Vimeo to automatically mute videos with 'unlicensed' soundtracks

[sunyata]

How about MIA having to threaten to self release her album directly on her website because Interscope held it back over a year on concerns it wasn't "hardcore" enough. Artists are generally much smarter about this topic than most people realize. It's the accountants that just do not compute how to promote online.

[andrew00]

From the pov of music copyright, the issue is that there's two types of copyright - the copyright for the person(s) who wrote the song and the copyright of the person(s) who recorded/performed the song.

 

So you could take a classical piece a few hundred years old - the writer copyright will have expired, but if you're trying to use a recording from an orchestra who recorded it ten years ago, then their recording as the performers will still be valid.

 

That's why classical stuff can get flagged even though it's an old piece.

 

The problem here is that Youtube, Vimeo etc, have to take into account the aggressive claims of multiple groups of people/organisations 'protecting' the interests of their members.

 

 

In theory this is a fine thing but it just isn't the way the modern world works, hence why Youtube generally do ok with their fingerprinting imo, at least it means musicians are generally represented.

 

The problem is who 'owns' the copyright, this is something that is multi layered that isn't represented in a thick lacquer of action.

 

I've had scenarios where a video I've made has had the agreement of an artist to use, then a year or two later he's switched labels and his new label have done takedown requests and the video has been taken down. But I have permission to use - but because they act first and think later it means I have to go through a big process that makes me feel like the criminal to try to win the right to put the video back on.

 

I've had situations where a label I've worked with have had their music, that they funded from artists signed to them, removed from a copyright claim from a digital distribution service who have 'registered' the music with Youtube - this service being used to push the music to iTunes, Spotify etc. The distributor have no rights to the content but they've still aggressively claimed it. Again the battle ensues.

 

I've had friends working for music licensing companies who commission composers to create music, which they've then sold. They've had situations where companies who have bought that music for usage have make takedown claims for any other video that uses that same music, despite the fact they just have a license to use it and not rights of its ownership. Again, trouble comes.

 

Basically it's a minefield that all these hosting companies have rarely bothered to actually figure out because they don't care, they're a volume game.

[JoshMonie]

A terrible shame Vimeo has been forced down the same route as YouTube - all of this rubbish is what made me transition to Vimeo as a platform.

 

A lot of the content on my page is sheerly personal projects; fun things I have shot whilst on holiday or on a day out that I have cut together because, guess what.. it's what I love doing. I am in no way benefitting from uploading these videos: I make no money from them. All I get is [hopefully] some nice comments from fellow users telling me how nice that shot of a tree was at 0:16, or vice versa.

 

Pretty much every one of my personal pieces uses popular music. I chose those tracks because they are good, I enjoy the artist's music, I am enthused by them. That's why I pay £0.79 or £0.99 or whatever iTunes is charing these days. I would like to think the artists / labels could cut Vimeo and filmmakers like me (and all of us) a break in this case. 

 

Stop allowing a very small minority who upload copyrighted material for personal gain taint the reputation of the rest of us honest filmmakers. We can't all afford a $500 licensing fee for some bland royalty free track for our camping trip video. 

[RamblinR]

I'm new to video editing and purchased Vimeo Plus just recently to have better loading times etc and because I had seen so many videos with music clips used in them.  I'm moving towards doing wedding videos so the music that was played at the wedding is a big part of the video clip.  They purchased the music to play it at the wedding ...  I paid and downloaded it from iTunes to put with the video.  As usual with this type of video, friends and family will view it and the bride and groom and a few others will most likely download it.  Nobody is paying to view the video or to download it.  It's not the music that is making people come to view it it's the content of the video.  I do hope to get paid for creating the video but I see that as payment for my time spent shooting the footage and editing.  I'm just trying to replicate the day for them.  

 

It's a pity the artists couldn't be the ones deciding this.  I wonder how many would be quite happy for their music to be used in this manner.

[varicam]

Maybe there will be a revival of silent film!

[HurtinMinorKey]

Legitimate question to you Andrew, not trolling here. Would you be okay with me downloading footage that you have shot and re-editing it or repurposing it somehow for my own creative use without permission? Uploaded to vimeo for as a personal or experimental project

 

I doubt he'd have a problem with that at all, as long as you give attribution. 

