6 ms·

I sympathise with her. I had a copyright claim on one of my YouTube videos (I’m totally small potatoes, handful of vids with dozens of views). I made a video o

I sympathise with her. I had a copyright claim on one of my YouTube videos (I’m totally small potatoes, handful of vids with dozens of views). I made a video of myself playing my own unique interpretation of The Safety Dance by Men Without Hats on piano. https://youtu.be/ZNfMZ6g9YWo https://youtu.be/ZNfMZ6g9YWo I got a copyright violation notice shortly after posting it, by some random Latin American music company. It wasn’t clear if it was legit or not, it could have been some holding company of song rights or some failure of the AI. I disputed the claim, saying I used no recorded material, it was entirely my own styling on the song including ragtime and stride piano influences. Frankly I’m not even sure how copyright works on covers, particularly if style is quite different. The company never responded in the 30 day period so the copyright claim was removed. My channel is so small that I probably would have just removed the video. I’m not even close to the levels that are required for monetisation (1000 subscribers and 4000 cumulative view hours). But it was a bit surprising how quickly it was claimed that I violated someone’s copyright.

spuz 5y ago
Covers of songs, even if the covers use completely new styles are protected by copyright law and therefore can risk being claimed by YouTube's system: 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...
- eru 5y ago
  I guess you need to make it a parody to be in the clear?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I'm guessing the next Weird Al has already been disillusioned with the copyright ban hammer.
    - JeremyNT 5y ago
      Weird Al himself was well aware of this issue, and famously would only parody songs after receiving permission from the authors.
      - grayclhn 5y ago
        Permission from the authors is unfortunately different from permission by the copyright holders. IIRC Weird Al did it more for goodwill than legality.
      - stordoff 5y ago
        > Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties. https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/ https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/
    - throwaway17_17 5y ago
      Didn’t even need the next Weird Al. Al’s own YouTube videos were copyright claimed by his own label for violating copyright.
  - ksherlock 5y ago
    Not necessarily.... The Posterchild for parody is 2 Live Crew Pretty Woman. Which includes samples of the original Oh, Pretty Woman. Youtube videos get flagged for 10 seconds of a song snippet all the time. After the Campbell v Acuff-Rose Supreme Court decision, 2 Live Crew licensed the song from Acuff-Rose music. (which is what they tried to do in the first place).
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    Parody is a fair use defense, so you have to go through a lawsuit to be able to assert it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yesenadam 5y ago
Not an expert, but I've been learning a lil about this lately. Royalties for performances of someone else's song are paid to the writers of the words and the music. The melody and words can be copyrighted, not the chords or style. So you can use the chords of an existing song and give it new melody and words, and it is your own song. Style has nothing to do it. I love this quote from the classic The Manual: How To Have A Number 1 The Easy Way by KLF: ...the copyright laws that have grown over the past one hundred years have all been developed by whites of European descent and these laws state that fifty per cent of the copyright of any song should be for the lyrics, the other fifty per cent for the top line (sung) melody; groove doesn’t even get a look in. If the copyright laws had been in the hands of blacks of African descent, at least eighty per cent would have gone to the creators of the groove, the remainder split between the lyrics and the melody. If perchance you are reading this and you are both black and a lawyer, make a name for yourself. Right the wrongs.
- weswpg 5y ago
  Learning about the difference between a "groove", a "melody" and a song has been a wonderful rabbit hole to go down. Thanks!
- yesenadam 5y ago
  I'd love to know if (the downvoters think) that has factual errors. I'm a jazz musician who will soon be releasing music online—some my compositions, some not—and planning to pay license fees etc. Thanks—I'm a totally at a loss what could have made people downvote it!
  - DreamScatter 5y ago
    I think the problem with that post is that race (black and white people) are unnecessarily brought into it. I'm sure that musicians of all races would want this issue addressed. Making it about race is extremely ridiculous.
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      Ohhhh ok thank you! The book is from the UK, I'm in Australia, it didn't seem a ridiculous thing to say to either of us. Maybe the problem was...US sensitivities. I, like I believe the KLF also, am white and have dedicated most of my life to the music of "blacks of African descent". The issue is how much more important groove is in black music, and how copyright is in origin a white thing. Changing copyright would no doubt be a massive, heroic, lifelong task. Like the way it took Douglas Nicholls[0] 30 years work to remove a racist sentence and a bit from the Australian constitution! I just don't hear calling for a hero here as a negative thing at all, the way evidently some people do. Did any black people have a problem with the quote? I am curious. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26980084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26980084 p.s. wow, it's you! I checked out your github and website (crucialflow) a few months ago, hehe small world. proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153386
blondin 5y ago
same here. i am a big fan of film music. i made a small piano reduction of a favorite piece and uploaded it to youtube. i wasn't even mad when i saw the copyright claim within hours, since i run no ads. i was however baffled and somewhat proud that my efforts were not in vain, and that the algorithm thought my poor interpretation was close to the real thing. i do not defend the algorithm though.
- RogerL 5y ago
  You are not allowed to create derivative works from another person's creation, regardless of whether you are making money from it. You can't go and make a Shrek III flick, for example, or write a book set in the Harry Potter universe. Likewise, you can't adapt music from a film (IANAL, there are things like fair use, but in general this holds). https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
  - visarga 5y ago
    > You are not allowed to create (free) derivative works I think putting such constraints on creative work is a cultural disaster.
    - solipsism 5y ago
      Then your beef is with the United States, not with Google.
    - EarlKing 5y ago
      I think misappropriating someone else's work to make a buck is a cultural disaster, but then I work for a living and expect to get paid, so what do I know? Fair Use does exist to provide an avenue for the reuse of the work of others for criticism, parody, and the like., but straight up lifting someone else's work and using it to your own ends, even if noncommercial, is wrong.
      - fuzxi 5y ago

spuz 5y ago

Covers of songs, even if the covers use completely new styles are protected by copyright law and therefore can risk being claimed by YouTube's system: 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...

