Is YouTube worth it anymore?

[Lucius1958]

As some of you may also have experienced, the act of posting videos of vintage recordings on YouTube is fraught with certain perils.

This 'social network' site has become, in my opinion at least, frankly paranoid over the subject of copyright: I have repeatedly been attacked with 'content ID matches' for recordings that are over 100 years old. The crowning insult was when my video of "St. Louis Tickle", performed by the Ossman-Dudley Trio, was blocked in certain countries, because of a claim by Sony Music Entertainment Corporation, which claims to hold the copyright to this composition.

Now, I may be only a muddle-headed civilian; but I have been given to understand that there is such a thing as 'Public Domain' - that there is a limit to the life of a copyright. Since the composition in question was written and published in 1904, and the recording in question was made in 1906; and since, as far as I can tell, the most liberal interpretation of copyright law gives a limit of 100 years before a composition becomes Public Domain.............

What say you all?

Bill

[Retrograde]

Isn't youtube free? I'd say it's worth every penny.

Just name your videos "Guy in a dress rides skate board off a house into a pool" and they'll never bother you.

[edisonphonoworks]

I have a cylinder transcription of Stars and Stripes Forever by Morton Gould, set as a Trap for the recording industry, I embedded a warning in the description that The North American Phongraph Company owns all licenses for sound recordings, inventions formulas ect. disclaimer on my youtube. Page, and. The record company retracted its block on my vidio,plus I had several hour conversation with the director of RIAA, and he was stuttering, and offered severe protection of my cylinder recordings, and did not wish me to take them to court because if I did no matter who lost, both would lose protection of sound recordings,as my argument was exactly the same as theres ( And just as rediculous and full of holes.) You would have to read the minutes, I t is very bizarr. M.S, on 78-l used to argue with me on this, I myself just used it as my record company name, and never ment to be an enforcement officer of recording by laws. NAPC used to confiscate Phonographs and Duplicators, and the buildings of infringers lol! And yes I ment that as totally a crazy scenario.

[Swing Band Heaven]

In the UK (and I am sure I will be corrected if I have remembered this wrong) it was that the sound recording itself was protected by copyright for 50 years BUT the composition itself was also protected for something like 75 years (or was it 50 I can't remember) from the death of the composer. All very confusing. I don't know what the posiion in the US is but I thought that most recordings (apart from edison ones for some reason) were protected until about 2057. There was a discussion about this either on this board or on a predessessor board. I can't find it doing a search so it must have been an earlier proboards version of this site.

I never worry if a copyright tag comes up on youtube. If they block it in some countries then who cares - not me thats for sure. But it is a pain to think that some of my videos can't be viewed in some parts of the world.

[Lucius1958]

In the UK (and I am sure I will be corrected if I have remembered this wrong) it was that the sound recording itself was protected by copyright for 50 years BUT the composition itself was also protected for something like 75 years (or was it 50 I can't remember) from the death of the composer. All very confusing. I don't know what the posiion in the US is but I thought that most recordings (apart from edison ones for some reason) were protected until about 2057. There was a discussion about this either on this board or on a predessessor board. I can't find it doing a search so it must have been an earlier proboards version of this site.

I never worry if a copyright tag comes up on youtube. If they block it in some countries then who cares - not me thats for sure. But it is a pain to think that some of my videos can't be viewed in some parts of the world.

According to what I have read (I believe on YouTube's own links), in the US, any content created before 1926 is public domain.

Furthermore, I have been 'tagged' for an early BA of the "Marriage of Figaro" overture.......

.....and I believe Mozart died in 1791.

[JHolmesesq]

I did a small amount on copyright law for my degree. Needless to say it's an absolute minefield for people with older recordings like ourselves.

It can lead to silly cases like Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd in 1964 where the court found that football fixture lists were original works, and therefore owned by the Football Association - even though neither of the two parties would set out to make a profit simply from listing matches.

In the UK it's covered by the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It holds that "Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works are in copyright up to 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author/composer/artist dies"

Sound recordings are in copyright "50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were made".

Usually a defence can be made under the "fair dealing rule", so long as the copyright holder receives sufficient acknowledgement, or where the material used has already been made available to the public. For the latter, I'm assuming that CD releases of popular artists count.

