Copyright Claims Under YouTube Red

[Omeo]

Hey, everyone.

Does anyone know how the new YouTube Red system changes the rules as far as using copyrighted material? My understanding was that, under the old system, you could use copyrighted material, but if you did, you couldn't monetize the video or the person who owned the copyright could monetize it, but you wouldn't get any of the money or maybe just a little bit of it, but you COULD still have the video on YouTube; you just couldn't make any money off of it. Is that right?

Well, now, under the new system, all your videos are effectively monetized, right? Does that mean no more copyrighted material at all or does that mean it's open season on copyrighted material? I feel like the fact that all your videos are now monetized must change the rules about using copyrighted material in some way. Am I wrong? Anybody know?

Thanks, guys.

 

[Speechless]

No, everything is still the same. All of your videos will not be monetized under YouTube Red unless you set them up for monetization like normal. My understanding is that YouTube Red is just a feature for people to not have to watch ads on videos that are monetized. So it doesn't really effect creators that don't monetize. Copyright rules will stay the same I think.

 

[eemnetwork]

YouTube Red is just a feature for people to not have to watch ads on videos that are monetized

This makes me think that YouTube are blinded by the fact that Ad Block exists...

 

[Shakycow]

My understanding was that, under the old system, you could use copyrighted material, but if you did, you couldn't monetize the video or the person who owned the copyright could monetize it, but you wouldn't get any of the money or maybe just a little bit of it, but you COULD still have the video on YouTube; you just couldn't make any money off of it. Is that right?

No. Unless you have expressed permission from the owner, it never was, isn't currently, and never will be alright to post copyrighted material.

Doing so may (only) get you a 3rd party claim where they have monetization rights, but, at any time, they're also within full rights to remove the video and give you a copyright strike.

 

[Tarmack]

Hey, everyone.

Does anyone know how the new YouTube Red system changes the rules as far as using copyrighted material? My understanding was that, under the old system, you could use copyrighted material, but if you did, you couldn't monetize the video or the person who owned the copyright could monetize it, but you wouldn't get any of the money or maybe just a little bit of it, but you COULD still have the video on YouTube; you just couldn't make any money off of it. Is that right?

Well, now, under the new system, all your videos are effectively monetized, right? Does that mean no more copyrighted material at all or does that mean it's open season on copyrighted material? I feel like the fact that all your videos are now monetized must change the rules about using copyrighted material in some way. Am I wrong? Anybody know?

Thanks, guys.

Both of your points are false. Copyrighted content was never ok without permission. And no, under Red your videos aren't monetized automatically. Red merely gives subscription holders a free pass if you happen to monetize your content and an ad would have otherwise been served to them.

Red does not change anything about copyright on YouTube. Get permission, buy the license and whatnot. Otherwise you can potentially have content force monetized by the owner, and in the extremes get copyright strikes and lose your channel.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Both of your points are false. Copyrighted content was never ok without permission. And no, under Red your videos aren't monetized automatically. Red merely gives subscription holders a free pass if you happen to monetize your content and an ad would have otherwise been served to them.

Red does not change anything about copyright on YouTube. Get permission, buy the license and whatnot. Otherwise you can potentially have content force monetized by the owner, and in the extremes get copyright strikes and lose your channel.

FASLE!!! Emails from Sony allowed copyrighted content. Spoke to president and CEO of Sony

 

[Tarmack]

FASLE!!! Emails from Sony allowed copyrighted content. Spoke to president and CEO of Sony

Not familiar with the definition of the word "permission" I see.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Not familiar with the definition of the word "permission" I see.

What are you talking about? The emails said "You don't need a license to upload our music. YouTube pays the license on your behalf"[DOUBLEPOST=1447312109,1447311990][/DOUBLEPOST]

Not familiar with the definition of the word "permission" I see.

And whenever I've gotten a copyright strike. I've emailed the copyright owners and told that was an automated system and the copyright owners have removed any strikes I've had.[DOUBLEPOST=1447312231][/DOUBLEPOST]

Not familiar with the definition of the word "permission" I see.

Also google "Kobalt Music Publishing YouTube FAQ" It lists how you can use copyrighted music and the content management system on YouTube takes care of the licenses. Apparently you didn't read the screenshot I posted from Harry Fox Agency which says you don't need permission.

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

Copyrighted content was never ok without permission.

I just want to be sure we're all on the same page. We all consider the songs in Youtube's ad supported library (creator studio --> Create tab --> audio--> ad supported tab) 'expressed permission', right? If so, then I think we simply have a misunderstanding here. Youtube encourages the use of these ad supported songs here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3376882?hl=en

And holy crap, I just noticed that there is a dropdown where you can choose songs that are 'eligible for revenue share' or not eligible. Well it's about time. I wonder how long that has been there.

I just wish Youtube was more transparent with regard to the longevity of the deals they have in place with copyright holders. I'd hate to upload a video using a song in the ad supported library (and knowingly relinquishing monetization rights in return for the potential publicity) only to find out in 3 years that the agreement was not renewed and my video was removed. There are also third party companies that have agreements with copyright holders to claim content on Youtube but leave it up in return for ad revenue, but I don't know how transparent their deals are either. I would just hate to have the rug pulled out from under me.

So yes, the safest bet would be to secure the proper specific license with the copyright holder in question, but it is perfectly within a Youtuber's rights to upload videos that contain copyrighted content so long as the content is listed either in youtube's own ad supported audio library (or free library), or on the publisher's or specific piece's ASCAP or BMI page (which would constitute expressed consent). Although I can't imagine a circumstance where a record company would, upon the expiration of an agreement with Youtube, DMCA copies of their music en masse that they are receiving ad revenue from.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I just want to be sure we're all on the same page. We all consider the songs in Youtube's ad supported library (creator studio --> Create tab --> audio--> ad supported tab) 'expressed permission', right? If so, then I think we simply have a misunderstanding here. Youtube encourages the use of these ad supported songs here:

And holy crap, I just noticed that there is a dropdown where you can choose songs that are 'eligible for revenue share' or not eligible. Well it's about time. I wonder how long that has been there.

I just wish Youtube was more transparent with regard to the longevity of the deals they have in place with copyright holders. I'd hate to upload a video using a song in the ad supported library (and knowingly relinquishing monetization rights in return for the potential publicity) only to find out in 3 years that the agreement was not renewed and my video was removed. There are also third party companies that have agreements with copyright holders to claim content on Youtube but leave it up in return for ad revenue, but I don't know how transparent their deals are either. I would just hate to have the rug pulled out from under me.

So yes, the safest bet would be to secure the proper specific license with the copyright holder in question, but it is perfectly within a Youtuber's rights to upload videos that contain copyrighted content so long as the content is listed either in youtube's own ad supported audio library (or free library), or on the publisher's or specific piece's ASCAP or BMI page (which would constitute expressed consent). Although I can't imagine a circumstance where a record company would, upon the expiration of an agreement with Youtube, DMCA copies of their music en masse that they are receiving ad revenue from.

The revenue sharing seems to be only for cover songs. I used a sound recording of a song that says eligible for revenue sharing but I don't get the option.

WATH has way more songs you can monetize though. The YouTube Ad Supported music section doesn't have as much songs as WATH do for revenue sharing. WATH is possibly getting sound recordings soon as well.

WATH also says right on their network that if they don't have a song listed to upload it anyway and YouTube will use their licensing to take care of it.