eru 5y ago
I guess you need to make it a parody to be in the clear?
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'm guessing the next Weird Al has already been disillusioned with the copyright ban hammer.
  - JeremyNT 5y ago
    Weird Al himself was well aware of this issue, and famously would only parody songs after receiving permission from the authors.
    - grayclhn 5y ago
      Permission from the authors is unfortunately different from permission by the copyright holders. IIRC Weird Al did it more for goodwill than legality.
    - stordoff 5y ago
      > Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties. https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/ https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/
  - throwaway17_17 5y ago
    Didn’t even need the next Weird Al. Al’s own YouTube videos were copyright claimed by his own label for violating copyright.
- ksherlock 5y ago
  Not necessarily.... The Posterchild for parody is 2 Live Crew Pretty Woman. Which includes samples of the original Oh, Pretty Woman. Youtube videos get flagged for 10 seconds of a song snippet all the time. After the Campbell v Acuff-Rose Supreme Court decision, 2 Live Crew licensed the song from Acuff-Rose music. (which is what they tried to do in the first place).
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  Parody is a fair use defense, so you have to go through a lawsuit to be able to assert it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yesenadam 5y ago

Not an expert, but I've been learning a lil about this lately. Royalties for performances of someone else's song are paid to the writers of the words and the music. The melody and words can be copyrighted, not the chords or style. So you can use the chords of an existing song and give it new melody and words, and it is your own song. Style has nothing to do it. I love this quote from the classic The Manual: How To Have A Number 1 The Easy Way by KLF: ...the copyright laws that have grown over the past one hundred years have all been developed by whites of European descent and these laws state that fifty per cent of the copyright of any song should be for the lyrics, the other fifty per cent for the top line (sung) melody; groove doesn’t even get a look in. If the copyright laws had been in the hands of blacks of African descent, at least eighty per cent would have gone to the creators of the groove, the remainder split between the lyrics and the melody. If perchance you are reading this and you are both black and a lawyer, make a name for yourself. Right the wrongs.

weswpg 5y ago
Learning about the difference between a "groove", a "melody" and a song has been a wonderful rabbit hole to go down. Thanks!
yesenadam 5y ago
I'd love to know if (the downvoters think) that has factual errors. I'm a jazz musician who will soon be releasing music online—some my compositions, some not—and planning to pay license fees etc. Thanks—I'm a totally at a loss what could have made people downvote it!
- DreamScatter 5y ago
  I think the problem with that post is that race (black and white people) are unnecessarily brought into it. I'm sure that musicians of all races would want this issue addressed. Making it about race is extremely ridiculous.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Ohhhh ok thank you! The book is from the UK, I'm in Australia, it didn't seem a ridiculous thing to say to either of us. Maybe the problem was...US sensitivities. I, like I believe the KLF also, am white and have dedicated most of my life to the music of "blacks of African descent". The issue is how much more important groove is in black music, and how copyright is in origin a white thing. Changing copyright would no doubt be a massive, heroic, lifelong task. Like the way it took Douglas Nicholls[0] 30 years work to remove a racist sentence and a bit from the Australian constitution! I just don't hear calling for a hero here as a negative thing at all, the way evidently some people do. Did any black people have a problem with the quote? I am curious. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26980084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26980084 p.s. wow, it's you! I checked out your github and website (crucialflow) a few months ago, hehe small world. proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153386

blondin 5y ago

same here. i am a big fan of film music. i made a small piano reduction of a favorite piece and uploaded it to youtube. i wasn't even mad when i saw the copyright claim within hours, since i run no ads. i was however baffled and somewhat proud that my efforts were not in vain, and that the algorithm thought my poor interpretation was close to the real thing. i do not defend the algorithm though.

RogerL 5y ago
You are not allowed to create derivative works from another person's creation, regardless of whether you are making money from it. You can't go and make a Shrek III flick, for example, or write a book set in the Harry Potter universe. Likewise, you can't adapt music from a film (IANAL, there are things like fair use, but in general this holds). https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
- visarga 5y ago
  > You are not allowed to create (free) derivative works I think putting such constraints on creative work is a cultural disaster.
  - solipsism 5y ago
    Then your beef is with the United States, not with Google.
  - EarlKing 5y ago
    I think misappropriating someone else's work to make a buck is a cultural disaster, but then I work for a living and expect to get paid, so what do I know? Fair Use does exist to provide an avenue for the reuse of the work of others for criticism, parody, and the like., but straight up lifting someone else's work and using it to your own ends, even if noncommercial, is wrong.
    - fuzxi 5y ago