Non Copyright v Royalty Free

Kensterrr

Loving YTtalk
I've done a google search to learn the difference between the two, and I believe I understand it fairly well.

While the aren't the same thing, would a video be rejected for monetization if a song is "non copyright", NOT "royalty free"? Or if I chose not to monetize the video at all, what are the chances you think it would be monetized by the owner/creator?

If this is not the correct the place for this question, I apologize.
 
Non copyright is not a thing. Everything is copyrighted on the internet. Royalty free means that you do not have to pay the original author for the work, but it does not mean you have the right to use the work. Creative Commons means anyone can use the work, but you must pay for a license. You want to royalty free creative commons music in your videos. This is completely free. I recommend Incompetech . com
 
"royalty-free" is an ambiguous term that has no legal definition. It can mean whatever the salesman wants it to be.

"non copyright" isn't a real thing either. There are things with expired copyrights - such as public domain content. But there's no such thing as non-copywritten material. What they may be referring to is broad licensing, such as copyleft, or creative commons licenses. Each of these has different restrictions, so lookup the license applied to whatever work you're considering using.
 
makingamark.blogspot.com/2008/12/difference-between-copyright-free-and.html

That's where I got my information.

Upon further examination, all the artists songs are labeled as "Creative Commons Attribution license". Go figure, a little more digging and I'd answer my own question.
 
Creative Commons means anyone can use the work, but you must pay for a license.


This is inaccurate. There are many forms of Creative Commons licenses (governing whether derivative works are authorized, where the work can be used for commercial purposes, etc), but none of them require payment for the license.

If you want to do things with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is not covered under Creative Commons, you can (as with all work), attempt to purchase a less-restrictive license from the copyright holder.
 
This is inaccurate. There are many forms of Creative Commons licenses (governing whether derivative works are authorized, where the work can be used for commercial purposes, etc), but none of them require payment for the license.

If you want to do things with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is not covered under Creative Commons, you can (as with all work), attempt to purchase a less-restrictive license from the copyright holder.
This is correct. Sorry about that. I worded it incorrectly. Some artists require you to buy a license and some don't for their work. Creative commons license basically just allow the artist to do whatever they want, because of the many forms of it. For example all of Kevin Macleod's music is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 with a non exclusive license allowing you to use all of his music royalty free in any setting.
 
When you create something, you as the creator possess ownership of what you created. This ownership is covered by various definitions from copyright, trademark, patent, etc. Some of these you need to file paperwork for, others not necessarily as long as you can prove you created it before someone else if asked later. You own that "copyright" until you transfer it via license to another person. You can transfer it permanently or temporarily, with or without restrictions, for money or not. Royalties, Royalty Free, Creative Commons and so on are all just variations of what is referred to as a "license to use".

For example, Creative Commons Attribution (3.0 unported) states that you can copy, distribute, perform and display the work as well as making derivative (usually defined as a product with added value of some kind including the original work) AND most important you can do this in a commercial capacity, making money from the song. BUT there is one condition. You must in every single instance that the work is used, properly credit the original creator. When people mis-use the term Royalty Free and talk about non-copyright, Creative Commons Attribution is what they need.

Royalty Free on the other hand always has a cost associated with it. Yes, technically a song under CCA above is also Royalty Free, but they're never advertised that way. Usually for Royalty Free you'll pay between $20 and $400 for a song depending on what you want to do with it. And once you have paid that money, you have a perpetual license for that product without any additional burden of cost. Most also don't require giving the original artist credit of any kind.
 
Back
Top