Picky YouTube?

[guitarget]

The Analogues - Leonid & Friends - Colt Clark & The Quarantine Kids - the Mona Lisa Twins. Seems these folks can post covers on YouTube all day long, something I thought was frowned on due to copyright laws. Some of them even make me watch a commercial before viewing them. Do you suppose they all have permission from the copyright owners to post covers? Or, is YouTube picky about who they issue warnings to?

D.W.

P.S. The Mona Lisa Twins' cover of the Beatles "If I Fell" is amazing.

[hubcapsc]

I was describing something about Let It Be not long ago, and
tried to include a few seconds of one of the lead breaks. It
lasted on youtube about .5 seconds before some robot
noticed what it was and it was gone.

I played blackbird on my gibson and put that on youtube
and it has been there for months.

My theory is that some human has to notice your cover
and flag it, but their computers can quickly ID actual
copyrighted material.

-Mike

[Methos1979]

Oftentimes the YouTube algorithm will recognise a song cover and then they 'monetise' it (hence the commercials) so the artists get paid. These days there are only a few artists songs that are completely banned and yanked. I think the only time I've had a song killed off was when I used a Metallica song in a motorcycle ride compilation video but then again Metallica is notorious for 'protecting' their songs from being used for anything. It was several years ago so I don't know if they've changed their tune (pun intended) now that artists can get paid for any use of their songs.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by guitarget

The Analogues - Leonid & Friends - Colt Clark & The Quarantine Kids - the Mona Lisa Twins. Seems these folks can post covers on YouTube all day long, something I thought was frowned on due to copyright laws. Some of them even make me watch a commercial before viewing them. Do you suppose they all have permission from the copyright owners to post covers? Or, is YouTube picky about who they issue warnings to?

D.W.

P.S. The Mona Lisa Twins' cover of the Beatles "If I Fell" is amazing.

In the case of the Twins covering the Beatles, what they post are their videos of cuts from their album of Beatles covers (from which the Beatles & their heirs get paid royalties). That makes a big difference.

It probably also helps to post covers that are really really good (like the Twins' versions).

[Neil K Walk]

Originally Posted by Methos1979

Oftentimes the YouTube algorithm will recognise a song cover and then they 'monetise' it (hence the commercials) so the artists get paid. These days there are only a few artists songs that are completely banned and yanked. I think the only time I've had a song killed off was when I used a Metallica song in a motorcycle ride compilation video but then again Metallica is notorious for 'protecting' their songs from being used for anything. It was several years ago so I don't know if they've changed their tune (pun intended) now that artists can get paid for any use of their songs.

That is my understanding as well, though supposedly the royalties are still considered to be insufficient.

[tinnitus]

Last week, I set out to learn a fun tune to sing and play on my guitar, Guess I'm a Fool, by Memphis Slim, recorded in 1950. Just for my own entertainment, not to record, sell or take credit.

I found a so-so cover on YouTube by actor Hugh Laurie, star of the TV show House (born in 1959, BTW). But no mention of Memphis Slim.

Same thing when I looked for lyrics and chords online. I found several iterations of "Guess I'm a Fool by Hugh Laurie." Again, nothing about Memphis Slim.

But I had the original Memphis Slim version on my paid Apple Tunes from a couple years ago (or so I thought) and I could simply learn it by ear. So no problem, right? Problem. It has disappeared from my phone. Just gone. But the cover is available to download... Guess I'm a Fool "by Hugh Laurie."

I understand that people record covers and post them on YouTube. So, in a case like this, are the original song and composer's credit simply erased from the Internet? I don't get it.

[Glennwillow]

Most covers done on YouTube are recognized by the YouTube system when the video is uploaded, a copyright claim is made on behalf of the author, and the cover is monetized by adding an advertisement to the video cover.

I have about 180 videos on my YouTube channel, and most are covers or tutorials on how to play various covers. The only time any of my covers has been blocked is when I put up "Desperado" by the Eagles. That cover was blocked in North America by the Eagles' publishing company but not elsewhere.

