Personal View site logo
Vimeo started checking audio for copyright
  • 97 Replies sorted by
  • balazerbalazer

    On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.

    YouTube only leaves the music and puts an ad link for those music recordings that Google has deals with the right holders for. YouTube pays those rights holders for each play. Other videos will just be silenced. YouTube uploaders have no control over this, and the situation can change after a video is uploaded.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Btw good tip here is to use more diverse music, originating from other countries outside major ones :-)

    As it is publishers who provide them audio fingertips for databases :-)

  • soundgh2soundgh2

    Once Googly are involved they want their point -sadly the originators recuperation of monies may take a long route - it's been a free for all for years and only now online policed as the guys running our streaming services want some wonga finally - from the side of the fence wondering what's the problem - when you're the other side defending YOUR thing it becomes a bit more interesting. I found that CSI was using a falsely used tune of mine for several years via a naughty chap in the States who sold a lot of the early British dance artists to the US and luckily was recompensed via the broadcaster for a substantial amount - it was ours - (funnily it was rubbish lol) but was ours - use free market music or make your own or (hell!) pay lol

  • theconformisttheconformist

    This sucks. I absolutely oppose people using copyrighted music (unlicensed) to promote themselves or a product, etc... But Vimeo is a place where a lot of wedding, event, etc filmmakers put their stuff for clients to view and share and it would be a shame if they could no longer put copyrighted music in these (basically) private videos... I don't see it as any different as showing a copyrighted film privately - at the very least copyright restrictions should not extend to videos marked private.

  • soundgh2soundgh2

    Looking at Vold site:

    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 not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.

    On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.

    Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.

    This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.

    Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.

    I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.

    I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.

    Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.

    Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!

    Sorry bud - stop using real world working peoples sound art on your stuff for your websites promotion, which you do earn $$ from. Sadly Vimeo is rightly taxing you for usage on other peoples work to promote your (good) personal video work. Sadly I can imagine the artists will earn nowt for their efforts, which ultimately is sad.

  • soundgh2soundgh2

    That's Voldemort's Artistic arty farty video fooked then? Lame troll but his stuff is paint drying with music ripped. To be honest, as Im sure my PRS or licensing chasing chums know, it's a job in itself. We made over a million pounds a year producing Radio 1 Jingles etc for many years, but lost 3x more unable to report or collect the very same bits of musak worldwide - or basically Asia not paying! Just closed a studio in China and moved to Singapore due to basically not being paid! In the end if I or you hum the best song of all time today - in todays (fucked up) division of ownership and payment cross world borders - someone will try and rinse you for that G flat.

  • bmorgan83bmorgan83

    I license music for my wedding videos… I'm wondering how long the "quick appeal" process really is… I don't want to post a video for a bride and groom, only to go through weeks of back and forth with some asshole at vimeo before my clients can start sharing their video online with their family and friends.

    Or in other cases where I've got time sensitive projects like crowd funding videos that my clients use for their campaigns… that can't wait for an appeal some times.

  • jleojleo

    Walt Disney made a fortune off movies made based on public domain works, and now refuses to let their movies fall into public domain!

    Much of the success of the Disney Corporation was based upon public domain books. Under current policy, there will never be another Disney Corporation that was able to create derivative characters and stories based upon content whose copyright has expired because the availability or materials to use from the public domain stopped essentially in the 1930s.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/

    as for using copyright music to create new work, its fairly common in the commercial movie industry to use scenes and music from existing movies to create a pitch reel or sizzle reel to sell the concept to the studios and or collaborators. This seems to be a commercial use of copyright material:

  • azza_actazza_act

    Will this me clients won't have the music on the "original file" too? Can the download with the music still in tack?

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    So, say someone writes a song that becomes real popular ... who decides when to cut off their copyright/use payments? You? And ... who gives the whomever you think should judge this the right to decide that?

    Government via law, and it is society who give them this right.

    Make popular song - you will get good money, but won't get rich.

    If 50 million people want to buy a song, what's wrong with that? And what business is it of anyone else's? Don't understand the thinking on this

    Nothing wrong, government will just cut your and any sellers excessive profits. As money will be still in the peoples pocket they'll spend them on something else. More diversity. In for look in one of the recent postings I made it states that research showed that modern music income goes mostly only to stars, and for a reason.

    If someone else gets paid because a ton of people chose to buy a song they wrote, no matter how much, why in the world is it the concern of the rest of us?

    Because it affects society. It is ultra liberal idea to claim that if you got rich it is nobody business how you did it and how you spend your money.

  • rNeilrNeil

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev ...

    "Real copyright must protect you, but only in a way you get proper, not excessive reward. Whole idea to make one or two songs and get rich is sick."

    So, say someone writes a song that becomes real popular ... who decides when to cut off their copyright/use payments? You? And ... who gives the whomever you think should judge this the right to decide that?

    If 50 million people want to buy a song, what's wrong with that? And what business is it of anyone else's? Don't understand the thinking on this. If someone else gets paid because a ton of people chose to buy a song they wrote, no matter how much, why in the world is it the concern of the rest of us?

  • neokooneokoo

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Indeed, only unknown and inexperienced artist will hope for pirates to make them popular. Pirates generally don't make popularity. Proper promotion does. Usually a well known label with connections and resources is needed for success even in indie scene. Pirates rarely distribute stuff that labels have not signed. I wonder why, heh...

  • RamboRambo

    @Ratlabproductions Just use Dropbox your client can play the video on there or download the original.

