Music companies refuse to license

As I said I've done that. The response is "our agreement with YouTube does not allow us to issue licenses to YouTubers at this time."
 
I could. That's not the point in making. It just sounds like you are stuck with the system for YouTube for now. I've emailed my videos as requested an not one has gotten blocked or removed. Maybe me having direct contact alters the outcome of my videos being allowed? Not everyone emails their videos to Warner etc.[DOUBLEPOST=1432983485,1432983187][/DOUBLEPOST]I remember once that Sony had removed the content ID claim and when I asked them why. I was told that because they knew me they trusted me that they no longer needed to track the video
 
I think there might be some confusion about the different licenses, so I thought I'd post what I've learned so far. I'm not a lawyer, this is just stuff that I've found out about over the years...This is based on what I've learned about the laws in the USA. It might be different for other countries.

Mechanical licenses are needed to cover songs and sell them. These are easy to obtain assuming the Harry Fox Agency (HFA) has the song in their database.

From HFA, "A mechanical license doesn’t include the use of a song in a video. That use requires a synchronization license which you will need to obtain by contacting the publisher(s) directly."

Synchronization licenses are needed to add the music to a video. These need to be granted directly from the copyright owner, which they never have the time or staff to do. I think HFA has been working on setting up a system to obtain synchronization licenses for licensing things like DVD's, but nothing is currently in place for obtaining licenses for websites like YouTube.

Performance licenses are needed to perform cover songs live. People usually go for a blanket license, which are a bit pricey, and the business that hosts the music usually has one. There are also licenses for individual concerts, and royalties are calculated based on a fee + a percentage from the number of tickets sold.. Neither of these licenses cover filming a live performance and posting it on YouTube. As far as I know, you still need a Synchronization License to attach a video to your concert soundtrack and post it on the Internet...

There is literally a license needed for everything! Even posting sheet music needs a Print License...

The only licenses that are fairly easy to get are the mechanical licenses, the blanket licenses, and the concert performance licenses... Most publishing companies don't have the staff to issue synchronization licenses, so they tried to make secret agreements with YouTube. YouTube pays a percentage of their revenue to the publishing companies, but they don't have any sort of system that tells creators which songs have been "agreed on," or how long the current agreement lasts. Publishing companies respond with a "Post it and see what happens to your account!" answer when inquiring about a synchronization license.

Since no one is granting anything and often send ambiguous emails, lots of folks just post stuff and don't give a care about Copyright. It's sad because Copyright should be respected, but there isn't any sort of medium to allow any respect to happen. You can argue that the music isn't ours, so we shouldn't play it, but as a person who has made original music, I find it sad. Music is supposed to be shared and enjoyed with people - not taken to the author's grave for 7 additional decades. I would love it if others played my music! I realize that my perspective doesn't always coincide with massive publishing companies.

There needs to be something set up to take the burden off of publishers and issue online web broadcasting/synchronization licenses easily, like mechanical licenses..

It really is a broken system. I think this is an example where technology has outpaced the law. Ten years ago, no one thought it would be this easy to make your own music videos and broadcast them on the Internet to an audience...
 
offbeatbryce said:
I'm just guessing that with the amount of videos everyone uploads and possibly the deals in place with revenue sharing they will not bother with issuing a license. It might be different if one were a huge star earning millions. Then these companies had interest in more of your income.
Click to expand...

This sounds pretty accurate to me. I wouldn't be surprised with the amount of people asking for permissions that they respond with a general answer to everyone. That's not uncommon for legal matters. It's all about profit for major labels so unless they are getting something in return (major exposure or big $$$) they don't care or have time to deal with everyone person that wants to monetize a video with their music.
 
and the National Music Publishers Association posted a news article back in 2011 that YouTube has license agreements to allow music to be uploaded to YouTube and a general manger within the company said they are pleased to work with YouTube to solve licensing issues.[DOUBLEPOST=1433113999,1433113585][/DOUBLEPOST]
KatyAdelson said:
I think there might be some confusion about the different licenses, so I thought I'd post what I've learned so far. I'm not a lawyer, this is just stuff that I've found out about over the years...This is based on what I've learned about the laws in the USA. It might be different for other countries.

Mechanical licenses are needed to cover songs and sell them. These are easy to obtain assuming the Harry Fox Agency (HFA) has the song in their database.

From HFA, "A mechanical license doesn’t include the use of a song in a video. That use requires a synchronization license which you will need to obtain by contacting the publisher(s) directly."

Synchronization licenses are needed to add the music to a video. These need to be granted directly from the copyright owner, which they never have the time or staff to do. I think HFA has been working on setting up a system to obtain synchronization licenses for licensing things like DVD's, but nothing is currently in place for obtaining licenses for websites like YouTube.

Performance licenses are needed to perform cover songs live. People usually go for a blanket license, which are a bit pricey, and the business that hosts the music usually has one. There are also licenses for individual concerts, and royalties are calculated based on a fee + a percentage from the number of tickets sold.. Neither of these licenses cover filming a live performance and posting it on YouTube. As far as I know, you still need a Synchronization License to attach a video to your concert soundtrack and post it on the Internet...

There is literally a license needed for everything! Even posting sheet music needs a Print License...

The only licenses that are fairly easy to get are the mechanical licenses, the blanket licenses, and the concert performance licenses... Most publishing companies don't have the staff to issue synchronization licenses, so they tried to make secret agreements with YouTube. YouTube pays a percentage of their revenue to the publishing companies, but they don't have any sort of system that tells creators which songs have been "agreed on," or how long the current agreement lasts. Publishing companies respond with a "Post it and see what happens to your account!" answer when inquiring about a synchronization license.

Since no one is granting anything and often send ambiguous emails, lots of folks just post stuff and don't give a care about Copyright. It's sad because Copyright should be respected, but there isn't any sort of medium to allow any respect to happen. You can argue that the music isn't ours, so we shouldn't play it, but as a person who has made original music, I find it sad. Music is supposed to be shared and enjoyed with people - not taken to the author's grave for 7 additional decades. I would love it if others played my music! I realize that my perspective doesn't always coincide with massive publishing companies.

There needs to be something set up to take the burden off of publishers and issue online web broadcasting/synchronization licenses easily, like mechanical licenses..

It really is a broken system. I think this is an example where technology has outpaced the law. Ten years ago, no one thought it would be this easy to make your own music videos and broadcast them on the Internet to an audience...
Click to expand...

That does make since. However the music companies have never told me "Post and see what happens." I've clearly said stuff along the lines of "Can I change the lyric in this line" and they respond saying "Yes you can. You have our permission" I just read recently that due to the Music Subscription service, that if an artist doesn't sign a license agreement their music won't be on YouTube and no YouTube user can cover the song either.

Warner, Kobalt, Universal and Sony have explained to me that they are trying to work it out so a Synchronization License doesn't apply to the internet since everyone posts stuff anyway. Everyone is trying to work it out. I've never heard from the music industry that any of us are performing copyright infringement because YouTube is paying the license per agreement. The only thing I do know that YouTube doesn't pay is for derivative works/parodies. That is required to be paid by the YouTuber. The music Industry doesn't want to determine fair use anymore and they don't someone making fun of their artists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top