it down
• You can challenge the flag (which you might do if you are monetized)
• You can ignore it and see what happens
• You can contact YouTube or FaceBook and ask what to do about it.

The bigger the artist, the bigger the hit, the bigger the chance you may get flagged.

IF YOU GET FLAGGED…

• Don't quote the law - their lawyers get paid more than ours do
• Stay civil and not reactionary, or angry. Be calm and bring it to their attention and ask for a ruling.

Hope this Long-Winded Post adds to the discussion with some facts (and places to remedy posting)…

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Since I've not posted actively copyrighted songs to YouTube, I've never paid fees.

Just a minor correction here, Larry

(actually, I should say, I'm not an entertainment or intellectual property lawyer, but I bet there are some AGFers who are, so maybe they can clarify, if I get this wrong)

You Tube is not a Harry Fox/mechanical license issue. As soon as you put a song up with any kind of video, it requires a sync license, and falls into a whole different category. Harry Fox works for Spotify, etc, but not You Tube, or Vimeo, or Facebook videos.

The issue is that synch licenses don't have any easy mechanism like Harry Fox/Songfile to get. To do it right, you need your people to talk to their people, etc, and it's simply not feasible for either party for something small like someone's You Tube video. That's where You Tube has come in with their work-around that can operate at scale, and that as far as I can see benefits everyone - individuals can post videos (or try at least) without a team of lawyers, the copyright owner can control their content, possibly making money from it if that's what they want, You Tube makes money as well, and listeners get to hear your cover tune as long as the copyright owner is OK with it.

For years, putting out a cover as a video, or worse yet, publishing written music of a cover arrangement has been too difficult and expensive to make it worthwhile for most people. That has changed lately, with stuff like what You Tube has done, so I've been putting out some of my previously languishing cover arrangements. You just have to understand the basic rules and recognize that the copyright holder has the ultimate right to control their own material, which I think is how it should be. But at least now paths exist that don't require a bunch of lawyers in the middle.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Just a minor correction here, Larry

(actually, I should say, I'm not an entertainment or intellectual property lawyer, but I bet there are some AGFers who are, so maybe they can clarify, if I get this wrong)

You Tube is not a Harry Fox/mechanical license issue. As soon as you put a song up with any kind of video, it requires a sync license, and falls into a whole different category. Harry Fox works for Spotify, etc, but not You Tube, or Vimeo, or Facebook videos.

The issue is that synch licenses don't have any easy mechanism like Harry Fox/Songfile to get. To do it right, you need your people to talk to their people, etc, and it's simply not feasible for either party for something small like someone's You Tube video. That's where You Tube has come in with their work-around that can operate at scale, and that as far as I can see benefits everyone - individuals can post videos (or try at least) without a team of lawyers, the copyright owner can control their content, possibly making money from it if that's what they want, You Tube makes money as well, and listeners get to hear your cover tune as long as the copyright owner is OK with it.

For years, putting out a cover as a video, or worse yet, publishing written music of a cover arrangement has been too difficult and expensive to make it worthwhile for most people. That has changed lately, with stuff like what You Tube has done, so I've been putting out some of my previously languishing cover arrangements. You just have to understand the basic rules and recognize that the copyright holder has the ultimate right to control their own material, which I think is how it should be. But at least now paths exist that don't require a bunch of lawyers in the middle.

I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but if you register your YouTube cover through WeAreTheHits.com, they take care of the licensing issues. Also, if your cover has enough traffic to generate income (unlikely for most of us), and if you give them your bank account number, they will deposit your portion of that income to your account.

[keith.rogers]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

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."

It's probably an old web page, but I was actually advised by a site that does licensing that I did not need to obtain one now. Now, this does *not* mean you can't still put something out there that the owner will not have signed up for payments, and so either require separate permission or simply require the cover be removed, but the new way this stuff is supposed to work is that owners register with the MLC and large sites like SoundCloud are responsible for distributing royalties. They may not like it, but it's how it's *supposed* to work.

https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/115/

[keith.rogers]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

[size=2]Hi MikeB…

I have seen friend's videos flagged. Both YouTube and FaceBook have 'bots' which actively scan uploads, and flag music (and they are accurate and fairly fast). They will at times flag it even if you have copyright releases and you have to contact them to show you have rights to post. And they are good about working with people, artists etc.

....

People who have prior licenses and permission STILL sometimes get flagged (not the same as getting a strike), which triggers a couple actions.

• You can take it down
• You can challenge the flag (which you might do if you are monetized)
• You can ignore it and see what happens
• You can contact YouTube or FaceBook and ask what to do about it.

The bigger the artist, the bigger the hit, the bigger the chance you may get flagged.

IF YOU GET FLAGGED…

• Don't quote the law - their lawyers get paid more than ours do
• Stay civil and not reactionary, or angry. Be calm and bring it to their attention and ask for a ruling.

...

