Jump to content

Vimeo to automatically mute videos with 'unlicensed' soundtracks


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyright infringement, there is something terribly wrong with that business imo.

Btw, you mentioned I should research fair use, maybe, I'm not an expert. But I think you should do the same.. the Wiki you link to is exactly where I got that quote from, I'm pretty sure the way you use (copyrighted) music on your video's would not classify as fair use.

 

Also see Pablo's reply.

 

And: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

Anyway, I don't like copyright laws either, but I respect them when creating my own stuff and uploading it to the public. And even though I agree with a lot of the arguments, I don't think justifies to just do as you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyrig

Have you seen this?   vimeo.com/blog/post:626   Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is

I make 3-4 wedding videos each year.  The couples I shoot choose their own music for very particular reasons, mostly some kind of emotional connection to a song.   It might be the first song they danc

If a person is unable to do their business without copyright infringement, there is something terribly wrong with that business imo.

 

I completely agree. Especially since the word "business" and not "hobby" is included in the sentence. Depending on how much money you charge or generate from your work, you have to adjust your budget accordingly. Just like you can't always afford to shoot with an Alexa, if a project is small or personal you can always resort to Royalty Free, Public Domain or Creative Commons music and leave the 3K$ licensing fees for commercials.

 

I'm only concerned with human/bot ratio in Vimeo's policy. I always use properly licensed music in my projects and it would be trouble if a client has problems to upload it to Vimeo just because it is "flagged" by software without even giving you a chance to send them the license certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm all in favour of artists being compensated, I think this will be the end of Vimeo as we know it if videos end up being removed. Going through videos I've liked on Vimeo, there aren't many that don't contain a copywritten music track.

 

Automatically including a link to purchase the song would probably be the best option, as is the case with a lot of Youtube videos. Or even including a link to the song on Soundcloud if the artists have made it a free download.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vimeo should risk getting into lawsuit wars with Universal, Warner and EMI so that the hipsters can use whatever songs they choose for their montage videos of flowers, sunsets, and city life? If you are shooting stuff for non commercial reasons, then you don't need to rip off copyrighted material w/o permission. You can go to freemusicarchive.org and find music that fits your scene. And "fair use" in this instance is bullshit since tons of Vimeo work results in monetary gain indirectly (you don't think Phillip Bloom has gotten clients via Vimeo?). How do you distinguish someone making test videos for fun/personal reasons, and someone uploading work with hopes of gaining clients (basically using Vimeo as a marketing tool).

It always perplexed me that Vimeo was so lax on people illegally using music. I obviously don't like the new policy because it limits my options, but if you can't see the justification behind this policy... ??? wtf?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vimeo should risk getting into lawsuit wars with Universal, Warner and EMI so that the hipsters can use whatever songs they choose for their montage videos of flowers, sunsets, and city life? If you are shooting stuff for non commercial reasons, then you don't need to rip off copyrighted material w/o permission. You can go to freemusicarchive.org and find music that fits your scene. And "fair use" in this instance is bullshit since tons of Vimeo work results in monetary gain indirectly (you don't think Phillip Bloom has gotten clients via Vimeo?). How do you distinguish someone making test videos for fun/personal reasons, and someone uploading work with hopes of gaining clients (basically using Vimeo as a marketing tool).

It always perplexed me that Vimeo was so lax on people illegally using music. I obviously don't like the new policy because it limits my options, but if you can't see the justification behind this policy... ??? wtf?

 

As a content producer (photography) I don't mind selling my work for a low amount of money to people who are only going to use it for a small noncommercial project.  I rarely if ever sell my work royalty free.   The bulk of my work I charge as much as I can.  But if someone says I saw you sold a picture for $500 for an ad campaign but I need to use one of your pictures for a small local commercial thing for six months, I slash my fee.  I am accessible.  I am not a pro.  I will right size my fee for the project.  The problem is even if you contact record labels you won't even get a reply let alone be charged a fee in proportion to what your use is.

