Vimeo to automatically mute videos with 'unlicensed' soundtracks

[Andrew Reid]

Neither. Copyright infringement.

 

You can agree with it or not, but it's the law. Can't blame Vimeo for enforcing it.

 

No actually, it qualifies as Fair Use under copyright law.

 

However the Fair Use system is useless.

 

Say for example a musician is busking and singing a cover version.

 

Nobody tips and they die of starvation... That is non-commercial use of the cover, so Fair Use.

 

As soon as someone tips him, he risks being sued because he lacks the required license.

 

Copyright infringement is one thing... Quality of life quite another.

 

The current system is not fit for purpose and it doesn't protect the earnings of musicians, it decreases them.

 

I am sure the uploader of that Staff Pick would gladly pay for a license for the sound track if they could be granted it with some certainty, quickly and affordably (i.e. within their means).

 

There simply isn't that system in place.

 

----

 

I'm sorry Andy I don't agree it is stealing. Nobody is denying the right of musicians to sell their work. By taking their work and creating something new with it - in this case a rather brilliant video - that is the same as The Beatles being influenced by 50's R&B.

 

New stuff cannot exist if you put legal roadblocks in the way of creating it.

 

Therefore new careers and new businesses cannot exist...

 

It is stupid creatively and stupid economically and something really needs to be done.

 

It is ridiculous we are all ok with listening to such a broad range of commercial music on the radio and on Spotify, where the musicians get rewarded monetarily, and yet there is not a licensing system at Vimeo for the exact same music.

 

I'd much rather listen to music this way (i.e. with the video playing above) than to switch on the radio.

 

Have you listened to the radio recently!? Oh dear.

[andy lee]

 

I'm sorry Andy I don't agree it is stealing. Nobody is denying the right of musicians to sell their work. By taking their work and creating something new with it - in this case a rather brilliant video - that is the same as The Beatles being influenced by 50's R&B.

 

 

As soon as you use someone elses work on your video without permission it is copyright theft - thats the law

its noting to do with creating something new or influences  - you can be inspired to write your own music in a similar style etc then do that its legal to be inspired !

 

by taking a sound recording that belongs to someone else it is just copyright theft.

Sound recordings have a monetary value to who ever owns them and created them.

 

the thing is Cold Play or who ever probabaly dont want any of us to use their recording on a video and thats their choise , just because you are I like some music doesn't mean we can just use it , the band have a say its their work .

 

 

for instance in 1996 Michael Jackson asked me to remix his song 'They Dont Care About Us', it took us (Love To Infinity) 14 days to do the work for Sony/Epic his record label - we got paid for doing so , His record label OWN the sound recording ...not me .

Even I cannot use this song on my video I made that I want to upload to Vimeo , even though I legally worked on the record and have Silver Disc on my Lounge wall from the sales it achieved , I dont own the recording Sony Epic own it - I cannot use it - yet my name is on the cd !

[itimjim]

Worth a watch if you've not seen.

 

[Nikkor]

As soon as you use someone elses work on your video without permission it is copyright theft - thats the law

its noting to do with creating something new or influences  - you can be inspired to write your own music in a similar style etc then do that its legal to be inspired !

 

by taking a sound recording that belongs to someone else it is just copyright theft.

Sound recordings have a monetary value to who ever owns them and created them.

 

the thing is Cold Play or who ever probabaly dont want any of us to use their recording on a video and thats their choise , just because you are I like some music doesn't mean we can just use it , the band have a say its their work .

 

 

for instance in 1996 Michael Jackson asked me to remix his song 'They Dont Care About Us', it took us (Love To Infinity) 14 days to do the work for Sony/Epic his record label - we got paid for doing so , His record label OWN the sound recording ...not me .

Even I cannot use this song on my video I made that I want to upload to Vimeo , even though I legally worked on the record and have Silver Disc on my Lounge wall from the sales it achieved , I dont own the recording Sony Epic own it - I cannot use it - yet my name is on the cd !

Legally there is no doubt. But for example, let's take that song you are talking about, it only has value left because of the people who heard it, the music itself is just poor pop music. 