I'm not too sure whether this would apply for Youtube, but acquiescence could be used as a defence. This is where the owner of the copyright knows that their work is being used, but allows it to go on without complaint. For example, in the case "Film Investors Overseas Services SA v Home Video Channel Ltd (1996)" the copyright holder on a collection of porno films had granted a license for their use to the Home Video Channel. However, the use made of the films went further than the license allowed - the copyright holders were made aware of this 3 years earlier but did nothing about it. The court held that where a copyright holder is aware of a breach and does not complain - they've effectively consented.

Again, the last one may not apply for YT since the notification email sent saying "We own the copyright but will let you use it with adverts next to it" will probably negate what I wrote earlier.

In the US, most published works before 1923 are public domain. The problem with the US is when congress keeps adding to certain copyright laws. Disney have a strong case to keep their famous Mickey Mouse logo copyrighted since the original Mickey cartoons are getting very old now - so it's no wonder they will be lobbying congress soon (if they haven't already) to extend the copyright even further on their famous brand.

Finally, the problem with copyright law is that - even if it's legal in your country it may not be in another. The internet is multinational, and copyright law is so different for each country as the table below notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ght_length

[gramophoneshane]

When youtube sends a copyright claim, follow the instructions in this video & it will be reinstated. If you do this each time they delete an upload, after 4 or 5 times of jumping through their hoops, everything under copyright will automatically remain without you having to do anything ever again.
It's a bit of a pain doing the form those first few times, but definately worth it in the long run.
I must have at least 200 WMG, UMG & Sony "owned" songs uploaded.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F100XgLtmc0[/youtube]

It's not really youtube that is to blame, but it's the greedy music companies.
It started out that the music co's wanted youtube to pay them for having "their" music on youtube, & when youtube refused all hell broke loose.
You can pretty much kiss the old "public domain" rules goodbye now days. The music companies are buying up (or claiming) anything they can get their hands on.
Some obscure song & artist (or label) from 1912 can be removed under copyright claims because the music groups are buying up music publishing companies etc, or they simply make a legal claim on stuff that nobody owns anymore.
You'd think you'd be safe uploading a record where the artist, writer & label have all been dead & buried for 100 yrs, but it ain't no more!
I've found over the last couple years that quite a few songs will get hit with a claim once you reach around 5000 views. If the record companies think they have a chance of making a buck they'll grab it.
That's corporate greed for you

[Wolfe]

I never worry if a copyright tag comes up on youtube. If they block it in some countries then who cares - not me thats for sure. But it is a pain to think that some of my videos can't be viewed in some parts of the world.

I put a Cab Calloway 78 on my (new) YouTube channel last night, and today, I find it's been blocked in certain countries. I recieved an e-mail notice about it stating that this was being done and no action was required on my part. Fine with me. They could just as well completely take it down (delete it) or ask me to, but they're not. And if someone in Sri Lanka wants to enjoy my Cab Calloway disc, so be it.

[Lucius1958]

When youtube sends a copyright claim, follow the instructions in this video & it will be reinstated. If you do this each time they delete an upload, after 4 or 5 times of jumping through their hoops, everything under copyright will automatically remain without you having to do anything ever again.
It's a bit of a pain doing the form those first few times, but definately worth it in the long run.
I must have at least 200 WMG, UMG & Sony "owned" songs uploaded.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F100XgLtmc0[/youtube]

It's not really youtube that is to blame, but it's the greedy music companies.
It started out that the music co's wanted youtube to pay them for having "their" music on youtube, & when youtube refused all hell broke loose.
You can pretty much kiss the old "public domain" rules goodbye now days. The music companies are buying up (or claiming) anything they can get their hands on.
Some obscure song & artist (or label) from 1912 can be removed under copyright claims because the music groups are buying up music publishing companies etc, or they simply make a legal claim on stuff that nobody owns anymore.
You'd think you'd be safe uploading a record where the artist, writer & label have all been dead & buried for 100 yrs, but it ain't no more!
I've found over the last couple years that quite a few songs will get hit with a claim once you reach around 5000 views. If the record companies think they have a chance of making a buck they'll grab it.
That's corporate greed for you

And, frankly, that's something that's got to be stopped.

[Valecnik]

How does it work with re-issues? For instance If I have a 1950's re-issue of a 1929 song or a 2010 CD reissue of a 1920 song can I share it?