 

The problem with your example is no sane person thinks a record label or an artist is harmed by some "hipster" as you put it using their music for some boring video on vimeo.  It doesn't cost the artist or the label any sales and in fact can actually generate some sales.  I've been turned on to bands and bought music because some dirty stinking awful pirate had the audacity to include some decent music in their online tutorial video.

 

Wholesale music theft on the internet did wonders for music consumers.  It finally forced the hand of record labels to sell us just the 2 songs on the album we actually like for a total price of $1.99.  And it also forced artists to earn an honest living by getting their butts out there and touring for their money.  Can you name the top three touring soloists/groups?  I bet you can't.  The music industry is made up of studio one hit wonders and real workers.

 

Two things need to be done.  First of all record labels need to chill and understand some of the benefits of music being used on some low profile videos such as tutorials and wedding videos.  The second thing is they need to come up with some kind of fee structure that is proportionate to the use.  Sure, sure we can say that Andrew is running a business and that he should pay but c'mon.  I mean Dre is about to make $1 Billion dollars!  Surely we can come up with some kind of fee structure so Andrew can use some Dre instrumentals on a couple of test videos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm all in favour of artists being compensated, I think this will be the end of Vimeo as we know it if videos end up being removed. Going through videos I've liked on Vimeo, there aren't many that don't contain a copywritten music track.

 

Speak for yourself only. This is not likely to be the end of Vimeo. It's just a little bit of re-profiling. 

I for one have liked plenty of video with no copyrighted music tracks in them, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. 

 

The muting of the videos with copyrighted music used without permission is not the problem, but the way it is being done is. It can harm even those with their very own soundtracks.

 

 

 

Automatically including a link to purchase the song would probably be the best option, as is the case with a lot of Youtube videos. 

 

Not much point in using the YouTube videos as an example of anything. There is no free lunch, not even in YouTube. The kids in YouTube can get away with the videos because Google take care of the tab. They put links and ads on the videos with copyrighted music. Also keep in mind that in YouTube/Google, the users uploading content are not their clients. The users are the product, the 'cattle' whose metadata and audiences are being sold to the paying clients, mostly advertisers. I don't think Vimeo has the the budget or the might of Google to match their policies. Which is not entirely a bad thing.

 

In a way Google is partially guilty for the kind of controversy visible also in this thread, where especially the younger generations have become clueless about copyright issues and common sense regarding copying and sharing in general.

 

But that's another story, and I don't wish to steer this thread even more off-topic. Suffice to say that YouTube is probably not an ideal example of (or excuse for) anything. Just take a look at the most successful aspiring and pro filmmakers in YouTube, as well as in Vimeo. I don't think you'll find any of them using copyrighted music in their clips without permission. It's a non-issue, really. But even they might, with permission, if it was made easier to do, with a new system of some kind, as described by many commenters ever since the beginning of this topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well said Quirky - I totally agree with you

a whole generation has grown up thinking music has no worth and you can just take it for free .

 

Google/Youtube totally survives off illiegal content on their system , be that music film and videos etc

they dont care as they make money off advertisers , at the expense of the copyright owners .

Link to post
Share on other sites

well said Quirky - I totally agree with you

a whole generation has grown up thinking music has no worth and you can just take it for free .

 

Whats worse than kids who've grown up with the expectation of free content, is fellow artists not respecting each others work. I want it too, but the record industry and musicians don't owe anyone cheap access to licensing their work. I also want a Porsche, doesn't mean it should be reasonably priced.

 

Music bed and marmoset are getting much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is 1000s of illegal videos on youtube that contain my work , all without my permission - my lawyer sends out take down cease and desist orders to them as Youtube does not!

 

I've even had people think its ok to re edit and add different mixes to my pop videos Ive shot for record labels ! or use my productions and remixes on their own videos or re edits!! Just because they have edit software suddenly they can offer their own edit of my work uploaded to youtube the day after the record and video is officially released !! - and this is big name artists they do .this to. - it's unreal the amount of copyright theft that goes on and Youtube does nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big discrepency here between the way things are and the way things should be in terms of copyright law, and I think a lot of people are forgetting that. The fact that the copyright system is broken doesn't invalidate it's legal implications.