There's some stuff in this post that is a little misleading, at least as far as YouTube is concerned.

You can get a "copyright claim" on a cover you post, and all that means is that the owner has identified this song as one they want to get royalties for. If you have monetized your channel, you won't get money, or at least not all of it (if you contest the claim and are successful). If you have not monetized your channel, it will likely increase the number of ads seen on it to pay royalties for the claimed covers.

This check for copyright claim is now part of the [YouTube] submission process.

You can see in the attachment where I show some of the content on my personal channel. 4 of 6 covers listed there have claims, but 2 do not. The "claims" are not "strikes" and no action is taken, except that I'm notified of it. Sometimes claims are region specific, so YouTube can block showing a cover video in some regions. It is only a copyright strike if the owner sends a "take-down" notice to YouTube. Those are bad, because of the limit on how many of those you can get before they take down your channel.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but if you register your YouTube cover through WeAreTheHits.com, they take care of the licensing issues. Also, if your cover has enough traffic to generate income (unlikely for most of us), and if you give them your bank account number, they will deposit your portion of that income to your account.

Yeah, that seems to be an interesting alternate path. With the You Tube system, the owner gets a chance to have their say, but only after-the-fact. And if they want to make money from your cover, an ad goes up and the owner makes all the revenue.

I haven't tried WeAreTheHits, but it looks like it's more of a proactive thing, where they have pre-negotiated with various labels for a revenue share between the performer and the copyright owner. So rather than waiting for a copyright claim from you tube, it's all approved up front. This is a bit like what Sheet Music Plus is doing for publishing. Kind of unlikely to be interesting from a money standpoint for the individual - You Tube still gets their share, then the rest gets split between you, the owner and WeAreTheHits. Probably fractions of pennies for most of us. But as a way to be able to do it legally, without lawyers and contracts, and without crossing your fingers that it won't get taken down, it seems like a good path.

I may try them - I have a cover that, based on rumors, I suspect might be a problem thru the You Tube path.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Just a minor correction here, Larry

Hi Doug
And thanks for the correction.

It seems a bit of a challenge to keep up with things…

I'll add you knowledge to my data-base!

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

There's some stuff in this post that is a little misleading, at least as far as YouTube is concerned.

Hi keith
Thanks for the corrections, and additions.

I'll look up the WeAreTheHits stuff - thanks for putting us on the trail. We certainly want to keep people posting to YouTube.

[Playsumfloydman]

Interesting that this conversation is going on as it is because I joined for this exact reason.
I started playing guitar 2 years ago after being in a bunch of bands as a singer and being told that I didn’t need to play.
I also created my own YouTube channel to post covers and chart my progress as I am self taught. I was under the impression that as long as I labeled it as a cover that I was fine to post on that platform. It also makes it clear that cover tunes are not able to be monetized and they are flagged as such by YouTube after what I assumed is a review

I did have one posted on social media removed which confused me. I appreciate the info

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

It is only a copyright strike if the owner sends a "take-down" notice to YouTube. Those are bad, because of the limit on how many of those you can get before they take down your channel.

Does the new system notify you of a possible strike before posting? It certainly is annoying to post something and get a strike, when you would have been happy not to post it in the first place if you knew, especially since you have no recourse.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

Does the new system notify you of a possible strike before posting? It certainly is annoying to post something and get a strike, when you would have been happy not to post it in the first place if you knew, especially since you have no recourse.

The You Tube system isn't particularly new, I think it started around 2007, but keeps "improving".

You Tube generally flags things immediately upon upload, even if they're not yet public. It can be very quick. And it's clearly automated, not human reviewed. One funny one I had a while back was with the videos I made for Steve Baughman, all his original arrangements. Several got flagged instantly upon upload. I went "what???", checked, and sure enough, who is complaining, but "Steve Baughman". Of course he's sitting right beside me, so I know he's not actually doing it. But he has his stuff registered/copyrighted with someone. I've also had my own tunes claimed by CD Baby on my behalf, again, instantly.

On the other hand, I've gotten claims twice now in the past couple of years for my video of Shenandoah, a 200 year old folk tune, and my video has been up for like 15 years, so something is checking at other times. Both claims were from the Rolling Stones. Hmm... I disputed it both times with links to the library of congress, etc, and the claim was withdrawn. No explanation, but I assume someone humanly reviewed the dispute, while the claim was probably made by an algorithm that mistakenly matched something.

[Rudy4]

Although most folks are generally aware of the holding of a copyright by the original composer of a musical work I wonder how many are aware that the ARRANGEMENT of a work originally copyrighted by the composer can also be copyrighted separately?

As such, the algorithms used by Youtube and other websites may actually detect someone's upload based on similarities to a performer's copyrighted arrangement of a work that is legally classified as "public domain".

This becomes increasingly complicated to follow, but at least it may explain flagging for material that is clearly understood to be public domain material.