BTW
@UKHypnotist , I do appreciate what you have to contribute! ^^ When I say I don't agree, it's based on what I've seen and learned from other musicians and my own experiences, not because of you or anything... I hope that makes sense... I've just been pretty confused about the whole "covers on YouTube" thing, too, and see this conversation as valuable.
Also, please note that when I refer to "covers," that I don't mean using a copyrighted karaoke track. I mean that the artist owns all of the music sounds and sampling to their version of the song, and are only using the copyrighted melody, chord progressions, and lyrics as inspiration for their version.
It may also mean that we've identified that large portions of your channel either completely match other content, or are noticeably similar.
When I read that sentence, I think of content re-uploads, not necessarily covers of popular songs. If it were to include covers, then who's to say it shouldn't include chord progressions? Most pop songs use the same i-iv-v chord progression, and therefore could be considered "noticeably similar" to each other. Take P1nk's "Just give me a reason," vs. Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours." Similar chords, same melody in some parts, different words. From a musical standpoint, they are pretty much the same song. I'd call them "noticeably similar," but both songs seem to be doing quite well on YouTube, and seem to be considered different enough to avoid big lawsuits (I think...at least I haven't heard of any...). ^^
The issue lies with understanding what is considered "noticeably similar" in music. If I were to create an Irish-folk inspired cover of a Lady Gaga song, would that be considered noticeably similar? If it is, then who decides when something is noticeably similar vs. noticeably different, and how could I make it so that it would be considered "noticeably different?"
I play mostly public domain music and have to challenge CID claims frequently. Even if it's public domain and the YouTuber owns all the rights to their unique musical version, I can see all instrumental versions of, for example, "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" to be considered "noticeably similar." Could that mean that the above "noticeably similar" statement may apply to public domain songs, too, or should it not matter since it's public domain?
This gets even more messier since the years something is considered to be in "public domain" in the USA is different than, say, Japan, the EU, Canada... Yay copyright laws!
If the "noticeably similar" statement doesn't apply to public domain music, but DOES apply to covers of songs still in copyright, then I need to ask, "Why?" I can understand one song being under copyright, and the other not, but it means YouTube would be cherry-picking what it considers to be "noticeably similar" based on what songs are still under copyright. If "noticeably similar" only applies to covers of songs still under copyright, then can't they just update their terms to reflect that?
I ask mostly because YouTube is supposedly spending a boat load of money trying to make it possible for artists to monetize their covers on the platform for creators already in the partner program (
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2011/08/creating-new-opportunities-for.html, and later created,
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3301938 as I had mentioned earlier...) I would find it interesting if YouTube were to exclude all future up-and-coming artists from joining the program because of uploading covers.
Content uploaded many times by multiple users
I still read that as "one single piece of content uploaded by a lot of different people," not necessarily, "different versions of the same thing created by a lot of different people." If it were the latter, then all the "what's in my bag?" videos shouldn't be monetized since they are all pretty much the same video content idea...
I think it goes back to trying to understand how similar something needs to be before it's considered duplicate content... Obviously, a cover song would be far more similar to the original piece of content than all the vastly different "what's in my bag" videos, but since it still doesn't define where that "similar" threshold is for content, I thought I'd bring it up as an example...
Note: You may be able to monetise third-party content if you have commercial use rights for that content, and you're contributing to the value of that content in some way. This can include, but is not limited to, high-quality editing, adding commentary or narrative."
I think a lot of people try to use the whole "fair use" defense for most of that, even though they aren't a judge and really can't decide what's considered to be fair use.... I could see it applying to cover songs for those who obtain a sync license, but in my experience, most publishing companies ignore you when you ask for permission. I think very few people actually obtain those rights. It requires negotiating contracts with lawyers, and most people can't afford that. I thought this was where YouTube's negotiated blanket licenses came into play. All of YouTube's negotiations are subject to change in the future, so it's always a risk to upload a cover, but their music policies (
https://www.youtube.com/music_policies?o=U) do a pretty good job letting content creators know what the current licensing state of the songs are.
How many cover song video posters will have bothered to get commercial use rights prior to creating and uploading their videos to YouTube?
I'd guess very very few actually do. Most likely only those with a big name, lots of resources, and industry connections have the ability to negotiate commercial rights.
1. The uploader tells YouTube at the time of video posting that he or she is uploading a cover song. This will stave off a Content ID claim, and let the copyright owner know this is a cover song video being submitted with a willingness to do revenue sharing.
Can you please let me know where this is???
I didn't know this was a thing! I've never seen an option for me to let YouTube know when something is a cover before any monetization. The only way I was able to do that was through the Nintendo Creator's Program (different platform thing) where I physically had to tell Nintendo where the videos were. I know there's the option to monetize the song immediately with your upload, and perhaps the "this is a cover" button would be there -- but, to me, it seems wrong and risky to do that before YouTube can properly claim the copyright owner.
2. The uploader simply posts their video without telling YouTube it is a cover. The video is claimed under Content ID, and at the time of the claim, the copyright owner declares willingness to share revenue.
Yeah, that's the only way I know how to do it... so if there's a way to do it the 1st way, that would be awesome! : D
The problem is this: multiple Content ID claims will invalidate a channel's right to monetize under the new rules set in the summer of 2018.
And that's exactly what I don't understand! lol! xD Why would covers invalidate channels when channels already in the YPP can post covers? That just doesn't seem fair..
(Then again, no one ever said life was supposed to be fair...)
Through these services, I have content on most streaming and download distributors worldwide, including YouTube Content ID. I think therefore, I might know a bit about this subject?
Yay! Me too! ^_^ I also have gone through the whole mechanical licensing thing. That's always fun...lol...