 

I do think that Vimeo's process kind of sucks and needs refinement. I do a ton of music videos for bands that put their music on CDBaby- YouTube almost always flags my videos as having 'third-party content,' but the dispute process is straightforward and has never created any issues for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

it's unreal the amount of copyright theft that goes on and Youtube does nothing

 

I am surprised at how long Google have been promoting the Pirate Bay in their search results. Incredibly damaging.

 

When crime is so obviously cut and dry like with an illegal download site such as that, it's a no brainer really isn't it?

 

Take a stance Google!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised at how long Google have been promoting the Pirate Bay in their search results. Incredibly damaging.

 

When crime is so obviously cut and dry like with an illegal download site such as that, it's a no brainer really isn't it?

 

Take a stance Google!

 

There's a difference, albeit perhaps a small one, between hosting illegal content and linking to a site that hosts illegal content (and TPB doesn't even technically host content). Google complies with takedowns as they come. The pirate bay isn't inherently illegal (though it may be predominantly used for illegal purposes), so a de-facto ban in their search results of the entire site doesn't make sense in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

That's a bit like saying you shouldn't ban a dangerous driver because TECHNICALLY it is the bumper of their car that hit the old man at 60mph.

 

Google need to shoulder some responsibility because regardless of technicalities they ARE promoting piracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares?  Do people know how many bands there are out there????  It's like photography.  When it was expensive and hard to create photographs, photographers made a good living.  Now, with the advent of inexpensive dslr, equipment, etc.  It's very hard to make a living off of pictures.

 

Music.  You don't need a dedicated sound studio anymore.  You don't even need a label.  Hell, the main artists are making most of their money from concerts and not really from the music itself.  It's about the experience.  After all, these very same artist that are complaining that people are "stealing" their music and putting it on youtube... guess what....  these same artist would yell bloody murder if google decided to only allow "indie band music" on their sites.  Have you notices how youtube initially was full of indie band music.. but yet the main stream, big label, music people have slowly tried to muscle into that media space?  Putting their music on the front page.. trying to marginalized the indie bands?

 

If an artist think that google is complicit and hurting revenue.... He should take everything they have off of youtube.. .all the music.. all the video, etc.  I have a feeling that this artist will get lost in obsurity - career ending.  Remember, your audience only buys your tickets, merchandise, you itunes track etc.  only if they have listened to your song before.  Where are you going to put your song?  MTV??  they don't play music video's anymore.  On the radio?  Clear channels owns the playlist and you are most likely not on it.  Besides, a lot of people like to listen to music they already saved on their iphones/android devices when driving; and if they haven't heard you before in someone's illegal wedding video, or some place else... you aren't going to be on their device.

 

Face it.  There is a lot of music out there right now.  A lot of bands.. etc...   Music is not as rare as it use to be be.. and it's not as valuable.  If people don't like it, then they should take their music off of youtube.. take it off of vimeo.. etc..  Put their music on their own website where the only people who care to listen are their parents and a few friends.

 

 

well said Quirky - I totally agree with you

a whole generation has grown up thinking music has no worth and you can just take it for free .

 

Google/Youtube totally survives off illiegal content on their system , be that music film and videos etc

they dont care as they make money off advertisers , at the expense of the copyright owners .

Link to post
Share on other sites

do re me fa so la ti do

 

If your music contains any of the notes from this musical scale in standard pitch - man you are in big big trouble.

 

The 5 note rule is a myth - search Google for lawsuits less than 5 notes. Cue the close encounters signature tune...

 

Already, I am in big trouble for breach of lyrics copyright.

 

And the reason is The Sound of Music. Owned and copyright of Rogers & Hammerstein.

 

And it brings us back to do...

 

Ah they don't make em like they used to  :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Who cares?  Do people know how many bands there are out there????  It's like photography.  When it was expensive and hard to create photographs, photographers made a good living.  Now, with the advent of inexpensive dslr, equipment, etc.  It's very hard to make a living off of pictures.

