YT channel copyright-claimed for using YT audio library song

[Fnige]

11 hours ago, Syfes said:

YouTube creator Matt Lowne

I honestly that said he created youtube for a bit

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

I have a sinking feeling that we are going to see a lot of this in the future. Buy up freely available content then extort money out from anyone using it. Next level of copyright trolling....

Someone big will get hit enough it'll start the Legal ball rolling, eventually. The issue is that Google has money and the ability to just terminate accounts, though eventually even that is going to get locked up in the Courts. And this is all because YT can't be bothered to implement a system like Twitch has which kills ContentID audio when it's tagged and only for the snippet that it covers.

 

YT has billions of Users and less than 100,000 that actually matter for its core systems. The fact they can't manage any of this properly is still so insulting. At this point, I feel a trained parrot would be better at running YT than YT is.

[CarlBar]

21 hours ago, mr moose said:

Citation.  Which law (or court) says they can't sell a product made with a content fully licensed for the purpose?

 

EDIT: for clarification, when I say product I mean an already manufactured physical product like a dvd or cd, not a digital product that can be altered under condition of pre agreed licensing terms.

 

 

As I said, it gets tricky with youtube and ongoing revenue being raised from content that can be turned off,  but as far as I know no precedent has been set in regards to whether that can demanded by a new CR owner and the fact that it does not happen elsewhere in the industry reflects on youtube's policies being the problem not CR law.

 

 

 

 

The point that seems to be going over your head in this debate from reading it is this:

 

A license to use a content has a set period of activity and depending on how it's written may or may not be able to be terminated at any time by the right holder. For that period provided it is not terminated you can use it. When that period expires or it is terminated you can no longer use it. Sony has apparently revoked the license for youtubers upon acquiring the rights.Therefore they are no longer allowed to use it. It's not hard to understand whats happening honestly.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

The point that seems to be going over your head in this debate from reading it is this:

 

Nothing has gone over my head,  in fact you allude to the exact problem I pointed out:

14 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

A license to use a content has a set period of activity and depending on how it's written may or may not be able to be terminated at any time by the right holder.

Still waiting for a citation or evidence that without said time limit in a contract that a new owner can prevent you from selling a product already made using appropriately licensed material.

 

14 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

For that period provided it is not terminated you can use it. When that period expires or it is terminated you can no longer use it. Sony has apparently revoked the license for youtubers upon acquiring the rights.Therefore they are no longer allowed to use it. It's not hard to understand whats happening honestly.

Apparently it is hard to understand because you have missed the problem here.  We are not talking about creating new content with said music, we are talking about content that has already been made.  And to that end, either show me where the license said it is only valid until the licensing rights are sold or show me a legal case where a movie or product has been prevented form being sold after it was made using a valid license  without said stipulation.

[amdorintel]

On 11/15/2019 at 3:29 PM, Curufinwe_wins said:

I really hate this aspect of copyright laws.

lots of laws are stupid as fuck

 

arent there literally free to use songs out there to use?

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

 

 

arent there literally free to use songs out there to use?

That's the head fuck with this problem, the song was free to use through the youtube free library.  

 

EDIT: For those not sure, the youtube free library is used songs granted free to use by youtube.  The expectation by the youtube community is that using those songs will not leave you open to CR claims and channel issues. As has resulted here.

[CarlBar]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Still waiting for a citation or evidence that without said time limit in a contract that a new owner can prevent you from selling a product already made using appropriately licensed material.

 

Any case of distribution license changing hands any time you care to name. Happens all the dammed time. As soon as your license expires you can no longer make money off it. This is basic licensing laws everyone and their mother should know by now.

 

The only thing i can think your possibly missing is that as far as rights laws are considered anytime anyone opens up a youtube video in a browser and hits play this is considered a fresh distribution, meaning just like in the case of any other content you have to have the license to the materials included at that particular moment in time that it is distributed/

 

The difference here which your clearly not getting is that most usage licenses include and indefinite, (or at the least very long lasting), distribution license with the work it was licensed for use with. A new rights holder cannot terminate movie studios rights to song X in movie Y on a whim because the licensing agreement wasn't written that way. The license youtubes library was providing to it's users however does not appear to be one of these in perpetuity license that cannot be terminated. Sony has now terminated the liscence and users of ti are no longer allowed to make new distributions of content using it. Unfortunately the way youtube is setup every view is a seperate and new distribution.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Any case of distribution license changing hands any time you care to name. Happens all the dammed time. As soon as your license expires you can no longer make money off it. This is basic licensing laws everyone and their mother should know by now.

