Copyright laws for songs

ChrisAntigen

ChrisAntigen

I've Got It
Ok so I'm talking to some really dumbass people on Facebook right now that think that you can post a video with a famous song as the background music as long as you put the name of te song In the description. I say it doesent work that way, you need to get a licence but they just say "as long as you give credit you can't get fined or have your video taken down". Who's right? Btw the song was "I like big butts and I can not lie"
 
It's funny how many people think you can blatantly infringe on someone elses copyright as long as you tell people you're doing it. :p

The whole point of copyright law is to allow the creator of content their discretion on who can use their content and what it can be used for. If you right a song, you get to pick who to license it to, what kinds of ways they can use it (edit, public exhibition, selling, etc.) That is what your copyright entitles you to, because you created it.

There are exceptions which is the purpose of fair use. Fair use allows for use of content WITHOUT permission for educational, Review and Parody purposes. This is to prevent copyright owners from managing the public perception of their creation. For example, if fair use didn't exist, a movie producer could take down negative reviews of their movies, which of course would be a bad thing.

There are no provisions in copyright law to allow its' use just by listing the title.

That said, there is one thing which could be causing confusion. There is an open license called Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which is a license that artists can use if they want to let people freely use their content. The license states that you can use the material so long as you properly credit its' source (title, artist name, link back to their page) It's worth mentioning though, that no major label music is licensed under Creative Commons.

In short, your friends on Facebook are claiming knowledge that is beyond the realm of reality.
 
Alright, this needs to be cleared up. I am one of the "dumbasses on facebook". First off, doesn't that seem immature?
Anyway. Our mutual friend posted a video, his first video which shows him playing basketball, he used MC Hammer's song U Cant Touch This. Not Sir Mix A Lot's baby got back.
Chris Antigen, the guy who made this post said "Watch out for copyright". I informed him the video creator doesn't need to because he used the song as background, and he gave credits so he isn't stealing it because he isn't saying it's his.

After I say that he makes an analogy, a bad one about movies. "Try uploading Jurassic world to Youtube and putting "by 20th century fox" in the description"
^off topic, because we were talking about music not movies, anyway.

I asked how regular old youtube users who aren't big are okay with using the music for lyric videos? He said they buy licenses. I don't think they do because it's not important to them. My guess is it's under the educational part of the Fair Use agreement.

He then posted a link to Fair Use from youtube's official page. It clearly stated there that "Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner."

To go back on track, the original video we're arguing on just uses it for background and in the credits of the video he puts "soundtrack - mc hammer u cant touch this".
The nature of the copyrighted material isn't for his own benefit, or money. I make a point to Chris Antigen that it's okay because he isn't making any money from this.
For some reason he says "but he is making money". <-- the video owner. The video owner has one video, that's his first. And below 10 subscribers, he is in no way partnered with youtube and no adsense account at all. He can't make money.

After that, Chris pulls the low-IQ card, stating his IQ which is "136" apparently.

The way I've seen a lot of instances like this happen are, videos with no credit to the song get muted or taken down. Videos WITH credit, stay.

After this, he starts to insult me instead of the original argument seen here:


He begins to talk about royalty free music, which yes is in the clear here I understand that.

He told me that if he emails google they would support his side, so I told him too. He didn't and said "I will post it on the leading youtube forum and see what happens". And he did, and we're here.

He makes a really dumb analogy after.


Clearly this Will, or Chris guy has no knowledge of anything, he uses insults to win his argument. Calls people names, can not for the life of him spell correctly or use any form of proper grammar, and doesn't give any proof to support his claims so he comes running for help here.

What is your take on this? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm not gonna b***h about it. This is how I understand it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most common thing that happens on YouTube with copyrighted music isn't a takedown. YouTube uses a system called ContentID which allows content owners to claim material. Just because you see ads on a video doesn't mean the channel is getting the ad revenue. More likely, the content owner has force claimed the video and is taking the ad revenue and you have no way of knowing whether that is the case (with an occasional exception being if the video contains a link automatically added by YouTube to the iTunes store where you can buy the song).

The video staying up is not an indication that what they are doing is protected.

On the specific situation, posting a video of basketball with an MC Hammer song, no there is no copyright protection available to you (or whoever uploaded the video). It is a violation of copyright law subject to penalty to do so without a license. Posting the artist or overtly making the claim that it is not your content does not circumvent copyright law.
 
Yes, besides everything else. What settles the argument. Does the maker of the video have to "worry about copyright"? Because that's what the whole thing's about.
 
That's a totally different question that neither of you focused any time debating here. Your debate as presented here was whether it is in accordance with the law or not.

Could the person be sued? Yes. Is the person going to get sued for doing it? Not likely unless they try to fight claims against the video. Will their ad revenue be claimed? Very likely. Could their channel be harmed? Yes.

If they don't care about the channel, then it doesn't matter. If they care about the channel, being careless about copyright law will eventually cause them problems.
 
I just want to say that he left a lot of the conversation out of those pictures and everything i said in those posts is out of context
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top