The other day they asked tarantino why they wouldn't hire a composer to do the music on his films, he said something like that he can't think of any composer making a music score with "soul". I can imagine, specially when talking about taratino, that the soul he mentions is the music,the context plus memories, and that's not something you can actually own. But obviously they make a lot of money on that fact, on the lives of others.

 

I would like to get compensated by the music labels because it bothers me a lot having to listen to all the shit everywhere.

[itimjim]

Well, if you guys are serious about supporting artists, don't shed a tear for the RIAA and the music industry, support websites like "bandcamp.com" where artists can sell directly to you. They aren't losing money because of Vimeo, that's just free promotion, they're losing money because of offshore file upload websites and the music blogs that link to them.

 

Thanks for bringing my attention to bandcamp.com, looks great. However, I don't see any literature that states the artists wouldn't have any issue with using their work as part of fair use. Love the fact the proceeds go to the artist, but does it give the amateur content creator any more options?

[Julian]

I don't see how this falls under fair use.

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

Also, I thought fair use is an American regulation. I'm sure we don't have this in The Netherlands (we have citation rights, but using music in public videos sure doesn't comply to that). Not sure how that works in Germany though.

[Rudolf]

This discussion is too much about law and profit I think. There is an other interesting question: How big is the portion of the music on that new creation (the video)? 

I have been making music and doing some filming/video for 25 years with very little success but much fun and passion.

Honestly I don't think it is as artistic to create a video with random shot in any city with any people and add some music as to create just a nice piece of music. When you want to create something really new and try to be artistic it is much more satisfying to create everything yourself (including the music) or work with musicians together.

What I try to say is: In many cases the value of the music is higher than some more or less average footage. If you really like the song there is a much higher chance you'll watch the video then the other way round (in my case)

We have to rate the music as art much higher and not just talk about law and money!

 

PS I am not an artist. And I don't understand how so many people dare to call themselves artist?! 

[Andrew Reid]

Fair Use exists for a reason. Please do look it up...

 

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

 

Although it originated in the US it applies all over the world including in the UK.

 

The easiest solution to all of this is still to pay the musicians.

 

The current system for doing so is shit.

 

It needs a ground-up rethink and all the recording industry bosses around the table with the major internet companies.

 

Copyright law also needs amending as a lot has changed with the internet age.

[Andrew Reid]

Copyright isn't designed to stifle creativity or prevent artists from creating new work, but that's exactly what it is doing in the case of the Vimeo Copyright Match system. And the big shame is, every time a match is made and the clip deleted or muted, the potential to make money for the rights holder of the song is squandered.

 

The problem is law makers and businessmen are not artists, they don't understand the process or even the very concept. Again they all need to get round the table and thrash out a new world order, otherwise the music business will go bankrupt and the creative scene will die from a lack of inspiration and new talent coming through.

[Rudolf]

It would be also appropriate to ask the artist who created the music to inspire your video for permission. Maybe the musician just doesn't like his music being used for any reason...

 

BTW I have made very bad experiences with so called fair music: I sold very little cds 5-6 years ago with a fair lable and discovered later that my cd was on no. 4 of their charts (I googled the my cd and found hundreds of obviously illegal download links).

 

However the only way for me to make some money with my music is to produce GEMA free music which my customers licenses from me

and then may use as agreed!

[nigelbb]

What is classed as fair use of copyright material varies in different jurisdictions but generally extends to reporting news, parody or academic study. It does not involve taking somebody else's work & using it to enhance & improve yours.

[pablogrollan]

Say for example a musician is busking and singing a cover version.

 

Nobody tips and they die of starvation... That is non-commercial use of the cover, so Fair Use.

 

Not really. The moment you allow the possibility of a tip or any kind of retribution, it is commercial use regardless of how much you earn. Just like if you were selling the song in a store and managed to sell 0 copies.

 

In addition, Fair Use belongs to American legislation, so it may apply to lawsuits generated in the US or by American artists -even if the infringement happens in Europe-, but if you use Kraftwerk music in your video and publish it in Germany, Fair Use would not apply.

