Vimeo to automatically mute videos with 'unlicensed' soundtracks

[varicam]

Shouldn't the company be liable for resources wasted as a result of making false matches?

[andy lee]

there seems to be a fundamental missunderstand that when you buy a cd or buy a download you ' own it ' as you have paid for it ,

so you can reuse it on your video as you 'paid for it'.

Thats not true - you have paid for the right to listen to the music on your ipod or cd player - thats all

 

You do not own the rights to reuse the music on a  video on youtube or vimeo.

 

You have to pay syncronisation fees to be able to do that legally.

[Andrew Reid]

there seems to be a fundamental missunderstand that when you buy a cd or buy a download you ' own it ' as you have paid for it ,

so you can reuse it on your video as you 'paid for it'.

Thats not true - you have paid for the right to listen to the music on your ipod or cd player - thats all

 

You do not own the rights to reuse the music on a  video on youtube or vimeo.

 

You have to pay syncronisation fees to be able to do that legally.

 

Very true.

 

And this is a big opportunity for the music industry to get their house in order.

 

It costs a musician something like 50 quid to licence a famous photo for their album cover. That is a one off fee I believe, not dependant on number of album covers printed? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is second hand knowledge and I haven't researched it myself.

 

The synchronisation fees for music - it is obscure and inaccessible - the system needs to go mass market. To license a famous Radiohead song it should be as easy as going to a website and clicking, paying, then getting a license by email.

 

A system like that needs to be cheap so it goes mass market, it is better than the mass market piracy and copyright infringement that we have now. Imagine all the amateur video producers using this for their many many cat videos :) It would make the record label and artists a nice little earning.

 

It is much better than the current system... which in the eyes of those uploading tracks to their artistic Vimeo clips... is non existant!

 

Of course I agree musicians should be paid. It is so obvious. It goes without saying. I know musicians in Berlin. One of my closest friends here is one. I have seen their money struggles first hand because of the industry implosion and shift in technology. As a content producer myself I have seen the impact piracy has (on my books). I hate that people have come to expect art, music, knowledge - all for free - and expect us to invest money back into quality material. That does not work! I have been both a consumer and an artist, and the perspective is very different, but somewhere there is a system that works for both of us.

 

I'll be damned if the current 'suits' at big companies will find the right one any time soon.

[andy lee]

I totally agree it needs reforming massively

 

its the Record Industries own fault this huge collapse happened as they sat still for 10 years and did very little,

 

the whole thing with sync fees is complex as you need to clear the recording rights with the record company and the publishing rights with the publisher ....it takes time and one can say yes and the other no - so you are then stuck - no sync.

[Lucian]

Consider also that each time an artist's music is used on a project that is not in line with their artistic goals, and then shared with the public, it's value is diminished.

 

Radiohead or whoever likley want their music being the theme for every art school video project, or worse a car ad. Of course there is a price for everything.

 

I want to have the worlds best actors and best musician's work in my films but I can't afford either so gotta make do with what I can!

[andy lee]

exactly .....

thats why you need a sync license to use a track

My publisher has a whole department assigned JUST for syncs

they also actively push my work to adverts and films

I've had tracks Ive produced or remixed on the Hollywood films First Wives Club, My Best Friends Wedding , Studio 54 and Sliding Doors (Aqua - Turn Back Time , no1 on the UK chart ) all properly done with sync licenses , contracts and royalty payments.

 

Ive also turned down films I dont want to be associated with ....it works both ways.

[JBraddock]

This is a faulty logic. I am not sure how they worded this case legally but there is always an intent of discouragement embedded in rulings like this. In some legal systems, there is a limit to amount that can be demanded as damage, that is to say, for example, the compensation that one demand should not make that person "rich". Still though, the legitimacy of such cases might be questioned.

 

The problem I see is that Vimeo assumes you guilty of copyright infringement unless you prove otherwise and I don't think this is the right approach to it. Lets not forget that Vimeo is being used mainly by professionals so lets have some faith in people. I highly doubt that these people would risk their career by being associated with copyright infringement. 