 

The only thing i can think your possibly missing is that as far as rights laws are considered anytime anyone opens up a youtube video in a browser and hits play this is considered a fresh distribution, meaning just like in the case of any other content you have to have the license to the materials included at that particular moment in time that it is distributed/

 

The difference here which your clearly not getting is that most usage licenses include and indefinite, (or at the least very long lasting), distribution license with the work it was licensed for use with. A new rights holder cannot terminate movie studios rights to song X in movie Y on a whim because the licensing agreement wasn't written that way. The license youtubes library was providing to it's users however does not appear to be one of these in perpetuity license that cannot be terminated. Sony has now terminated the liscence and users of ti are no longer allowed to make new distributions of content using it. Unfortunately the way youtube is setup every view is a seperate and new distribution.

 

So you claim it is a thing like the other user but can't point to single case.    I think the reality is that this is (as I said earlier) more of a problem due to youtube and how it's setup than it is a CR law issue.

 

[TechyBen]

On 11/15/2019 at 10:04 PM, SolarNova said:

While Sony cannot claim compensation for past earnings from the Song, having now acquired the rights to it, any future use, and thus continued use on the videos currently available, is subject to copyright laws.

So while its a crappy move by Sony, they have the right. That is UNLESS the song in use was used under contractual agreement that allows full use for set period, including 'forever', prior to sale to Sony. In which case Sony is required to honor the previous agreement.

I've claimed rights to your post. Thus you must take it down, or pay royalties. It's the law, suck it up.

 

 

/s

 

The law can be an... [fill in the blanks].

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Nothing has gone over my head,  in fact you allude to the exact problem I pointed out:

Still waiting for a citation or evidence that without said time limit in a contract that a new owner can prevent you from selling a product already made using appropriately licensed material.

 

Apparently it is hard to understand because you have missed the problem here.  We are not talking about creating new content with said music, we are talking about content that has already been made.  And to that end, either show me where the license said it is only valid until the licensing rights are sold or show me a legal case where a movie or product has been prevented form being sold after it was made using a valid license  without said stipulation.

Show me how any of these content creators can do anything about you inistance to see citation. Sony go "see our lawyers", Youtubers lose their jobs.

One of you is commenting on the factual actions of those involved, one is commenting on the written law and interpretation. To be fair, even if you are 100% right Moose, does Sony care if it rakes in millions for them?

[Sakkura]

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Any case of distribution license changing hands any time you care to name. Happens all the dammed time. As soon as your license expires you can no longer make money off it. This is basic licensing laws everyone and their mother should know by now.

 

The only thing i can think your possibly missing is that as far as rights laws are considered anytime anyone opens up a youtube video in a browser and hits play this is considered a fresh distribution, meaning just like in the case of any other content you have to have the license to the materials included at that particular moment in time that it is distributed/

 

The difference here which your clearly not getting is that most usage licenses include and indefinite, (or at the least very long lasting), distribution license with the work it was licensed for use with. A new rights holder cannot terminate movie studios rights to song X in movie Y on a whim because the licensing agreement wasn't written that way. The license youtubes library was providing to it's users however does not appear to be one of these in perpetuity license that cannot be terminated. Sony has now terminated the liscence and users of ti are no longer allowed to make new distributions of content using it. Unfortunately the way youtube is setup every view is a seperate and new distribution.

But the composer of the music has given everyone an unlimited license to use the song on their youtube videos, in return for attribution (and nothing else). He explicitly warranted that people would be safe from copyright claims and able to keep their videos monetized. Heck, this license is still actively being offered on his website and youtube channel.

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

So you claim it is a thing like the other user but can't point to single case.    I think the reality is that this is (as I said earlier) more of a problem due to youtube and how it's setup than it is a CR law issue.

 

 

I shouldn't need to point to a single case, because there's so damm many happening all the time that nobody remotely bothers to keep track of them, It'as like asking someone to point to an example of an employment contract containing a fixed payscale. It's so common damm near anyone should be aware it happens all the time, but it's very commonality makes finding a specific example hard because everyone's going to have trouble actually digging up an example of such a contract to post.

