5 ms·

I'm not that familiar with copyright law. Is he legally allowed to make a guitar cover of any song he wants to and distribute it? It's also not clear if there

I'm not that familiar with copyright law. Is he legally allowed to make a guitar cover of any song he wants to and distribute it? It's also not clear if there were ads on the videos. Would that play a role?

haunter 6y ago
I'm curious about this as well. How does that work with books too? Like can I read a book on Youtube and make money with that even if the book is copyrighted?
- gorkish 6y ago
  (In the US) Reading a book aloud is considered a performance and the book's copyright protects it. You could read it aloud (and make money with it) only so long as your activity is covered by fair use doctrine. If you want a more YouTube-relatable analogy, the passages from the book would need to be treated like the original content in a reaction video.
- type_enthusiast 6y ago
  No, because reading the book aloud for free on YouTube would obviate the need for people to purchase the book (or otherwise acquire a purchased copy of it). In this case, learning how to play a song on guitar doesn't obviate the need to hear the original artist's recording of it. It's an argument over the doctrine of fair use, which has four parts: 1. What's the purpose of the use? Is it for educational purposes, or commercial purposes? (These aren't mutually exclusive, which is a confounder) 2. What's claimed to be copyrighted/creative in the original work? Is the creativity in question merely the phrasing of facts, or are there aspects of the original author's own creativity (for music, this one is probably irrelevant; it's obviously a largely creative endeavor, though I guess there probably exist certain hypothetical pieces of music for which it's harder to say) 3. How much of the work has been used? This is tricky; he probably teaches how to play entire songs, but the guitar part of any given song is a small piece of the overall work (and he probably uses very little, if any, of the copyrighted recording) 4. What's the impact on the value of the original work? In this case it's clear that there is essentially no negative impact – if anything, if you're learning to play a song, you're more likely to purchase or otherwise consume the original recording. This is also usually the most important factor in deciding fair use (from what I understand; I am not a legal professional, I just remember this from a paper I wrote in college for some course or other). (edit: formatting)
  - type_enthusiast 6y ago
    Also note that the musical composition is itself a copyrighted work, not just the recording. So that is a better case against #3, but still doesn't change #4 (unless the songwriter are themselves offering a competing educational mechanism for learning the song... which could be the case, who knows!)
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    But that none of that matters, because YouTube will still block or demonetize your videos even when you were clearly covered by fair use.
RandallBrown 6y ago
As far as I know, covers aren't fair use. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... Thousands (millions?) of people post covers on YouTube with no issue, but sometimes people get unlucky. I don't think monetization makes a difference in the eyes of the law (maybe it would for proving damages? I'm not a lawyer.) What's unusual is that he said he got 5 copyright strikes without telling him why. I've gotten a copyright notice on a video before and I got an email and I think it even shows on the video where the violation is. (I'm not 100% sure, it was a long time ago.)
- notacoward 6y ago
  Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
  - RandallBrown 6y ago
    He posts both pure covers as well as lessons. Does he mention in the video that it was his educational videos that were the reason for this?
    - notacoward 6y ago
      AIUI the point is that they're being indiscriminate by taking down the whole channel, including potentially both fair-use and non-fair-use items (and even original content).
      - RandallBrown 6y ago
        I mean that sucks, but even without looking into the TOS this seems like the obvious result of any rule that involves multiple "strikes."
    - zmk_ 6y ago
      In a previous video on his original channel he talks about the first strike which was made against on of his tutorials by a company who published their tabs a few years AFTER he posted the video.
dead_alchemy 6y ago
In the United States you need to have generally 2 licenses. One is for the audio and another is to show you playing the song. This may be different though if the work the creator is showing is considered transformative enough to be considered a new work altogether. It could be considered educational in nature instead of violating the copyright.

haunter 6y ago

I'm curious about this as well. How does that work with books too? Like can I read a book on Youtube and make money with that even if the book is copyrighted?

gorkish 6y ago
(In the US) Reading a book aloud is considered a performance and the book's copyright protects it. You could read it aloud (and make money with it) only so long as your activity is covered by fair use doctrine. If you want a more YouTube-relatable analogy, the passages from the book would need to be treated like the original content in a reaction video.
type_enthusiast 6y ago
No, because reading the book aloud for free on YouTube would obviate the need for people to purchase the book (or otherwise acquire a purchased copy of it). In this case, learning how to play a song on guitar doesn't obviate the need to hear the original artist's recording of it. It's an argument over the doctrine of fair use, which has four parts: 1. What's the purpose of the use? Is it for educational purposes, or commercial purposes? (These aren't mutually exclusive, which is a confounder) 2. What's claimed to be copyrighted/creative in the original work? Is the creativity in question merely the phrasing of facts, or are there aspects of the original author's own creativity (for music, this one is probably irrelevant; it's obviously a largely creative endeavor, though I guess there probably exist certain hypothetical pieces of music for which it's harder to say) 3. How much of the work has been used? This is tricky; he probably teaches how to play entire songs, but the guitar part of any given song is a small piece of the overall work (and he probably uses very little, if any, of the copyrighted recording) 4. What's the impact on the value of the original work? In this case it's clear that there is essentially no negative impact – if anything, if you're learning to play a song, you're more likely to purchase or otherwise consume the original recording. This is also usually the most important factor in deciding fair use (from what I understand; I am not a legal professional, I just remember this from a paper I wrote in college for some course or other). (edit: formatting)
- type_enthusiast 6y ago
  Also note that the musical composition is itself a copyrighted work, not just the recording. So that is a better case against #3, but still doesn't change #4 (unless the songwriter are themselves offering a competing educational mechanism for learning the song... which could be the case, who knows!)
- tshaddox 6y ago
  But that none of that matters, because YouTube will still block or demonetize your videos even when you were clearly covered by fair use.

RandallBrown 6y ago

As far as I know, covers aren't fair use. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... Thousands (millions?) of people post covers on YouTube with no issue, but sometimes people get unlucky. I don't think monetization makes a difference in the eyes of the law (maybe it would for proving damages? I'm not a lawyer.) What's unusual is that he said he got 5 copyright strikes without telling him why. I've gotten a copyright notice on a video before and I got an email and I think it even shows on the video where the violation is. (I'm not 100% sure, it was a long time ago.)

notacoward 6y ago
Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  He posts both pure covers as well as lessons. Does he mention in the video that it was his educational videos that were the reason for this?
  - notacoward 6y ago
    AIUI the point is that they're being indiscriminate by taking down the whole channel, including potentially both fair-use and non-fair-use items (and even original content).
    - RandallBrown 6y ago
      I mean that sucks, but even without looking into the TOS this seems like the obvious result of any rule that involves multiple "strikes."
  - zmk_ 6y ago
    In a previous video on his original channel he talks about the first strike which was made against on of his tutorials by a company who published their tabs a few years AFTER he posted the video.

dead_alchemy 6y ago

In the United States you need to have generally 2 licenses. One is for the audio and another is to show you playing the song. This may be different though if the work the creator is showing is considered transformative enough to be considered a new work altogether. It could be considered educational in nature instead of violating the copyright.