 

Secondly, the internet is a new platform for many rights, freedoms as well as responsibilities and any regulation should recognise this distinct nature of the internet in order to not alienate itself to masses. We can't take our every day legal logic and impose it to the internet. and I am saying this as a law graduate. The law needs to change. It needs to adapt.

 

This also applies to the services and the convenience is the key here. 

 

I know for example many people who used to pirate movies but now use Netflix or other services. But why? It is not that they grew a conscience out of the blue and now have a flawless moral compass. Because it is easier, hassle free and more importantly accessible. Perhaps similar patterns can be observed in App Store or iTunes.

 

Make it accessible and convenient.

[Quirky]

there seems to be a fundamental missunderstand that when you buy a cd or buy a download you ' own it ' as you have paid for it ,

so you can reuse it on your video as you 'paid for it'.

Thats not true - you have paid for the right to listen to the music on your ipod or cd player - thats all

 

Indeed, I find it curious that even on filmmaking sites like this one people seem to have this juvenile sense of entitlement. People should know better.

 

Neverhteless, the actual issue in this thread is twofold;

 

 

 

You do not own the rights to reuse the music on a  video on youtube or vimeo.

 

You have to pay syncronisation fees to be able to do that legally.

 

That's the key issue here, isn't it, it's way easier said than done. In fact, in some cases it appears to be literally impossible for an aspiring filmmaker to do just that, at least within a reasonable budget and effort. Many people would do just that, if they could, in any reasonable way.

 

Apparently what we need is a new "Steve Jobs" who's got the bollocks, the connections and commercial leverage to talk some sense into the heads of the music industry moguls. Someone who could come up with a new "iTunes for Syncronisation Fees" system for us. Someone who could make the music industry realise that they are peeing in their own bowl of cereals once again by not allowing filmmakers and other multimedia artists easy and reasonably priced means to buy a legal licence for their videos. 

 

If they saw that, they'd realise that allowing it would be a win-win scenario, and allowing such an easy and affordable access to copyrighted music would give them a massive but free marketing boost, too, along with an all new revenue stream via the licence fees. But alas, I'm afraid our rants here will be futile, until the whole music industry kicks off.

 

The other half of the issue is this;

 

 

Shouldn't the company be liable for resources wasted as a result of making false matches?

 

Yes, they should. The (other) problem here is just that, the legal imperative is way too one-sided. The users should be considered "innocent until proven guilty." I believe the majority of people publishing videos on Vimeo are using royalty free music licences, anyway, as per the guidelines they've agreed to respect. They don't want to waste time and fight with some dumb bots and bureaucrats with their inevitable false positives. Nor should they have to.

 

Both issues could indeed be easily fixed by fixing the broken system, not by adding dumb bots into it. It's not like (most) people wouldn't be willing to pay for a licence, if only there was a reasonable system to do so. Perhaps the concept of fair use should be less open to interpretation, too.

This may be repeating the same talking (ranting) points once again, but so what. 

[Lucian]

The music can almost always be licensed, it's not that hard. But for the most part record companies don't really give a shit about the odd few hundred dollars from some student filmmaker who wants a festival licence so there is no point building some huge infrastructure to make it easy for someone who for the most part they cannot afford the music they want to licence. You have to play with toys that are in your league.

 

If you are working on a big budgeted film there are people who handle getting quotes, even if you aren't you can just contact the publisher. I've done it and gotten fair quotes, but mostly they are outrageous.

 

Sites like music bed are there to fill the gap, music that is affordable and easy to licence, the downside is the quality is hit or miss.

 

But I think to say fast, cheap licencing is always win win is missing a crucial point. Successful music artists don't necessarily want you piggy backing off their work and a small licencing fee may not worth having their art and reputation likely devalued. I don't want adverts on my shorts and it bothers me when they pop up with new scores without my permission. It devalues the original

 

The attitude that other peoples art should be yours to mix and mangle lift up your own work with for free or cheap, on a public platform, is outrageous. There are lots of up coming artists who are happy to collaborate with you if you ask though! Like Andrew said, search bandcamp or soundcloud, you might find a future collaborator. 

