Non Commercial use of Copyrighted music

Tarmack said:
This is not the "copyright law guessing forum".

ContentID settings for content owners allows for 3 choices. They can track the video, monetize the video themselves or block it from view in countries where they maintain the rights. The company can then choose to issue a DMCA takedown which is what generates a strike. To claim that this decision is made based on whether or not the video is monetized contains the flaw of not understanding the ContentID choices. They don't care if you monetize it, because they can take that monetization automatically via ContentID. If they're going the route of strikes, it has nothing to do with whether or not you monetize. Rather, this decision is purely based on keeping infringing content from existing on unofficial sources.[DOUBLEPOST=1413813914,1413813729][/DOUBLEPOST]

It could be that the songs they chose are simply revoking the monetization for the content owner. Or, it is plausible that some channels have a standing arrangement with the publisher for use of content. With small channels, the former is the most likely. When you start looking at channels of real size, you cannot compare yourself to them because they have a sizable audience which can have perceived value to content owners which often results in special deals.
Click to expand...
When you monetize copyright content, YouTube filters it extra for said copyright content. With no monetizing, a simple filter is used.
Now, my 50/50 I was talking about, is if the company decides to be nice or not. Obviously unless they are (unless in a very good mood) going to claim your video and strike it if you monetize it (and are making enough money from it for them to care)
I'm using the human-thought side of it. Yes, YouTube [Google] allows them three options, but if they're nice they could choose to not do anything. I mean, free publicity.
The three lines of text I wrote I have expanded on.
CommMatt said:
I can't say you're right. If what you were saying is true, then you'd be breaking the law to just share a song with your friend.

I'm going to break it down to two simple things.

1)
They possess the ability to flag you for any given reason if you're using they're work. Doesn't matter if it's monetized or not.

2)
If you monetize someone else's work (song, for example) without correct permission, you WILL get flagged.

See the difference?
When you DON'T monetize it, there's a 50/50 chance you get flagged, but, if you do, the punishment is a LOT less severe. I quote myself.


Worded differently:

If you do not monetize the video of copyright-stuff, it depends on how nice (insertcopyrightownerhere) is, as, they can flag you at will.

If you DO monetize the video, YouTube steps in and claims you automatically.
Click to expand...
 
If you're not monetizing, youtube doesn't care as much. There's still the slight chance of getting copyright but I'll tell you that I've been using copyright music forever but I don't monetize any of my videos and haven't gotten a single strike on my channel in three years.
 
Kijana said:
If you're not monetizing, youtube doesn't care as much. There's still the slight chance of getting copyright but I'll tell you that I've been using copyright music forever but I don't monetize any of my videos and haven't gotten a single strike on my channel in three years.
Click to expand...
This ^^^

I rest my case.
 
CommMatt said:
When you monetize copyright content, YouTube filters it extra for said copyright content. With no monetizing, a simple filter is used.
Now, my 50/50 I was talking about, is if the company decides to be nice or not. Obviously unless they are (unless in a very good mood) going to claim your video and strike it if you monetize it (and are making enough money from it for them to care)
Click to expand...

You are confusing ContentID with the AdSense review. These are not one and the same. ContentID scans all uploads, monetized or not save for those uploaded by managed partner channels (and even then, I have my suspicions that this is not entirely the case). AdSense review only applies if you monetize the video and makes an educated guess on whether you are likely to own the content that you uploaded and prompts you to provided proof that you do if it believes the content maybe be copyrighted by another source.

The whole concept of avoiding monetization saving copyright strike headaches is quite simply not true.
 
Tarmack said:
You are confusing ContentID with the AdSense review. These are not one and the same. ContentID scans all uploads, monetized or not save for those uploaded by managed partner channels (and even then, I have my suspicions that this is not entirely the case). AdSense review only applies if you monetize the video and makes an educated guess on whether you are likely to own the content that you uploaded and prompts you to provided proof that you do if it believes the content maybe be copyrighted by another source.

The whole concept of avoiding monetization saving copyright strike headaches is quite simply not true.
Click to expand...
Oh. Yet again, you're amazing at providing information.
I apologize for my ignorance.

Part of my information came from when I used a song in a video (no monetization) and it took ~2 days for them to claim it, and even then, all they did was ban it in a few countries.

Thank you for the information!
 
Well no one should be giving anyone a copyright strike. Go to ASCAP BMI and read their news articles from about two years ago. It states that they and several record labels are paying YouTube to allow user generated videos with audio recordings. The problem is the people they give the copyright strike don't know about YouTube paying the license because they haven't been informed. There are over 50,0000 employees at these record labels. No one knows whats going on. I talked to the manager of Universal Records and he told me that they allow all sound recordings on YouTube as long as you don't monetize and he had to email the departments that were telling me I couldn't that it was fine.
 
offbeatbryce said:
Well no one should be giving anyone a copyright strike. Go to ASCAP BMI and read their news articles from about two years ago. It states that they and several record labels are paying YouTube to allow user generated videos with audio recordings. The problem is the people they give the copyright strike don't know about YouTube paying the license because they haven't been informed. There are over 50,0000 employees at these record labels. No one knows whats going on. I talked to the manager of Universal Records and he told me that they allow all sound recordings on YouTube as long as you don't monetize and he had to email the departments that were telling me I couldn't that it was fine.
Click to expand...
Link us to the article?
 
ascap.com/playback/2011/11/action/license-your-youtube.aspx

and look at the second paragraph of this article on Harry Fox

harryfox.com/license_music/youtube_license.html

http:// youtube-global.blogspot.com/2012/06/sing-it-youtube-opens-door-for-more.html[DOUBLEPOST=1413990552,1413989540][/DOUBLEPOST]aslo here http:// www. wmgmusiclicensing.com/WMGML/RequestAccountLanding.aspx?t=n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top