Finally - Adrev or not Adrev?

[prestashopthemes]

I suppose everything works out well if you only have one site to worry about, but, I have a question to the non-exclusives (Alumo, Jhunger etc.):

When a YouTube user gets a message from AdRev/Audiam/etc., do they just state the name of the track and ask you to provide proof of license? Or an ID number? Or the name of the library they should have bought it from?

I know that prices between sites of the same tracks can differ enormously (up to 20 times), and you might not want to advertise your cheap libraries to customers who know and use your more expensive libraries.

[tacoMusic]

You don’t need to worry about the other libraries - the only thing that appears on a user’s YouTube account is: ‘Third Party Match detected. Name of track - Authour. Administered by AdRev’.

When people submit their license details, I believe they need to prove their name is on the license, show the transaction ID etc. as in their license to prove that the dispute is genuine. Like I said, I’ve had very few issues and if I need to go in and whitelist a channel or clear a single claim, it’s been quick and easy.

[KabbalisticVillage]

So i just got a message today from a Youtuber who i let use one of my non-AudioJungle music on his channel. Adrev claimed it. He showed them an e-mail where i give explicit permission for him to use the track but the claim is still on. Do i go to the “Submit a Link” section and just enter the Youtube link and the claim will be off? How does it work? Thanks.

[Alumo]

KabbalisticVillage said

So i just got a message today from a Youtuber who i let use one of my non-AudioJungle music on his channel. Adrev claimed it. He showed them an e-mail where i give explicit permission for him to use the track but the claim is still on. Do i go to the “Submit a Link” section and just enter the Youtube link and the claim will be off? How does it work? Thanks.

The best bet in this situation would be to get in contact with the guys at AdRev directly, via support@adrev(.net). Just say you would like the following video to be cleared from receiving claims on your music by providing them a link to it and letting them know you have given the user permission. They usually get back within 24-96 hours letting you know that this has been done.

In the meantime, you can always let the customers know that you’ve sent a request to AdRev to have the claim removed and then just let them know once it’s been completed. Customers always appreciate being updated and it’s at this stage they put their trust in you. This is a good thing, because they usually use your music again in the future as they have your reassurance.

[KabbalisticVillage]

AlumoAudio said

KabbalisticVillage said

So i just got a message today from a Youtuber who i let use one of my non-AudioJungle music on his channel. Adrev claimed it. He showed them an e-mail where i give explicit permission for him to use the track but the claim is still on. Do i go to the “Submit a Link” section and just enter the Youtube link and the claim will be off? How does it work? Thanks.

The best bet in this situation would be to get in contact with the guys at AdRev directly, via support@adrev(.net). Just say you would like the following video to be cleared from receiving claims on your music by providing them a link to it and letting them know you have given the user permission. They usually get back within 24-96 hours letting you know that this has been done.

In the meantime, you can always let the customers know that you’ve sent a request to AdRev to have the claim removed and then just let them know once it’s been completed. Customers always appreciate being updated and it’s at this stage they put their trust in you. This is a good thing, because they usually use your music again in the future as they have your reassurance.

Thanks. But what is wrong with doing it on the Submit a Link page?

[Alumo]

Actually you’re right, I just checked and you can use the ‘submit link’ option, so go ahead and use that option!

I’m used to the old AdRev setup, before that option was available to us. Either way, I personally still prefer submitting claims by hand to AdRev, as it means I can make sure everything goes through smoothly and I get an opportunity to touch base and speak directly to my customers.

[JHungerX]

MusicBoxStudios said

jhunger said

I think I’m finally on the brink of taking Matt’s advice on this one. I’ve had 3 tracks listed as an experiment (on Audiam, not AdRev, but a similar concept), for a few months, and just got my third statement (for August) - looks like it’s pretty close to the $1/1000 views rule of thumb that Paul reported. Not to get into exact numbers, but I will say that right now it looks quite promising and well worth straightening out a few customers who have had trouble disputing claims.

BTW - I don’t have any reason in particular that I used Audiam instead of AdRev (well, I do, but it was sort of a knee jerk reaction to a different marketplace that I felt was pushing AdRev on me - turns out I probably should have let them, c’est la vie). I haven’t had much experience with AdRev, but I’m willing to bet that they’re more polished than Audiam, which seems very beta. That said, they’ve been extremely responsive and have released claims within minutes of me telling them to on behalf of a customer.