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

But the composer of the music has given everyone an unlimited license to use the song on their youtube videos, in return for attribution (and nothing else). He explicitly warranted that people would be safe from copyright claims and able to keep their videos monetized. Heck, this license is still actively being offered on his website and youtube channel.

 

Dos he actually have the rights to the work to do that though? That i can reference an example thats well known of someone not owning a significant right to a work they created. See the situation, for a while anyway), of the artists formerly known as prince.

[Sakkura]

21 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Dos he actually have the rights to the work to do that though? That i can reference an example thats well known of someone not owning a significant right to a work they created. See the situation, for a while anyway), of the artists formerly known as prince.

Of course he does. He isn't signed to any record label. He is the original composer and publisher of the music. He has been granting unrestricted licenses to use his music on youtube without interruption since it was first published.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Show me how any of these content creators can do anything about you inistance to see citation. Sony go "see our lawyers", Youtubers lose their jobs.

???  my insistence for a citation is to see proof that what is being argued is true.  It has nothing to do with trying to maintain youtube jobs. 

 

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

One of you is commenting on the factual actions of those involved, one is commenting on the written law and interpretation. To be fair, even if you are 100% right Moose, does Sony care if it rakes in millions for them?

No sony does not care, my argument s that this is a problem primarily with youtube not CR law.   Youtube should not be taking down videos or cease to pay revenue on said videos without a court order.   but they are becuase they are operating on their own messed up policies and not standard procedure for addressing CR claims through the court/legal system, sony hasn;t even used the DMCA in this case, just the youtube system.

 

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

I shouldn't need to point to a single case, because there's so damm many happening all the time that nobody remotely bothers to keep track of them,

Burden of proof,  also are you saying that copyright court cases where this happens are so common no one keeps a record?  I don;t think you understand how the legal system works.

 

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

It'as like asking someone to point to an example of an employment contract containing a fixed payscale.

 

Shouldn;'t be a problem to prove if it's so common.  But I see you can't, neither could the other poster.

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

It's so common damm near anyone should be aware it happens all the time, but it's very commonality makes finding a specific example hard because everyone's going to have trouble actually digging up an example of such a contract to post.

It's so common you can't find a single example? that's a new one.

 

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Dos he actually have the rights to the work to do that though? That i can reference an example thats well known of someone not owning a significant right to a work they created. See the situation, for a while anyway), of the artists formerly known as prince.

 

That's what granting a license under creative commons generally implies.  It means you have the right to use said work and distribute that content freely.  Just because the license gets sold does not change past licensing terms. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license

 

A retired CC license only prevents new work from being created, it does not control work created when the license was valid.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

For thiose wondering, here is a good article explaining the problems with youtubes system.

 

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/01/10/youtubes-copyright-insanity/

 

TL:DR  there are two systems, DMCA and the contentID.  Content ID gets abused more often than DMCA (which is allegedly less than 1%of all claims).  CR claims result in the channel losing revenue to the complainant hence the system being open to abuse.  youtubes contentID system is outside of courts and legal systems, youtubers have virtually no recourse other than to sue the complainant (in this case sony) or hope for a community backlash to fix the issue.

 

 

[Kisai]

On 11/15/2019 at 2:31 PM, mr moose said:

Does that mean if I buy the rights to led's stairway to heaven I can demand all royalties from all air time and record sales from that point on?

 

I think the issue here is that the youtuber is losing all royalties when in reality a original terms of the license probably should be honored until legal precedent is set or causes a change.  Taking royalties from the youtuber in this specific case amounts to theft in my book.   

 

Again, these are issues with youtube and not copyright law. 

Look at the current issue that Taylor Swift is having, she can't perform her own songs because some IP camper has the rights to her music.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-17/taylor-swift-s-carlyle-plea-showcases-private-equity-s-reach

 

If you thought EA was bad for sitting on IP, just wait until Sony owns the rights to just about everything. Sony current is the one that sends out copyright notices for Nintendo music.

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Look at the current issue that Taylor Swift is having, she can't perform her own songs because some IP camper has the rights to her music.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-17/taylor-swift-s-carlyle-plea-showcases-private-equity-s-reach

 

If you thought EA was bad for sitting on IP, just wait until Sony owns the rights to just about everything. Sony current is the one that sends out copyright notices for Nintendo music.

that sounds like a typical record company deal, you write the songs but we own the right of the song.  You leave us, you leave your songs too. 