[andy lee]

nicely said Lucian

[Quirky]

If you are working on a big budgeted film there are people who handle getting quotes, even if you aren't you can just contact the publisher. I've done it and gotten fair quotes, but mostly they are outrageous.

 

Sometimes they (small publishers) don't even bother with a reply, let alone a quote.

 

 

But I think to say fast, cheap licencing is always win win is missing a crucial point. Successful music artists don't necessarily want you piggy backing off their work and a small licencing fee may not worth having their art and reputation likely devalued. I don't want adverts on my shorts and it bothers me when they pop up with new scores without my permission. It devalues the original

 

Yes, that's a good point. In fact I did think about that, too. I wouldn't want to see my work associated with anything whatsoever, without having the chance to opt out. Although when people buy the artist's music they can and will use it in ways beyond the artist's control, anyway. They just won't be using it commercially and not too publicly.

 

But still, even though my thinking may have been a bit premature, perhaps there could be a compromise of some sort. A new alternative system of some sort with the chance for the artists to opt out if they so choose. And/or to come up with material/special editions of their work for the aforementioned purposes only, whilst leaving their regular stuff out of the system. Surely there is no harm in playing with new ideas, until something actually useful pops up. Or doesn't. Surely there's room for improvement in the current state of affairs in general.

 

Meanwhile, I have been using sites like The Music Bed and other sources to buy music licences, and I'll carry on doing that, obviously. For that reason the original topic of this thread, the concept of automated muting of videos with copyrighted soundtracks is no big deal. However, the concept of dumb bots and lazy bureaucrats flagging and disabling our videos for no valid reason is a possible and probable PITA. 

 

 

 

The attitude that other peoples art should be yours to mix and mangle lift up your own work with for free or cheap, on a public platform, is outrageous. 

 

Relax, man. I for one have not  advocated such an attitude. Not intentionally, anyway. I did, however, play with an idea of a possible new and more versatile system of some sort. With the chance for artists to opt out, or pick what they wish to release for a broader licensing system, if anything at all. I never said I have it all figured out already. Nor did I imply that any artist should surrender all their work for any use and for anyone, let alone for free. As an artist I wouldn't have any of that, either. Let's all just chill out and change the tune.

Peace, Unity, Love & Having Fun.  ;)

[Andrew Reid]

The attitude that other peoples art should be yours to mix and mangle lift up your own work with for free or cheap, on a public platform, is outrageous.

 

Erm that is kind of how art works isn't it? Appropriation, borrowing ideas, images and sounds from others, mixing stuff together to create something new.

 

Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.

 

Good job The Beatles didn't have to pay licensing fees to the musicians who influenced their sound... they'd have never have made it out the door.

[Lucian]

I hear what you are saying and I agree all artists build on what came before, and most start by emulating.

 

But Influence and literally using an exact actual copy of someones art to promote your own aren't the same.

 

It is frustrating because filmmaking is so reliant on several art forms to reach its full potential, tough to make a good film without good music. But for me it's not an excuse to take the music just because I want it. It seems silly people shouldn't be able to make little test videos on vimeo and use whatever music they want, but where do you draw the line? It's really only an issue when you are sharing it on a massive public platform. For me sense to avoid the hassle all together and collaborate with folks at my own level.

 

I would probably be more inclined to agree with you, but as I mentioned I have been on the receiving end, it's a horrible feeling to lose control of your art and feel like it's getting sullied. One of my short films has been ripped and re-scored a bunch of times now and posted online, once with death metal!

 

Erm that is kind of how art works isn't it? Appropriation, borrowing ideas, images and sounds from others, mixing stuff together to create something new.

 

Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.

 

Good job The Beatles didn't have to pay licensing fees to the musicians who influenced their sound... they'd have never have made it out the door.

[Quirky]

Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.

 

Besides, "crap work" is highly subjective to begin with. The weight of your opinion depends on the size of your budget.

The Vimeo filmmaker doesn't usually have the studio, producer and mafia money to get things rolling, whereas the filmmaker working in Hollywood usually does. If, say, late Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Lynch were both mere Vimeo artists today and looking for some music for their videos, many people would call their work crap, and suggest that they should only play with toys that are in their own league, and that they'd better avoid the hassle altogether and collaborate with folks at their own level. 