[Andrew Reid]

A terrible shame Vimeo has been forced down the same route as YouTube - all of this rubbish is what made me transition to Vimeo as a platform.

 

A lot of the content on my page is sheerly personal projects; fun things I have shot whilst on holiday or on a day out that I have cut together because, guess what.. it's what I love doing. I am in no way benefitting from uploading these videos: I make no money from them. All I get is [hopefully] some nice comments from fellow users telling me how nice that shot of a tree was at 0:16, or vice versa.

 

Pretty much every one of my personal pieces uses popular music. I chose those tracks because they are good, I enjoy the artist's music, I am enthused by them. That's why I pay £0.79 or £0.99 or whatever iTunes is charing these days. I would like to think the artists / labels could cut Vimeo and filmmakers like me (and all of us) a break in this case. 

 

Stop allowing a very small minority who upload copyrighted material for personal gain taint the reputation of the rest of us honest filmmakers. We can't all afford a $500 licensing fee for some bland royalty free track for our camping trip video. 

 

This is why fair use copyright law needs more clearly defining. At the moment, it seems to work on witches brews and magic.

[Andrew Reid]

From the pov of music copyright, the issue is that there's two types of copyright - the copyright for the person(s) who wrote the song and the copyright of the person(s) who recorded/performed the song.

 

So you could take a classical piece a few hundred years old - the writer copyright will have expired, but if you're trying to use a recording from an orchestra who recorded it ten years ago, then their recording as the performers will still be valid.

 

That's why classical stuff can get flagged even though it's an old piece.

 

How about MIDI tracks of classical music, where the computer is the performer. Anyone know of any good MIDI resources for the written music where copyright has expired, and a good app to take the basic notation and turn it into something more interesting than a series of bleeps?

[sunyata]

Renoise seems to have a rich community of users and demos that are really impressive considering it's a pretty inexpensive sequencer.. they aren't MIDI I don't think, but the sounds can be generated procedurally or with analog samples and you can grab the demo for free.

 

http://www.renoise.com/songs

 

 

For royalty free audio and effects, sounddogs has a clear license offering on most of their stuff.. no restrictions.  Can be used for theatrical trailers or games etc, look for the no restrictions license.

 

http://www.sounddogs.com/

[Andrew Reid]

I recommend turning off iTunes and listening to Bandcamp for a while, then if you like something for your own personal artistic freedom of use, get in touch directly with the artist via their Twitter or Facebook page.

[sunyata]

yea, bandcamp is great. mark de clive is releasing his new album soon on bandcamp. i hope the site succeeds.. not to mention that i asked them if they had any merch and the person answered my email by asking for my address and size; a week later a free t-shirt arrived, very nice too. 

 

artists can set their own price or let you choose, I've found myself willing to go full price or above for anything I think is worth it. 

 

one guy was asking like $1,000 for his LP...  musicians.

[Andrew Reid]

Stuff like this is 100% better and more creative than 99% of what I've heard on The Music Bed and Vimeo Music Store https://kishibashi.bandcamp.com/album/lighght

[varicam]

How about MIDI tracks of classical music, where the computer is the performer. Anyone know of any good MIDI resources for the written music where copyright has expired, and a good app to take the basic notation and turn it into something more interesting than a series of bleeps?

Most classical music MIDI sucks.

 

Try musopen for public domain RECORDINGS of classical music.  The performances are not all of the same quality.  But there are quite a few gems.

[andy lee]

create your own music ,or commission someone to create for you .

 

taking someone elses music without permission is just pain copyright theft and technically illegal, and it only now the Music Industry is very very slowly catching up and clamping down on Youtube (which survives on totally illegal content ) and Vimeo that is also guilty of this.

All these companies know they are profiting from illegal content uploaded onto their sites, they have just done nothing for years to stop it. as it makes them money and not the artist or record company,

They should have done this 10 years ago , then the music industry would not be in such a dire mess it is now!

 

I have personal experience of this as I was nominated for a Grammy and have Produced and Remixed over 400 records worldwide and had over 90 top 40 hits , 65 + Gold, Silver and Platium Records in my 25 year career in the Music Industry as a Record Producer under the name Love To infinity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_to_Infinity

 

http://www.discogs.com/artist/11911-Love-To-Infinity?type=Credits&subtype=Remix

[sunyata]

That MIDI might sound a little more interesting going through this patch.. UVI's IRCAM Piano samples.. John Cage style "prepared" piano samples, replete with erasers, nails and coins in the strings. 