 

Having said that, I agree that the system and legislation needs re-thinking to make sense in our age, not because it is "blocking artists" -that is never a reason, come on!- but because the business model is obsolete. If you could license a Coldplay song for 50$ nobody would complain. The key is switching from a thousand 3K$ operations to a million 50$ operations, just like you used to buy VHS movies for 40$ and now you can download/stream them for 5$. It's all about moving on (mentality-wise) to a market with a customer base of 800 million users. Now you can easily buy footage from American companies or music from Australia, something unthinkable in the tape & mail model...

[Quirky]

Theft or inspiration?

 

Neither. 

It's something many of us would like to do but won't, because it's difficult or impossible to do without any copyright infringement. Even the concept of fair use is currently controversial and unclear, so we might as well avoid it, too. Unless our video is for private or limited audience only.

 

Having said that, I do agree about the basic theme and the basic dilemma. In other words yes, I think that the copyright of the artist should obviously be respected but, I also think that the system and the whole music industry has become partially outdated and should be updated somehow. 

 

Back in the day it may have been simpler, as there were very few filmmakers with big public audiences and high production value films with proper soundtracks. The rest of the camera toters were just a bunch of harmless hobbyists with very small or nonexistent audiences. This kind of problem didn't quite exist. There was a big barrier and a bunch of professional gatekeepers between the publishing artists, aspiring artists and the audience. Not just within music and film industry, but also in book publishing.

Today, ever since the internet became mainstream, the barrier has more or less gone, and the amount of people with the potential for large, global audiences has exploded. Therefore a big number of aspiring artists now have an unprecedented chance for fulfilling their creative dreams, and creating quality content and offering it directly to their audience. But some of the tools for that are still missing or outdated.

 

Therefore the system should be updated, too. There should be a new, improved and more flexible system where the music licensing conformed better to today's world and demands. It should be more flexible and versatile, without an army of unnecessary gatekeepers, but also without ignoring any party's copyright. Even aspiring filmmakers should have an easier system to legally license music, directly from the artists or via their agent, and thus with mutual consent.

 

I believe quite a few musicians would already understand that any legally lisenced video in Vimeo would be a 'free' ad for the artist, and likely to lead to more sales of the music. A win-win scenario. Especially if the artist has the chance to opt out of the system if s/he wanted. Pretty much like in iTunes and other online music stores. Either you opt in to the new licensing system or you don't. It's the artist's choice.

Speaking of opting out, looks like even the last curmudgeons like AC/DC have finally started seeing daylight and joined iTunes store, as the traditional system is no longer working as it did yesteryear. 

 

Another case in point, the book publishing industry. In book publishing the winds of change have already been stronger, and the old system with its army of gatekeepers has crumbled. Today a lot of both well known published authors and new independent authors alike are doing better as self-published authors than they did with the traditional big publishing houses. Some big name authors have walked away from seven figure book deals with traditional publishers, because they think they don't need the big publishers any longer, and they do well without them. Which has turned out to be true. The stigma of self-published author has long gone, too.

 

As for the aspiring authors, a lot of them now have a chance to find their own audience, and many of them can make a living that way, depending on the quality of their work. They can now decide to sell their ebooks directly if they so choose, and still make a deal about a printed version of their book if they want to. They can also sell the rights for a movie script, too, or write it themselves to the movie producer directly. Or do all that via a third party aggregator, or go with Amazon. They can hire their own graphic artists for the book cover, they can buy a license for a photo from a photographer, they can hire or collaborate with proof readers and editors themselves, they can also do their own marketing the way they want, all without the traditional publishers. Something that was impossible for them less than a decade ago. It was not that there was no audience willing to pay for their books, but because the traditional publishers wouldn't bother to publish most of them. Eventually time and technology found a way around them, and now the publishing industry is in trouble.

 

The same may happen in the music industry soon, too. People are still willing to pay for music, and people are also willing to pay for things like sync licence, too, if only it was made easier, more affordable, or just possible. It's bound to happen some way, anyway, and both the big audience and the creatives will find a way to bypass the old archaic system, eventually. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement or theft. That is another topic altogether.

[Stab]

So what do guys like me do now?

 

I shoot a lot of wedding video's, and clients often want to pick their own music of choice. Often it's a song that means something to them.

 

Does this mean I can no longer upload this film to Vimeo? What is the alternative?