 

This is a double edged sword and I really like the "selling your soul to the devil" attribute people give the situation.  For many upcoming stars (defiantly in the past but seemingly more so now) to get big you have to get access to their resources, which means selling your soul for their help.

 

Also the story of Tom petty, who had similar issues with the label he signed onto, apparently took all the studio tapes and hid them pretending he wasn't working on an new music until the contracts had been dissolved.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/tom-petty-dispute-with-record-label-over-1-changed-music-industry.html

 

 

EDIT: To address the taylor swift thing in relation to his thread, I should point out that the reason Taylor may not be able to perform her owns songs is due to a contract she signed with her old record label prevent her from making new recordings of those songs (which includes recording of live events).  This is different to the youtube thing in that the previous license agreement (if we compare it to the contract taylor signed) does not have limitations of this nature).  As the new rights owners to taylors work are required to adhere to contracts and licenses signed before the buyout,  so is sony in this issue.   So while talyor signing the contract could be argued in many different directions, the fact she did differences that issue from this one with youtube and Sony.

[The1Dickens]

Okay, so I may have missed the part about who owns what, but if the original creator still has ownership (copyright, licensing, etc.) to the extent that they can extend the license to whomever for until "the end of time", how was YouTube able to sell it to Sony, and did the artist see any of that money?

 

Does YouTube have a "we own you while you use our platform" clause?

 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Okay, so I may have missed the part about who owns what, but if the original creator still has ownership (copyright, licensing, etc.) to the extent that they can extend the license to whomever for until "the end of time", how was YouTube able to sell it to Sony, and did the artist see any of that money?

 

Does YouTube have a "we own you while you use our platform" clause?

 

 

Someone can buy the rights to anything in the library,  what this means is that said content is now under control of the new owner and if they wish to remove that content from the Creative commons licenses then they can.  But it does not mean they can demand previous content created with it be removed (which sony has done).

 

The reason it is creative commons is because that type of license allows the content creator to make his work open to public use, but retain CR ownership and control.  Consider it a license agreement that generally doesn't cost but has caveats on its use.

[The1Dickens]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Someone can buy the rights to anything in the library,  what this means is that said content is now under control of the new owner and if they wish to remove that content from the Creative commons licenses then they can.  But it does not mean they can demand previous content created with it be removed (which sony has done).

 

The reason it is creative commons is because that type of license allows the content creator to make his work open to public use, but retain CR ownership and control.  Consider it a license agreement that generally doesn't cost but has caveats on its use.

Okay, so the artist releases it under Creative Commons, does that not mean that they retain control of it? How does YouTube get control of it, in any sense that they are able to sell it? Does YouTube own all Creative Commons licenses?

[mr moose]

Just now, The1Dickens said:

Okay, so the artist releases it under Creative Commons, does that not mean that they retain control of it? How does YouTube get control of it, in any sense that they are able to sell it? Does YouTube own all Creative Commons licenses?

 

The original owner does retain control, youtube manage the library of work that is licensed under creative commons.   I believe the youtube license for this material is a non limited use so long as the original artist is credited. this means you can use that work to create new works on youtube and distribute it and collect ad revenue.  That is a license agreement between the original creator, youtbe and the youtuber who used it.  If that content is sold (as is permitted because the original owner retains all rights) then the new owner must honor existing content made under license.  they can not retrospectively prevent you from selling product you have previously made under license. They can however stop people form making new content as the license is retired.

 

 

It might interest people to know there are investment companies running around buying up the rights to music all over the place because streaming and rights management has an earning potential.   Consider it like the stock photo boom in the last decade.

[The1Dickens]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That is a license agreement between the original creator, youtbe and the youtuber who used it.

This is a part I'm not understanding. When does YouTube become a holder of anything in the process when it looks like the content is released under Creative Commons license by the original artist?

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If that content is sold (as is permitted because the original owner retains all rights) then the new owner must honor existing content made under license.

This is another part that is confusing. What did Sony buy (and why did they buy it) if the original creator still maintains ownership and insists it is still under Creative Commons license?

 

I can't wrap my brain around the idea that someone is trying to enforce a copyright infringement lawsuit, when the copyright license says Creative Commons. Would they not have had to purchase the licensing rights from the original creator? Which license is the superseding license: Sony's or the Artist's? How do you prove that the license version you are using is Sony's and not the Artist's Creative Commons license?