 

It's a far more nuanced situation than what you're describing here.

 

On the one hand you have the blatant theft with the pirates, which the UK government has been trying to persuade Google to stop for ages...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/29/google-curb-online-piracy-cameron-adviser

 

Google are ducking the issue because it costs them money to implement the curb, so here is a billion dollar company effectively putting their financial interests ahead of the content producers, many of them very small and vulnerable. That is wrong!

 

Then there is the complex barter between music producers and visual artists... Some give and take is needed here to give filmmakers and their own careers a leg up.... but that does not give commercial video producers the rights to slap music on their videos which they have just sold to a client without paying the musician a single penny! With the non-profit artistic stuff, well you know my opinion on that and the Vimeo issues... this is where some give and take is needed between the music industry and filmmakers, I really hope they can get their house in order on this one and get the lawyers out of the picture completely because nobody wants to be sued for just exercising their freedom as a human being and an artist to mix media together and create new art.

 

As for this...

 

Music.  You don't need a dedicated sound studio anymore.  You don't even need a label.  Hell, the main artists are making most of their money from concerts and not really from the music itself.  It's about the experience.  After all, these very same artist that are complaining that people are "stealing" their music and putting it on youtube... guess what....  these same artist would yell bloody murder if google decided to only allow "indie band music" on their sites.  Have you notices how youtube initially was full of indie band music.. but yet the main stream, big label, music people have slowly tried to muscle into that media space?  Putting their music on the front page.. trying to marginalized the indie bands?

 

I think it shows a bit of a lack of understanding and appreciation of musicians really...

 

Not all musicians are live performers. Some are recording artists and to do high quality recordings you need to invest in the gear.

 

It is bullshit to say you don't need a sound studio anymore. Where are you supposed to put a vocal track down!? In your bedroom? The poor acoustics of the room will fuck the quality. You will get reverb and all sorts of rattling. The neighbours will complain. A dog will bark and you will lose the whole track.

 

My friend in Berlin has to LIVE in his music studio and forego a flat, plus work part time as a teacher to fund his studio.

 

Quality costs money. Quality should be paid for when the situation warrants it. Simples.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I think it shows a bit of a lack of understanding and appreciation of musicians really...

 

Not all musicians are live performers. Some are recording artists and to do high quality recordings you need to invest in the gear.

 

It is bullshit to say you don't need a sound studio anymore. Where are you supposed to put a vocal track down!? In your bedroom? The poor acoustics of the room will fuck the quality. You will get reverb and all sorts of rattling. The neighbours will complain. A dog will bark and you will lose the whole track.

 

My friend in Berlin has to LIVE in his music studio and forego a flat, plus work part time as a teacher to fund his studio.

 

Quality costs money. Quality should be paid for when the situation warrants it. Simples.

 

 

Music is subjective.. Some of the hottest artist are DJ's (Avicii, deadmaus, Tiesto, skrillex, etc.) and a lot of these artist just use computer software to create their music (fruityloops)...  You either survive or you don't.  You either get paid or you don't.  All musicians who expect to make a good living as musicians now must tour....  The era where a musician did not have to tour is over.

 

Remember, before vinyl records, cd's, etc... Artists were lowly paid artist that travelled from party to party in horse carts being paid by the host.  The idea that musicans (good or bad) must be highly paid is a new construct.

 

At the end of the day, who cares????  The music industry either adapts or it dies.  As a musician you either adapter or you don't.  However, the time that musicans can just rely on royalities from music they created 5-10 years ago OR licensing fees is slowly coming to an end.  And in my humble opinion, it's not because of piracy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On streaming revenues:

 

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

 

and here, about the corporations that make money distributing music for free.

 

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/

 

".. today we find ourselves in a battle with an enemy few of us understand. If we were to believe the writings and ramblings of the tech blogosphere, than they would have us believe that our enemy is our fans. This is simply not true."

 

Apple + Beats != $

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...