We are the hits cover song network

[offbeatbryce]

I have been emailing with this network and figured out how it all works.

1. You can either select the song you want to cover or you can email WATH your video and if they license it they will claim it for you via content ID!

2. You do not monetize the video WATH does.

3. You can use the built in uploaded via WATH website or upload directly to YouTube.

4. It doesn't matter if you tell them what your account is etc as long as you've signed up to receive payments via WATH and your cover song is claimed by them you will be paid accordingly.

5. You don't get paid based on your video OR channel. The way it works is WATH figures out how many claims they have for cover songs vs how many YouTubers they have for a given cover song. Then they pay all users accordingly.

6. Even if you have w content ID match from a third party WATH can override that match and claim it for you.

Basically the network owns your audio recording and its entered into the contend id system.

 

[UKHypnotist]

I'd be very wary about a network who will remove your creatorship/owner rights and assign them to themselves; especially if there is no term length specified.

From the We Are The Hits website: "For songs that are not in our catalog, artists can load those videos up directly to their YouTube channel and have them automatically claimed by other music publishers."

What that means is that those other music publishers will get the money from your video, not you! But then you are covering a song you didn't compose or do the original recording of...so that is the legal right of those publishers.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I'd be very wary about a network who will remove your creatorship/owner rights and assign them to themselves; especially if there is no term length specified.

From the We Are The Hits website: "For songs that are not in our catalog, artists can load those videos up directly to their YouTube channel and have them automatically claimed by other music publishers."

What that means is that those other music publishers will get the money from your video, not you! But then you are covering a song you didn't compose or do the original recording of...so that is the legal right of those publishers.

I never said they remove your ownership or creator rights. I said that if you have previous cover videos claimed by copyright owners WATH gets rid of those claims and takes over

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

From the We Are The Hits website: "For songs that are not in our catalog, artists can load those videos up directly to their YouTube channel and have them automatically claimed by other music publishers."

What that means is that those other music publishers will get the money from your video, not you! But then you are covering a song you didn't compose or do the original recording of...so that is the legal right of those publishers.

Well, how else would it work? Songs uploaded that are not part of the WATH catalog will be not be monetized by WATH (because they aren't partnered with the artist that own the rights) and will likely be monetized by their rightful owners, just as if you uploaded those songs to Youtube if you weren't in a contract with WATH. So what's wrong with that? I can't imagine that any other company could handle the situation differently if they wanted to. Not from a legal standpoint, anyway.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Well, how else would it work? Songs uploaded that are not part of the WATH catalog will be not be monetized by WATH (because they aren't partnered with the artist that own the rights) and will likely be monetized by their rightful owners, just as if you uploaded those songs to Youtube if you weren't in a contract with WATH. So what's wrong with that? I can't imagine that any other company could handle the situation differently if they wanted to. Not from a legal standpoint, anyway.

Did I say there was anything wrong with that? Didn't I say that was the publisher's legal right? You should fully read what you are quoting before you decide to disagree with it. I don't believe in putting cover songs on YouTube in the first place, btw; too many potential copyright issues if you don't belong to a Performing Rights Society and have actually paid to produce your cover in the first place.

@offbeatbryce

Basically the network owns your audio recording and its entered into the contend id system.

This is what you said. If the network now owns your audio recording, how can you own it at the same time? This is the way traditional music publishers and record companies work. They basically take your rights to your own music away from you, and pay you a percentage of what that music makes for them. And now you yourself cannot perform the work any more without your publisher's permission!

This happened to Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame, by the way. His record label sued him for performing his own music at a concert after he left that label. The selections in question, if I remember correctly, were from one of Pink Floyd's most famous albums "Dark Side Of The Moon".

 

[offbeatbryce]

Did I say there was anything wrong with that? Didn't I say that was the publisher's legal right? You should fully read what you are quoting before you decide to disagree with it. I don't believe in putting cover songs on YouTube in the first place, btw; too many potential copyright issues if you don't belong to a Performing Rights Society and have actually paid to produce your cover in the first place.

@offbeatbryce

This is what you said. If the network now owns your audio recording, how can you own it at the same time? This is the way traditional music publishers and record companies work. They basically take your rights to your own music away from you, and pay you a percentage of what that music makes for them. And now you yourself cannot perform the work any more without your publisher's permission!

This happened to Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame, by the way. His record label sued him for performing his own music at a concert after he left that label. The selections in question, if I remember correctly, were from one of Pink Floyd's most famous albums "Dark Side Of The Moon".

Oh, I meant claim it to pay you the revenue share. They don't own your recording they just claim it for YouTube only. That's what I was told. The quoted email says "We claim your sound recording so that if anyone else uploads the video you are still paid, but you own 100 percent rights to your sound recording." By the way Many YouTubers are with them. Lindsey Sterling, Christina Grimmie, Boyce Avenue etc. All of them sell their music all over the place and they've never had a problem with ownership. It's like CD Baby, They claim your original sound recordings on YouTube but you still own the rights to it

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

Did I say there was anything wrong with that?

Yes, as a matter of fact you did. If you didn't mean to then you should have worded your post differently.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Yes, as a matter of fact you did. If you didn't mean to then you should have worded your post differently.

I just checked using TubeBuddys new feature and almost every video that is uploaded by a popular YouTuber says either "Video Owned by Sony." or says "Video Owned by WATH" That proves just WATH owns the vidoe and not the sound recording. For small channels it says "Video Owned by Channel" Even my videos that have third party claims say it so that is strange. Obviously these big YouTubers are doing the legal thing because they actually are getting permission. Some of them even say "Video Owned by FullScreen"

 

[UKHypnotist]

Yes, as a matter of fact you did. If you didn't mean to then you should have worded your post differently.

I beg to differ with you, and for the last time, as I don't have time for trolls.

What that means is that those other music publishers will get the money from your video, not you! But then you are covering a song you didn't compose or do the original recording of...so that is the legal right of those publishers.

Now tell me, just how in that paragraph, I am saying anything is wrong with the publishers claiming their legal rights? By saying that the publishers will get the money for the video instead of the poster, then qualifying it with that further statement, I am merely saying that the publishers are within their rights as the video poster has not received the proper licensure through the representative Performing Rights Society.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I beg to differ with you, and for the last time, as I don't have time for trolls.

Now tell me, just how in that paragraph, I am saying anything is wrong with the publishers claiming their legal rights? By saying that the publishers will get the money for the video instead of the poster, then qualifying it with that further statement, I am merely saying that the publishers are within their rights as the video poster has not received the proper licensure through the representative Performing Rights Society.

But what you are not understanding is WATH gives you the license. They have a list of songs that you can use that they have the license for. You upload your video to WATH website. It enters their Content ID database. Then it gets set to your video you upload. You as the YouTube USER does not monetize it. The network monetizes it. YouTube sends a monthly report of earnings from all channels associated with Network. Then the Network pays the channels the split fee between YouTube user and publishers. Even Sony's Vice President confirmed this in an email I received from the. WATH has deals with Sony, Warner, Kobalt, Universal.


For the songs not listed on WATH the original publishers are what are claimed via Contend ID. You can either share in revenue with YouTube if publisher allow. The only way to never have a cover taken down is to use only the songs listed via WATH. Until YouTube has their own list of songs that clearly say "Monetizable for Covers" Then you don't know what you can upload.