I cannot contact all the big record labels for  all the wedding video's I do that at most 300 people will watch, right?

[varicam]

So what do guys like me do now?

 

I shoot a lot of wedding video's, and clients often want to pick their own music of choice. Often it's a song that means something to them.

 

Does this mean I can no longer upload this film to Vimeo? What is the alternative?

I cannot contact all the big record labels for  all the wedding video's I do that at most 300 people will watch, right?

 

Don't upload to Vimeo.  Just hand over the video in an SD card or USB stick and let the couple worry about the copyrights.

[Quirky]

So what do guys like me do now?

 

Just be careful what you're promising to your clients, and what you upload to Vimeo. Or elsewhere online, ftm. 

The Vimeo policy change doesn't really change much.

 

 

I shoot a lot of wedding video's, and clients often want to pick their own music of choice. Often it's a song that means something to them.

 

Does this mean I can no longer upload this film to Vimeo? 

 

Yup. 

 

Although doing that hasn't really been okay before, either, you know. 

 

 

What is the alternative?

 

1. Use royalty free music. You can buy whole albums of royalty free music online, as well as buy an appropriate licence of single songs from the sites like Music Bed, Triple Scoop, Song Freedom, Premium Beat, etc, etc. Some stuff is even free.

 

2. Change your policy for your wedding shoots. Make it clear to the client right in the first meeting, and put it in writing that you don't do music requests, and that you'll always pick the soundtrack music yourself. Your video and its sountrack is a complete package, your piece of art. Ask what kind of music they like, not specific performers or songs, just genres, moods, that sort of thing. Take clues from their stories, and so on. Then just search those aforementioned sources and pick a track or two.

 

As for the wedding video that already has copyrighted music in the soundtrack, do like varicam said, hand it over to the couple in a USB stick, for example, or maybe in a DVD, which they'll less likely copy and burn for others. I'd also say do not just give them the plain USB stick or a plain DVD, buy a beautiful gift box with a custom made USB stick or a DVD with a printed label. That is, if you're not doing that already. 

 

You could also add a quick disclaimer in the beginning of your film, a bit like the copyright notice in rental disks, stating that this film contains copyrighted music and is intended for private viewing only, copying and distributing it is not allowed. You know, the usual legalese, for few seconds, but make it stylish, and not too obtrusive. Just to cover your own posteriore.

if the clients wish to have a film that they can share to their family and friends, just edit another version with royalty free music and charge some extra. 

 

I don't usually do weddings, but I've done a few. In one case I did hand over an edited video with some copyrighted music, and I did it pretty much like described above. In that case I already knew the couple, and I knew I wouldn't have to worry about copies ending up in open circulation and for bigger audiences. 

[Stab]

Yea I guess you are right Quirky... 

 

But I've always assumed that, as long as a video doesn't get 100.000's of views it isn't much of a problem to use copyrighted music. I post my wedding video's on Facebook, get maybe 300-500 views at most, and that's it. I just keep 'em on Vimeo to show to possible future clients with a link.

 

I don't think many people have gotten legal punishment because of this and, although I know it is illegal, this shouldn't be much of a big deal I suppose.

 

But if Vimeo pushes this through, that means I will not even be able to take this risk :)

 

Also, my wedding video company is still in it's early phases and I can't really say 'no' to customers at the moment if the competition will say 'yes'. Difficult.

[Julian]

So deliver it to your clients with the music of choice for private use, and upload a version with music licensed under Creative Commons for your promotional purposes. Problem solved.

[dafreaking]

So deliver it to your clients with the music of choice for private use, and upload a version with music licensed under Creative Commons for your promotional purposes. Problem solved.

 

Sounds great in theory, except sometimes more popular music adds that little extra zing to ones promotional videos. But does seem like the best workaround for now.

[Andrew Reid]

So deliver it to your clients with the music of choice for private use, and upload a version with music licensed under Creative Commons for your promotional purposes. Problem solved.

 

You can't just strip a sound track off an edit and replace it with a completely different one... Well you can, so long as you're not basing the entire concept of the video around that crucial song, the timing of the edit, the mood, the meaning, the lyrics, the soundscape and the pacing!

 

:)