4 ms·

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/arti

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.
- joe463369 6y ago
  Sounds like it's a factor but not necessarily a deciding one. Also, the phrase used is "nonprofit educational purposes" so if he's got ads enabled he may be out of luck.
  - notacoward 6y ago
    "Nonprofit" only appears in a non-normative portion of the statute, alongside other factors that might work in the plaintiff's favor here. Of course, Google's "shoot first and don't allow questions later" approach makes that pretty meaningless.
- abetlen 6y ago
  This is true, but won't help very much either. According to Google Support [1], they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Funny enough, they cite a case where a content creator (h3h3 productions) was able to prove fair use in court as an example of the system working. If you look into that case though you'll see that the claimant was only an individual musician and not a big studio, and even then the legal fees were hundreds of thousands of dollars. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/1281991?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/1281991?hl=en
  - OJFord 6y ago
    > they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Well.. that doesn't sound right? That sounds like Google's decided it will treat the accused as guilty unless/until they defend and prove their innocence? Could it not equally decide all claims against them are bullshit unless/until the claimant sues and proves their damages?
    - lucb1e 6y ago
      Given that the rights holders are litigious and the ones with the money, if I were Google I'd also be taking the content down rather than being a sitting duck waiting to get sued whenever a random user clicks the dispute button on their strike notification. Of course, taking all other videos down and disallowing to open another channel ever, those are not measures which should be used until both parties agree that this has been settled or one of the two supplies a court document. But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable (debatable, sure; unreasonable... not sure) to make the video(s) in question invisible to everyone except the owner, copyright holder, and youtube employees until they agree it's settled or the court settled it for them.
      - kelnos 6y ago
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Music instruction channels on YouTube know that this may technically be true but simply does not matter. Rick Beato's channel has several rants about this, and here's one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvuEal2P2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvuEal2P2E Apparently you can have YouTube videos blocked or demonetized for even mentioning the name of a song from some very famous artists who have very active legal teams.
sio8ohPi 6y ago
Looking at his other videos this seems like a clear cut case of copyright infringement, if he's not obtaining mechanical licenses. I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this.
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  I think people are (rightfully) mad that YouTube is applying the rules so haphazardly. There are millions of similar videos on that aren't resulting in the creator getting their channel taken away. But you're right that the guy is probably in the wrong. Part of the issue too is how opaque YouTube is about this kind of thing. It would be cool to see them build better appeals systems or at least treat their creators a little better than they treat copyright trolls (which may or may not be who gave him the strikes in the first place.)
- gohbgl 6y ago
  > I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this. Because copyright is controversial.
- nicky0 6y ago
  It's a sync license that he would need (for videos). Unfortunately these are a lot harder and more expensive to obtain than mechanical licenses.

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.
joe463369 6y ago
Sounds like it's a factor but not necessarily a deciding one. Also, the phrase used is "nonprofit educational purposes" so if he's got ads enabled he may be out of luck.
- notacoward 6y ago
  "Nonprofit" only appears in a non-normative portion of the statute, alongside other factors that might work in the plaintiff's favor here. Of course, Google's "shoot first and don't allow questions later" approach makes that pretty meaningless.
abetlen 6y ago
This is true, but won't help very much either. According to Google Support [1], they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Funny enough, they cite a case where a content creator (h3h3 productions) was able to prove fair use in court as an example of the system working. If you look into that case though you'll see that the claimant was only an individual musician and not a big studio, and even then the legal fees were hundreds of thousands of dollars. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/1281991?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/1281991?hl=en
- OJFord 6y ago
  > they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Well.. that doesn't sound right? That sounds like Google's decided it will treat the accused as guilty unless/until they defend and prove their innocence? Could it not equally decide all claims against them are bullshit unless/until the claimant sues and proves their damages?
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    Given that the rights holders are litigious and the ones with the money, if I were Google I'd also be taking the content down rather than being a sitting duck waiting to get sued whenever a random user clicks the dispute button on their strike notification. Of course, taking all other videos down and disallowing to open another channel ever, those are not measures which should be used until both parties agree that this has been settled or one of the two supplies a court document. But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable (debatable, sure; unreasonable... not sure) to make the video(s) in question invisible to everyone except the owner, copyright holder, and youtube employees until they agree it's settled or the court settled it for them.
    - kelnos 6y ago
tshaddox 6y ago
Music instruction channels on YouTube know that this may technically be true but simply does not matter. Rick Beato's channel has several rants about this, and here's one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvuEal2P2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvuEal2P2E Apparently you can have YouTube videos blocked or demonetized for even mentioning the name of a song from some very famous artists who have very active legal teams.

sio8ohPi 6y ago

Looking at his other videos this seems like a clear cut case of copyright infringement, if he's not obtaining mechanical licenses. I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this.

RandallBrown 6y ago
I think people are (rightfully) mad that YouTube is applying the rules so haphazardly. There are millions of similar videos on that aren't resulting in the creator getting their channel taken away. But you're right that the guy is probably in the wrong. Part of the issue too is how opaque YouTube is about this kind of thing. It would be cool to see them build better appeals systems or at least treat their creators a little better than they treat copyright trolls (which may or may not be who gave him the strikes in the first place.)
gohbgl 6y ago
> I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this. Because copyright is controversial.
nicky0 6y ago
It's a sync license that he would need (for videos). Unfortunately these are a lot harder and more expensive to obtain than mechanical licenses.