Besides the potential $$, I started feeling like this was a necessary move because on 3 instances now I’ve had to deal with somebody else fingerprinting my songs. This is a good way to assert ownership and, as mentioned above, get some recompense for song theft. I’m fairly confident that a decent percentage of the claims that were listed for August were not via paid licenses. Also, it seems that more and more musicians are taking the plunge, and soon (if it isn’t already) this will just be pretty much the norm.

Honestly it still freaks me out a bit, and I’m still not sure that I understand all the ramifications, but I will be uploading several more masters over the rest of the year to see how it progresses.

Joel,

Perhaps do what I did. Start with a few of your “more likely to be pirated” tracks see how it feels first. Also, Jesse @ AdRev told me that despite the 4 month lag before results are reported and income earned, from that point forward the reports are monthly and payments quarterly as they are with most PRO’s.

By the way, thank you again for the advice on the Uke. I ended up with an Ibanez EW Cutaway Concert Acoustic-Electric
!https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97792296/2499-2.jpg!

I love it! Can’t play to save my life but I’m learning and practicing almost everyday.

Sweet! So much fun - and having the pickup will come in really handy so you don’t have to run out and lay down a bunch of cash for a mic/interface set up right away. Also, don’t know if you play live, but it’s great to have the option - I played in a band a few years back and would love to have pulled out my uke but don’t have any with a pickup, unfortunately.

Back on the AdRev topic, thanks for the good advice - I’m taking it in baby steps, or at least have been over the last few months. But I think from what I’ve seen so far the potential downside is well outweighed by the benefits.

[PhilLarson]

tacoMusic said

You don’t need to worry about the other libraries - the only thing that appears on a user’s YouTube account is: ‘Third Party Match detected. Name of track - Authour. Administered by AdRev’.

So, what happens with a track you changed the name of? Some clients may have bought it as a different name than the new name that you now provide to AdRev. Does this present a problem?

[tacoMusic]

PhilLarson said

tacoMusic said

You don’t need to worry about the other libraries - the only thing that appears on a user’s YouTube account is: ‘Third Party Match detected. Name of track - Authour. Administered by AdRev’.

So, what happens with a track you changed the name of? Some clients may have bought it as a different name than the new name that you now provide to AdRev. Does this present a problem?

Hi Phil,

I spoke with AdRev about that issue a while back as I renamed a few tracks of my own and had the same concern. It’s not a good idea to change the name of tracks you’ve already registered with AdRev as yes, once it’s in the system, they would have to remove it and re-add the newly-named track which means you lose all the stats etc. you’ve accumulated.

Not great, but I guess with so many people in their system it becomes unwieldy to update records that way. Would be great if they let you update it yourself, but I don’t see that coming anytime soon.

Cheers,

Taco

[Alumo]

PhilLarson said

tacoMusic said

You don’t need to worry about the other libraries - the only thing that appears on a user’s YouTube account is: ‘Third Party Match detected. Name of track - Authour. Administered by AdRev’.

So, what happens with a track you changed the name of? Some clients may have bought it as a different name than the new name that you now provide to AdRev. Does this present a problem?

I’ve got a few tracks on AdRev with different names to those I’m selling them on RF sites under. However, I let AdRev know the alternative names for those tracks and my registered artist name is the same.

The latter is an important credential you shouldn’t change or operate under however, as customers my get confused if they’re receiving claims from, effectively, an entirely different artist/composer name.

[Plastic3_NE]

I’ve got a few tracks on AdRev with different names to those I’m selling them on RF sites under. However, I let AdRev know the alternative names for those tracks and my registered artist name is the same.

As i understand, Adrev system detect music in video, not the file names, so the names of registered tracks irrelevant… or is it not so?

[Alumo]

plastic3 said

I’ve got a few tracks on AdRev with different names to those I’m selling them on RF sites under. However, I let AdRev know the alternative names for those tracks and my registered artist name is the same.

As i understand, Adrev system detect music in video, not the file names, so the names of registered tracks irrelevant… or is it not so?

Ok, so when a client receives the ‘matched third party content’ notification, they will see it in like the image below (I’ll use my own music as an example):

!http://i.imgur.com/986Go3l.png!

As you can see, it contains the song name, and most importantly, the composer/artist name.

The YouTube user will at least need to see the composer name is the same, so that it corresponds to the composer name on any licenses they purchase from you.

[prestashopthemes]

Thanks for clarifying Alumo.

I would guess this could really be a problem for stock music composers who also sell their music on iTunes or similar for listening purposes.

I would guess most of them would not want to use their production music name - like “SuperTracks” - as their real artist name…

[Alumo]

prestashopthemes said

Thanks for clarifying Alumo.

