More on copyrighting and uploading covers.

[rhancox]

YouTube has an option where you can actually make money off of your postings. If you use that for a cover, then yeah, that's a violation because the person doing the posting is benefiting, financially, from the cover.

I have some covers on YouTube and I've never made a dime from them. Sure, they're there for public consumption, but I have not received one dime from any of those videos nor have they resulted in any paying gigs.

From what I'm understanding, it's all about the money. If I make money from someone else's material, that's a violation. But I'm not, so it seems that I'm not in violation. YouTube is because they put up ads when someone plays a video, even my videos. YouTube gets paid for placing those ads. I don't. So where am I in the wrong, aside from simply posting a cover for public consumption?

It would seem that YouTube is just like a bar that has open mics with people playing covers. The bar pays ASCAP because they're making money from people coming in to watch the open mic. YouTube is like a huge open mic. I there's any violation, it's in YouTube's lap.

[ferg]

Originally Posted by rhancox

From what I'm understanding, it's all about the money. If I make money from someone else's material, that's a violation.

Actually, that's not true. It's technically a violation of federal copyright law to record and distribute cover tunes without compensating the copyright holder whether you make any money or not.

Taking it one step further, it's actually a violation to perform cover tunes in public (without compensating the copyright holder). Now, we all know that the vast majority of gigging bands out there are doing this, but, without compensating the artist, they're technically in violation of the same law. You might make the case that this is even worse, because a LOT of these folks are, in fact, profiting from the performance.

Everyone seems to want to tie in the profitability or intended profitability of a performance to whether or not it's okay. The law says that's irrelevant. Actually, that's not true - the amount of compensation may vary based on the amount of profits, received, but it's very clear that some compensation must be made even when there is no profit. You could certainly try to make the case that, from an ethics perspective, it's OK, so long as you're not making money, but from a legal perspective, there is no question.

I personally think that there's more to it than whether or not you're getting cash directly for the performance. Some artist wrote this song and holds the copyright for it. You're clearly getting something out of using his or her copyrighted material. If you got nothing out of it, why would you do it? The bottom line is that everyone who records and posts a cover tune anywhere is gaining some benefit from reusing a copyrighted source. Why shouldn't the copyright holder be compensated?

I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that just because you've personally determined that you're not taking food out of anyone's mouth that it's therefore OK to do. That shouldn't be for you to decide - that's at the copyright holder's discretion. It's their work. It's not up to us to decide when it is and isn't OK to use it without compensating them. The law actually does indicate that we are ENTITLED to cover tunes, but proper compensation must be given, and I think the amount of that compensation is pretty clearly laid out somewhere.

[Ty Ford]

QUOTE: But, if a player here at the AGF, posts a cover looking for input as to how their own home project is going, I am failing to see how this is robbing an artist of their livelihood or how Rob is profiting in any way. I make the point of saying here at the AGF because unlike some websites, like Reverbnation where the idea of self promotion is as an integral concept to the site, the mission and use of Show and Tell at the AGF has always been a community dedicated to self improvement. Literally, Rob was working by himself, at home for personal use/enjoyment/improvement and asked for input as to how his progress was going.

>>>OK, but...you're ignoring (or discounting) the fact that he is publishing the work and in this case on YouTube. About his production and sale of CDs; he may or may not profit from that. That he uses someone else's material is the point.

The amateur individual players posting covers are not deriving economic gain from those covers.

As I mentioned, it's not always about pannies in your poket.

Running after them yelling "stop playing and posting covers, stop playing and posting covers" is not possible, not going to happen and like tilting at windmills.

Also already covered in my Woodstock parable.

If economic gain is being had at the expense of copyright holders it is by the hosting sites such as You Tube.

Which has a policy of not allowing uploads of material you don't own or have secured the rights to.

List a few things you own and let me know which ones you want to let me use forever with no payments.

Kind Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

Actually, that's not true. It's technically a violation of federal copyright law to record and distribute cover tunes without compensating the copyright holder whether you make any money or not.

Taking it one step further, it's actually a violation to perform cover tunes in public (without compensating the copyright holder). Now, we all know that the vast majority of gigging bands out there are doing this, but, without compensating the artist, they're technically in violation of the same law. You might make the case that this is even worse, because a LOT of these folks are, in fact, profiting from the performance.

Exactly!

Ty Ford

[ferg]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

"I see posting of covers on YouTube being something that actually helps promote the song and original artist, and if anything, ultimately, helps their bottom line by promoting them."

I respectfully disagree with you though, although it's an interesting take. Back before the dawn of MTV, I was working at a rock station that was affiliated with a TV station. We came up with the idea of putting together a local TV show of music videos. (Many folks don't know radio stations pay a LOT of money to ASCAP for the right to broadcast music. Sure there's a lot of difference between a commercial radio station playing the original music of an artist and someone playing someone else's music and uploading it to a free web site.) The record companies sent us a contract that stipulated that while no present fees were due the artists or their record companies, if such fees were established in the future, they would be applied retroactively. It was enough to scare us off.

Ty,

I guess I should have clarified here. Even though I do think that, in many ways, the distribution of cover material potentially helps draw attention to the artists/composition and may actually benefit them, I was in no way suggesting that made it OK to do. It doesn't matter what I think about how I might use the song might help/hinder the copyright holder - that's simply not up to me.

Now, as a creator of much original music, I have, and will continue to allow a number of internet outlets (mostly podcasts and internet radio stations) to use my actual recordings for free. I would also allow people to cover my stuff, if they so desired, because, at this point, all I'm looking for is exposure, but the point is that it's my decision.