[Lucian]

Besides, "crap work" is highly subjective to begin with. The weight of your opinion depends on the size of your budget.

The Vimeo filmmaker doesn't usually have the studio, producer and mafia money to get things rolling, whereas the filmmaker working in Hollywood usually does. If, say, late Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Lynch were both mere Vimeo artists today and looking for some music for their videos, many people would call their work crap, and suggest that they should only play with toys that are in their own league, and that they'd better avoid the hassle altogether and collaborate with folks at their own level. 

Read my post, I didn't say crap work, music lifts up any type of work, good or bad. It's a huge part of the cinematic experience and of equal value.

 

And checkout the history of David Lynch- whom you mentioned, and his composer Angelo Badalamentii, they started working together on blue velvet when Angelo was essentially an unknown. That collaboration has produced some of the greatest and most original cinematic moments ever.

 

Likewise Clint Mansell had never written a score when he first began working with Arronfkski, they've been together ever since.

 

Maybe I worded it poorly, but working with people who are accessible to you isn't a derogatory suggestion, just because Angelo was fairly unknown, doesn't diminish his amazing talents! Somewhere on soundcloud there is the next Badalamenti looking for his/her lynch to partner up with and make something new, hope I find him/her first  :)

[andy lee]

it really is a case of 'do as you would be done by'

if you create copyright material of your own and sell it and you dont want people taking it for free , be that books, videos , music, songs, films , magazines, articles , online content too etc

then dont take other peoples work either and use it for free without permission.

 

I produce all my own music , and I also comission (pay for ) new original music from other producers and writers.

I dont ever use any music I dont now own or have a license to use.

[varicam]

I produce all my own music , and I also comission (pay for ) new original music from other producers and writers.

I dont ever use any music I dont now own or have a license to use.

 

I do that too.  Yet my videos still get flagged!  My last archive of a concert of Handel's Messiah excerpts received roughly 10 copyright claims.

[noone]

I am just an old amateur who likes to photograph (and lately video) live music local shows.    This is mostly cover stuff.   I want to upload to You Tube but in order to do that realise I have to respect copyright (which is why I have not done that yet).    I just wish there was a simple cheap and easy to access way to pay a small reasonable fee to be able to upload the songs (I would do it with the band I am recordings permission too).     The couple of times I have asked about it, I have not even got a response from the record companies.      

 

The artists and record companies could make a mint from this.      At the moment, nobody sees it except me and the bands (probably a good thing for now anyway).  

[Axel]

The synchronisation fees for music - it is obscure and inaccessible - the system needs to go mass market. To license a famous Radiohead song it should be as easy as going to a website and clicking, paying, then getting a license by email.

 

 

The perfect solution. But this is not a perfect world.

 

'What are 10.000 lawyers on the ground of the ocean?'

'A good start.'

[Bioskop.Inc]

And this is a big opportunity for the music industry to get their house in order.

 

The synchronisation fees for music - it is obscure and inaccessible - the system needs to go mass market. To license a famous Radiohead song it should be as easy as going to a website and clicking, paying, then getting a license by email.

 

A system like that needs to be cheap so it goes mass market, it is better than the mass market piracy and copyright infringement that we have now. Imagine all the amateur video producers using this for their many many cat videos :) It would make the record label and artists a nice little earning.

This is so true.

Even if you work for a big company (BBC) like i did, the whole understanding & getting rights for stuff is a complete nightmare.

In fact, so much of a nightmare that they have a department just for it & they are the most grumpy people on planet earth - due to the fact that their job is/must be so frustrating because no one but them understands all the ins and outs.

I remember being asked to draw up an internal guide for film & music rights - worst week of my life!

The last time i tried to pay for some music, it took so long that i ended up writing a piece myself - the band did enventually say no, because they thought it might affect their sales & they no longer exist!

I don't blame people for just using something if its "Not for Profit" - its probably those that do make money that are probably to blame for all of this.

 

Here's an [easy - LOL] guide to getting rights to music:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/before-you-start/music-rights