 

http://www.uvi.net/en/composer-tools/ircam-prepared-piano.html

[Zach Ashcraft]

How about MIDI tracks of classical music, where the computer is the performer. Anyone know of any good MIDI resources for the written music where copyright has expired, and a good app to take the basic notation and turn it into something more interesting than a series of bleeps?

Absolutely, I do this all the time! 

 

If you google almost any composers name along with midi (i.e. Mozart Midi's, Dvorak Midis) You'll easily come across a nice library of midi files. IMSLP.org is another great resource for searching composer catalogs, that often have midi tracks attached. 

 

Garageband has a wealth of great sounds built in, from decently good piano sounds to really quite good synths. If you can find multi-track midis making arrangements is pretty easy.

 

Better yet, if you live near a university with a music program, you can always find musicians who are willing and able to perform and gain exposure. The best thing is that most of them will work for cheap, sometimes they'll even work for free pizza :) While it might not be feasible to gather orchestra of college students, string quartets and other smaller chamber ensembles are easy to find. There are dozens upon dozens of them at larger universities   

[sunyata]

btw Andrew, by taking down music that is licensed to BMG or whomever, you aren't putting more royalties into the pockets of the artist, the corporations are just controlling the media outlets that your potential fans can hear you on, and ultimately that gives them more control over the artist. They get to decide who to promote and when to promote them. 

 

MIA for example has consistently used her website, and some fake websites like Vicky Leekx, to get her mixtapes out there w/o her labels consent. This brings her closer to her fans, and when her album is released, she makes up for it on her sales. It would be even better if they bought it on bandcamp so she got more like 90% of the profits. Anyway, record sales are not where the profits are now, it's in merch and live shows, so all promotion helps. A viral video could do more to promote a band than an army of promotion weasels. Kanye West wasn't complaining when that girl quit her job and his song "Gone" went viral with it.

[Lucian]

What blows is in most cases the rights to music doesn't belong to the artist and if you want to licence it you will pay massive fees and have restricted usage and all the money goes to universal or some other company that had no hand in creating the art.

 

I hope the current trend of self made musician's by meritocracy on the internet continues and the relevance of big music record companies for distribution dies completely. It would be wonderful to negotiate with the artists management directly and know the fees you pay are going directly to person who actually made the art.

 

I feel like the $200 for personal use without strings attached that music bed and such do is very reasonable and I've had no bones about paying it since I know the artist is getting a good portion of the money.

 

Ultimately though, whoever owns the art should be able to say to whom and how it's distributed, I don't understand the entitlement attitude in the digital age. If you don't like it you should try making your own, peoples art in all mediums has value!

[Christina Ava]

The first came from Audible Magic, which has patented technology for content “fingerprinting†that lets media companies and websites like YouTube automate the process of locating and removing unlicensed user uploads of copyrighted materials.

The company is now leveraging that expertise to provide supplemental content on tablets and computers, the so-called “second screen†in entertainment.  A smartphone app listens to what you’re watching on TV, identifies it, and offers related content.  In the demo, the app synched an episode of Million Dollar Money Drop to a home play-along game that followed the episode precisely, letting you go beyond simply yelling at the television.

 

the company behind this orwellian tech......in soviet russia the television watches you!

[JHines]

create your own music ,or commission someone to create for you .

 

taking someone elses music without permission is just pain copyright theft and technically illegal, and it only now the Music Industry is very very slowly catching up and clamping down on Youtube (which survives on totally illegal content ) and Vimeo that is also guilty of this.

All these companies know they are profiting from illegal content uploaded onto their sites, they have just done nothing for years to stop it. as it makes them money and not the artist or record company,

They should have done this 10 years ago , then the music industry would not be in such a dire mess it is now!

 

I have personal experience of this as I was nominated for a Grammy and have Produced and Remixed over 400 records worldwide and had over 90 top 40 hits , 65 + Gold, Silver and Platium Records in my 25 year career in the Music Industry as a Record Producer under the name Love To infinity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_to_Infinity

 

http://www.discogs.com/artist/11911-Love-To-Infinity?type=Credits&subtype=Remix