The other question I might raise is what potential damage is the continual recycling of the same material doing to music as an art form? Maybe it's just sour grapes, but where I live it's tough to get gigs as an original artist, because everyone just wants to hear the same old stuff over and over. I'm realistic enough to know that if I was delivering awe-inspiring performances, I could win some audiences, but I've seen enough really great original artists in tiny no-pay venues to know that cover-hungry society we live in is killing original music.

[Ranger1964]

Posting Cover Songs on YouTube

A great deal of musicians make videos of themselves performing cover songs at home and upload them to sites like YouTube. This is another great way to leverage people’s familiarity with the covered songs as a gateway to your original music. From my experience, videos of cover songs get many more views than videos of original music. Be sure to use the video description and tags wisely to help people find your cover song video and then link to your music elsewhere online.

You are allowed to post your cover songs on YouTube… sometimes.

Initially, YouTube ran into problems with copyright holders (mainly publishers) because legally speaking, these videos are a form of distribution that requires a synch license. This issue is gradually being cleared up, however. YouTube allows publishers to claim their copyrighted material and monetize the videos. In other words, a publisher might have the ability to make money from ads on your cover song video. As of now there is no way of knowing which publishers have inked deals with YouTube and your videos can still run the risk of being pulled down. Proceed with caution, and for a more in depth read on this subject, check out “Music, Copyright, and YouTube” by Suzanne Lainson.

http://www.musicianwages.com/the-wor...g-cover-songs/




What got me interested in YouTube's policies was this recent video.
Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright

She talks about YouTube's Content ID system:

Well, it starts with content owners delivering assets into our database, along with a usage policy that tells us what to do when we find a match. We compare each upload against all of the reference files in our database. ...

Now, what do we do when we find a match? Well, most rights owners, instead of blocking, will allow the copy to be published. And then they benefit through the exposure, advertising and linked sales....

By empowering choice, we can create a culture of opportunity.

I realized that although YouTube tells everyone to get permission from copyright holders before uploading material, they have a system in place to deal with it after the fact. This, in my mind, quite as step forward in the world of copyright. YouTube must follow the law, but it has a created a system which gives incentives to rights holders to allow copyrighted material to remain in place even if permission wasn't granted in advance. It's still up to the rights holders to determine whether the content stays or goes, but YouTube has created a system which might facilitate the more creative use of copyrighted material.

Content ID has helped create an entirely new economic model for rights holders. We are committed to supporting new forms of original creativity, protecting fair use, and providing a seamless user experience -- all while we help rights owners easily manage their content on YouTube. "Content ID and Fair Use," YouTube Blog, 4/22/10.

I think YouTube has developed a new licensing mechanism. It has created a database of content, then matches the content to the user, and lets the rights holder decide if the video needs to be taken down, if the sound gets shut off, or if the video stays. And as YouTube gets bigger, makes more money, and finds more ways to make it financially worthwhile to rights holders to be flexible about content usage, it creates a viable experiment to see if and how copyright and user creativity can work together. While pro-copyright and anti-copyright groups are debating, YouTube has actually created a system, though flawed, which is working and pushing the envelope without going so far as to get shut down. Here's more on the fine line that YouTube is trying to walk. "YouTube's Balancing Act: Making Money, Not Enemies."

From
http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/...d-youtube.html

Selected quotes from interesting articles that appear to suggest that instead of attempting to stop covers, copyright holders are trying work with technology holders to develop ways to get compensated. (or technology holders are working to develop ways to compensate copyright holders) Weird idea.

[Ty Ford]

Now, as a creator of much original music, I have, and will continue to allow a number of internet outlets (mostly podcasts and internet radio stations) to use my actual recordings for free. I would also allow people to cover my stuff, if they so desired, because, at this point, all I'm looking for is exposure, but the point is that it's my decision.

Ferg, you know, of course, that the response to a quest for exposure is, "Exposure!? You can die from exposure." All humor aside. Sure I understand that and that each person must draw his/her line as to what they give away for free in the name of exposure, but that's your stuff, not someone else's. I have a bunch of my original s out there, but I'm more careful than when I first started posting my songs, but even if I post them and indicate they can't be downloaded, anybody with half a brain can record any audio stream from the Internet and "steal" my work. Am I destroying my future career? Ha! You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen singer-songwriters looking for their big break.

The other question I might raise is what potential damage is the continual recycling of the same material doing to music as an art form? Maybe it's just sour grapes, but where I live it's tough to get gigs as an original artist, because everyone just wants to hear the same old stuff over and over. I'm realistic enough to know that if I was delivering awe-inspiring performances, I could win some audiences, but I've seen enough really great original artists in tiny no-pay venues to know that cover-hungry society we live in is killing original music.

Killing may be a strong word and this has been a long held position. Are you a musician or a mood servicing agent? Or both? If the audience (market) gets off on familiar material and you give hem something else, they won't like it. It proves the value of the song and explains why the owner should receive compensation for its use.

Yesterday 10-12 of us sat around in a carport and played music for about six hours. I guarantee that a lot of that music was protected by US Copyright. Did those of us who performed take away from the copyright holders (well depending on how well or poorly the song was done, we might have detracted from it). Did I profit from it? I made some new friends and maybe alienated a few others. It was more a bluegrass crowd and my acoustic version of "Born To Be Wild" was a bit shocking for them. (and NO I won't be posting it on YouTube.

The point being, and still remains, we did not post any of our fiddlin' around on YouTube or any other globally distributed web site whose policy is that posters must own the rights or have worked out an agreement for those rights.

Regards,

Ty Ford