I would guess this could really be a problem for stock music composers who also sell their music on iTunes or similar for listening purposes.

I would guess most of them would not want to use their production music name - like “SuperTracks” - as their real artist name…

Users shouldn’t be uploading listening purpose music to YouTube anyway, so it’s not as if they’ll have a corresponding license to clear the claim. If they want to do that, they’ll have to purchase a proper music license. It’s the composer’s responsibility to let customers know this, via their marketing.

[LumenMedia]

Well, just for note. Todays situation. One of my client contacted me with anger and despare. Video he made for his client was banned on Youtube by AdRev. So we started procedure of clearing this video and it took some time. Beware of potential problems. We need to provide information about AdRev. If earlier, the only thing he need to do is to send approved video to client, now he need to provide license information too. This is HUGE HUGE changes in workflow. Client said me - i will not buy your music anymore (honestly, he bought only this track - this loss cost me now $9). We need time and care to prepare buyers for this changes. So i am struggling now, what will happen next. Sadly, this client do not listen about AdRev from me, WHY i use it. And this is bad habbit. But potentially, more and more buyers will be frustrated, when clients of them will see more and more often such notices from AdRev. Just think about this case, guys. Anyway, i placed now all my tracks for monitoring via AdRev, lets see.

[Alumo]

LumenMedia said

Well, just for note. Todays situation. One of my client contacted me with anger and despare. Video he made for his client was banned on Youtube by AdRev.

Hey Leon,

I’ve just PM’d you back, but firstly, so others can see, videos aren’t ‘banned’ by AdRev. That’s simply not how it works.

People who have bought a license just need to show YouTube (via AdRev) that they’re legitimate users and have the rights to use your music on their videos.

All the client has to do to remove advertising and claims from their video is to enter their video link and copy/paste their purchased License Certificate on this page and the claim is removed within 24 to 96 hours. The customer will receive an email from AdRev once this has been completed. Done. No more desperation!

So in summary, those who have used your music without a license (ie. using your watermarked version or taken it from another video) either have the option to allow the ads to run on their videos (and you get revenue compensation for that) or purchase a license from you and use it, as above, to clear the claim. It really is as simple as that!

[prestashopthemes]

I will continue milking the AdRev knowledge bank for information.

When you start using AdRev, how far back in time do they track? Every single video from say, 5 years ago?

I imagine that it’s not entirely unusual for a buyer/video maker to close or completely forget about his/her Envato account after maybe just buying one track, maybe in 2010. All of a sudden their video is being flagged and they have no idea where their license certificate is, and may not even remember the site they bought it from. They might have changed e-mail addresses so nothing can be found.

Have you come across this situation?

[Alumo]

prestashopthemes said

I will continue milking the AdRev knowledge bank for information.

When you start using AdRev, how far back in time do they track? Every single video from say, 5 years ago?

I imagine that it’s not entirely unusual for a buyer/video maker to close or completely forget about his/her Envato account after maybe just buying one track, maybe in 2010. All of a sudden their video is being flagged and they have no idea where their license certificate is, and may not even remember the site they bought it from. They might have changed e-mail addresses so nothing can be found.

Have you come across this situation?

I’ve never encountered this situation myself and I’m sure it would be a rare occurrence, but that’s not to say it couldn’t happen.

Ultimately, it’s the customer’s responsibility to retain the License Certificate for using in this very situation, as this is their proof that they have the rights to your material. If they lose or forget about that license, then it’s really their responsibility to replace it, as with any important legal documentation or receipt.

It’s worth noting however, that the composer’s name and track title are shown in the AdRev claim. The user invariably would search for this, to hopefully be directed back to the site or profile which they had originally purchased the music from. They could then also contact you directly.

At your discretion, you could then release the claim on their video via the ‘Submit Link’ tab within your AdRev account, once you’ve established that they are a genuine past buyer. If not, then you could just ask the user to click the ‘matched third party content’ link on their video and click the ‘ok, got it’ button and carry on as normal.

eta: And to answer your first question, to my knowledge AdRev is able to ‘sweep’ and track all historic videos on YouTube.

[MusicBoxStudios]

I think people are really overthinking this and making the AdRev discussion way too complicated. It’s really simple.

“If you bought it, show me your receipt.”

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Alumo]

MusicBoxStudios said

I think people are really overthinking this and making the AdRev discussion way too complicated. It’s really simple.

“If you bought it, show me your receipt.”

Nothing more, nothing less.

+1, Yep!

Sums it up nicely!