Regarding credit to the original composer(s), I list the author(s) as part of the song title.

- Glenn

[Andromeda]

I once had about a dozen John Denver covers on YouTube and from what I understand is that John’s publishing company Cherry Lane Music ordered that my videos be removed. Many people do John Denver covers so I always wondered why I was singled out.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

I once had about a dozen John Denver covers on YouTube and from what I understand is that John’s publishing company Cherry Lane Music ordered that my videos be removed. Many people do John Denver covers so I always wondered why I was singled out.

Apparently, your covers were too good and you scared them.

[Mr. Paul]

I installed a webcam and before I knew better was using youtube's "live" feature as a platform. The webcam feed was removed for "copyright violations."

Figured out that I'd accidently left the sound feed on. The laptop was picking up a radio from across the room and it must have played one of the magic songs and the audio was detected by youtube software.

[Andromeda]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Apparently, your covers were too good and you scared them.

That’s what I figured. 🤣😂

[Neil K Walk]

I see lots of people covering songs on YouTube but they seem to be either instructional or interpretational - meaning that they don't resemble certain aspects of the original work. Maybe that's a reason why the Content ID algorithm isn't flagging them?

[keith.rogers]

This comes up over and over again.

In short, there are a couple types of copyright discussed here - one for the "work" when someone performs a cover and one for the original/master recording when you use or sample a portion of an already published recording.

And, let's be clear. Unless you have negotiated with the copyright owner (either of those kinds), posting a cover or sample/full recording on YouTube is a violation of copyright law.

Now, different folks/companies can own those copyrights, and may have taken different stances on what they want YouTube to do when someone violates the copyright. It seems that the vast majority have kind of given up on the "cover" thing and decided that when a cover is recognized, it's simply flagged with (what YouTube labels as) a Copyright Claim. This allows [some of the] money accruing from ad clicks/views to be accrued to the copyright holder.

Some uses of the original recording are also handled that way, but those copyright owners tend to be more stingy, and will have YouTube remove the post.

Copyright Claims do not cause any visible change in a YouTube video, save a notice to the poster, and if they have monetized their channel, some money that they might have made on a video will be diverted to the copyright owner. Nothing is visible to viewers of the video.

If a copyright owner (either kind of copyright) has said illegal use of their material is verboten, the poster has the video yanked and a Copyright Strike applied against their channel. 3 strikes and your channel goes bye-bye forever.

[Neil K Walk]

There used to be a database of songs available to YouTube content creators where you could see if the song you wanted to cover could be monetized so that YouTube/Google could monetize the video to pay the original publishers but that tool has been removed from the website.

A couple of years ago I uploaded a video of me covering Cat Stevens' "Father and Son" and kept it private. The other day I changed it to "unlisted" and YouTube Content ID algorithm flagged it as a Copyright Strike, including the message that it couldn't be monetized and reset the video to private. Since it was essentially just taking up space on their servers and private videos aren't even viewable to subscribers I decided I should just delete it. I thought it was odd that the option was phrased as "permanently delete" the file - as if I might change my mind and re-upload the movie?

[keith.rogers]

Originally Posted by Neil K Walk

There used to be a database of songs available to YouTube content creators where you could see if the song you wanted to cover could be monetized so that YouTube/Google could monetize the video to pay the original publishers but that tool has been removed from the website.

A couple of years ago I uploaded a video of me covering Cat Stevens' "Father and Son" and kept it private. The other day I changed it to "unlisted" and YouTube Content ID algorithm flagged it as a Copyright Strike, including the message that it couldn't be monetized and reset the video to private. Since it was essentially just taking up space on their servers and private videos aren't even viewable to subscribers I decided I should just delete it. I thought it was odd that the option was phrased as "permanently delete" the file - as if I might change my mind and re-upload the movie?

That is unusual because there are several covers of that song already posted.

The permanent deletion message is just standard for anything you delete. I assume it just is something they’re doing to warn you that there’s no undelete available, even for some limited time, as there is in things like Dropbox or other free kinds of cloud storage.