Try to avoid any real stems and only use user created content.
Thanks, and that makes sense. But how is it that I am seeing tons of videos with people violating those rules and their videos are not being pulled? It's not like they are being sneaky about it: it's clearly a video of them playing on top of a studio track.
Again I feel like I am missing something.
some studios using content id will serve ads on the video as opposed to taking it down.
the band I'm in have several videos om YT where we play covers...haven't heard any complaints so far...there are also loads of liveconcerts (dvd-rips) with "big names" that doesn't seem to bother anyone? I've been wondering about this myself..
Youtube has software that automatically identifies copyrighted music. The software seems to be pretty good, but it isn't perfect. When it detects copyrighted music, whether a cover version or the original recording, it sends out an automatic message telling you that you may have violated someone's copyright -- and it gives you a chance to protest.
Now, assuming that you don't respond, or you do respond, but they determine that you have violated copyright, they give the option to the copyright holder of what they want to do: 1) remove the video 2) remove the audio track from the video 3) place ads on the video to make money 3) do nothing.
Some copyright holders automatically have everything removed. Some don't seem to do anything. And some -- for instance, the Louis Armstrong estate -- places ads within minutes of your posting the offending video. How do I know? I once posted an approval edit for a client on a private youtube channel. It only ever got 3 hits. But in the background of one of the events, there was some Louis Armstrong music playing. Ads appeared almost immediately.
Remember, the people who make the decision are not necessarily the actual copyright holder, but rather some company that handles these issues. For instance, I post approval videos for rock bands on private youtube channels, and I get warnings -- which I protest by stating that the video is a work-for-hire by the copyright owner. No problems so far with that.
Getting one warning can be no big deal, but it is my understanding that serial violations can get a youtube channel taken down. Also, it is my understanding that you cannot monetize your own content on your youtube channel if you have violations.
Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I edit video for a living, so I end up using youtube a lot, but they can change their policies at any time of course. My statements are based upon the research I did when I first got a warning.
Hope that helps.
I always see "Ifor educational purposes only" and "original rights to respective owners" in the direct video comments. Anyone know if that actually effects anything copyright wise, or is that just a myth and posters are just hedging their bets?
I genuinely feel sorry for all the copyright lawyers out there (but understand their need).. what a crappy way to make a buck.
The key is whether you are making a buck off their material or not and even then lawyers aren't going after anyone unless it's worth their while monetarily. It's never about principle with them is it lol.