 

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

they can not retrospectively prevent you from selling product you have previously made under license. They can however stop people form making new content as the license is retired.

So this means that any video make previously is still able to use the music, or is each new stream counting a "new creation" (which could get incredibly messy, since the same logic can be extended to nearly all digitally distributed anything)? And how does the license retire in this case? Obviously Sony has a very real potential to outlive the artist, at which point I imagine it becomes a matter of "he said, she said" (which, obviously the deceased artist can't speak on the matter)?

 

This sounds like corporate bullying to me. But I'm probably not understanding something properly...

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

This is a part I'm not understanding. When does YouTube become a holder of anything in the process when it looks like the content is released under Creative Commons license by the original artist?

Youtube just manages the license and the library (acquiring material under CC and storing it), they do not own or hold the rights to anything.

 

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

This is another part that is confusing. What did Sony buy (and why did they buy it) if the original creator still maintains ownership and insists it is still under Creative Commons license?

Sony bought the rights to the music from the original creator,  from that point on the original creator no longer has any rights to the content.  Sony now owns the music and can decide if it will remain under creative commons or not.   

 

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

I can't wrap my brain around the idea that someone is trying to enforce a copyright infringement lawsuit, when the copyright license says Creative Commons. Would they not have had to purchase the licensing rights from the original creator? Which license is the superseding license: Sony's or the Artist's? How do you prove that the license version you are using is Sony's and not the Artist's Creative Commons license?

 

You are not alone.  Typically when you buy the rights to a piece of music you have to honor all agreements that pertain to that work.  I.E if I create a song and make it creative commons with no limitations,  some can use it for what ever they want,  If I decide to sell my piece of work to Sony,  sony is supposed to honor all previous use of the content, but can decide to retire the CC license going forward.  From that point on no new work can be created using my piece as I no longer own it and he new owner won't allow it.   

 

The reason this issue is so confusing, I believe, is because Sony are just doing it retrospectively and pushing the boundaries of the law because no one is big enough to stop them.  Youtube don't want to and youtubers are nor resourced enough.

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

So this means that any video make previously is still able to use the music, or is each new stream counting a "new creation" (which could get incredibly messy, since the same logic can be extended to nearly all digitally distributed anything)? And how does the license retire in this case? Obviously Sony has a very real potential to outlive the artist, at which point I imagine it becomes a matter of "he said, she said" (which, obviously the deceased artist can't speak on the matter)?

 

Yes, it gets very messy,  if you look back over my chat history in this thread you'll see a few people have claimed that they can stop new streams, however I haven't seen that precedent set in law (either for product IP or CR content).  It is a new issue we are seeing to day due to the nature of streaming and particularly youtube (something that hasn't been an issue before because hard copies had to be bought in order to be broadcast and most licenses were time based (i.e a tv stations license to air specific content would have an expiration date) and the internet wasn't a thing when most of these laws evolved.  Music used in movies is licensed in a way that ownership of the content doesn't effect the ability to sell that movie.    At least I am waiting for someone to show where CR laws have caused that effect yet.

 

 

1 hour ago, The1Dickens said:

This sounds like corporate bullying to me. But I'm probably not understanding something properly...

It is corporate bullying.   even if you don't get your head around the intricacies of the laws/ownership deal, the one take home is that if you want to dispute a copyright infringement then you should have to take it through the courts, not get the lap dog youtube to do your dirty work.  If I discovered a large company using my face for an ad I would have to take them to court to have the ad removed from the air,  No tv station or youtube ad service is simply going to remove it on my complaint alone,  Why should sony get that option if the common person doesn't?

 

 

[The1Dickens]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Sony bought the rights to the music from the original creator,  from that point on the original creator no longer has any rights to the content.  Sony now owns the music and can decide if it will remain under creative commons or not.

Ooooohhh, see this clears up so much, now. That makes sense.

 

Thanks for all that. I can see the ramifications of Sony winning a court case on that precedent.

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

 

 

Thanks for all that. I can see the ramifications of Sony winning a court case on that precedent.

Yes, that could be very bad for everyone except those at the very top.   The other issue is may not even go to a court and we will forever be at youtube mercy  as far as fair CR control goes. 

 

Up until all of this I would have said it wasn't that difficult to work out who the CR trolls are and ban them, but it appears youtube make more money (or don't risk losing as much money) by pandering to the trolls and leaving the smaller channels to defend themselves from the vultures.