    Additionally, anytime you want to transfer/upload the video to Vimeo, just use the Dropbox > Vimeo upload feature and the video will be uploaded from Dropbox to Vimeo without having to upload again from your PC.

  • RatLabProductionsRatLabProductions

    Interesting. I didn't know about that.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    What is VPS?

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

  • RatLabProductionsRatLabProductions

    @Vitaliy

    What is VPS?

    I'm trying to search for alternatives to share client copies that are as idiot proof as vimeo was for clients and can be viewed on a variety of devices without a download.

    If anyone has some suggestions that won't break the bank I'm all ears.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Btw, worse thing here is that with time it can result in the arms race, were utilities will exist that remove certain information and rebuild sound file to sound the same, but being undetectable.

  • neokooneokoo

    @Azo

    Likely it was not a single lawyer, but representatives from many labels and copyright societies (organizations that collect and pay artists performance royalties). Youtube for example has negotiated many kinds of agreements with both of those.

    @Eno

    Sorry for nitpicking, but remastering usually means adjusting sound of existing recording. Do you mean creating a sound-alike, or in TVTropes lingo, "suspiciously similar song"? That is common thing to do in music, TV, and film industries. Oftentimes it's the better option from creative perspective too, unless original track is needed for reference rather than music.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @RatLabProductions

    Thing is, you can just get your own VPS. And do anything you like :-)

  • RatLabProductionsRatLabProductions

    Vimeo will end up pulling any music video off a directors page as they technically have no rights to the song and most likely the artist doesn't at all. Most popular music artists don't own the rights to their own songs which is why promotion doesn't matter to those demanding payment for use. They just want their money and don't care if it 'helps the artist with exposure'. They might not have written/produced any of the artists other songs so they don't care.

    Joseph Khan had some of his music videos pulled from vimeo a while back because of copywrite takedowns. No one cared till it became a staff pick then bam.

    Some of the most creative & entertaining content are spoofs, homages etc and they will all be gone also.

    Who of us has shelled out the $200-$20,000 for the music used in our demo reels?

  • RatLabProductionsRatLabProductions

    The vimeo issue for me has nothing to do with copywrite violation but pulling unpublished private/password uploads. I use Vimeo pro for a lot of back and forth with clients. I can't afford to pay for clearing the rights to songs and have the client want a different song so I temp in the music until it is approved and then clear it for broadcast. This makes up a lot of Vimeo pro users and they will loose big on this. I have no need for a vimeo account if I have to pay for temp music to be able share a rough cut with a client privately.

    I can understand Vimeo going after public works but private works which are password protected that is just crap and the wrong direction to go. The fact that even if I clear a song the onus is on me to prove I have cleared it before it can be posted. How long will the grieving process take? If the client needs to watch it in a day and the Vimeo staff won't get to it for a few days or a week I have just lost the client on the next job.

    I'm cancelling my Vimeo pro account and searching for an alternative to sharing easily viewable private rough client edits.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Just imagine if you worked on something for about 1 month straight and built something the size of a basketball. The whole time that you spent building that you were thinking that you could sell it and make money on it. Then you build it and somebody takes it without your permission, turns around and copies it, and then proceeds to give it to his friends and family and sell it for a profit.

    I do not see how this argument relates to things I talked about. Real copyright must protect you, but only in a way you get proper, not excessive reward. Whole idea to make one or two songs and get rich is sick.

    Next thing missing here is that many unknown artists really dream about some pirate making them popular :-)

    Your real losses can't be calculated as pirated copies multiplied by price you like to get. It is much more complex.

  • AzoAzo

    I think copyright is actually a good thing especially for the artists. The only thing that really needs to be worked out is the copyright duration. I think 10 years is a pretty decent amount of time and if the artist/musician etc is not successful in that amount of time their is a good chance they will never be successful as an artist.

    Vimeo's implementation of the copyright restrictions is the key here. If they implement it properly I think it is fair. This is a very polarizing topic and I can see artist's rejoicing at Vimeo's decision. The real problem of course is the fricken lawyers in the U.S. There are more lawyers per capita in the U.S then any other country in the world. Just look at somebody the wrong way and a lawyer will figure out a way to sue you.

    As somebody mentioned an attorney probably representing a musician contacted Vimeo and threatened to sue. So this is really why Vimeo probably taking action.

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev, I normally agree with most of your topics and train of thought on most things, however I disagree with you on this one. Just imagine if you worked on something for about 1 month straight and built something the size of a basketball. The whole time that you spent building that you were thinking that you could sell it and make money on it. Then you build it and somebody takes it without your permission, turns around and copies it, and then proceeds to give it to his friends and family and sell it for a profit.

    I also enjoy the bickering back forth so late the flaming begin ;-)

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I think Vimeo will lose a lot of payed customers with this new policy, I for instance will not pay for a plus account, ever

    I think they won't have too many problems, as introduction of such thing happened mostly because more and more amateur stuff is posted on vimeo and it is full of just plain rips from movies/music/etc. Having auto blocking saves big money for them.

  • EnoEno

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev
    "I think good idea is to look at local performers and bands. Sometimes it can be cheaper to record it from scratch and may be even modify it according to your video."

    Interesting idea, Vitality. Another possibility is to pay somebody to remaster the needed track. The cost can be significantly lower than buying the original track (for commercial license).

    I think Vimeo will lose a lot of payed customers with this new policy, I for instance will not pay for a plus account, ever.

Add a Comment