I just received a mail from a potential customer that’s working on a video project for a client/brand she has. Youtube, SM, very small reach.
The content will be published in the brand’s YouTube channel and Social Networks, not in the video editor’s so she’s asking me if she can send her client the license PDF so they can whitelist the video in case of Id claims.
She spoke with the brands director and they’re definitely not going to create a user, do the paperwork and bla bla bla.
How does this process exactly works? I imagine this is an utterly common scenario so I guess it’s totally fine to send a final client or company a Single Sync License.
As you said, it’s a very common scenario. Many buyers on here are professional video makers working for their own customers. In these cases, it’s perfectly fine for them to transfer the license over to their customers. This very point is addressed here:
I create pro bono videos for a not for profit and do not monetize my work.
EVERY licensed track I get from audiojungle gets a claim on it, While we don’t mind paying for licenses, it takes a lot of time/money to dispute the claim. Let me know if there is a work around, because we can’t risk this with a paying client. thanks.
Guys, another newbie question. Maybe @PurpleFog or @RedOctopus, both ContentID samurais, can help me out with this issue. Yesterday was my sons birthday, and I did a silly video footage with some of my music as background and was planning to upload it to my personal YouTube account (not to the 6 vids abbandonware WormwoodMusicChannel account I have) so that my family and friends can see it. Needless to say, no monetization or anything.
As I recently registred my whole portfolio I was wondering if I would get a claim!?!?!? How do I get permission from myself to use my own work? Is it possible to get one’s music license?
Disputing a claim is free and quick. It took less than 24 hours, I did it for some of my customers and everything were fine. I understand your concern of course, but seriously, everything are made and set up for the customers only. We have decreasing revenue due to race of the bottom, and now content ID is our only way to protect our work. So I won’t have compassion for the fact it took you 24 hours more inside your process. that’s the part of the business, claim is now well know by everyone, it’s up to the customers to adapt to it. I adapt myself to subscription where customers can have ton of music for Pennys, I adapt myself to 5$ pricing and the fact I earn few cents on my works and I adapt myself on the fact that due to all of this my earning had decrease a lot this year
So let me see if I understand Osynthw. Everything is “set up” for the customers who lawfully license the tracks from Audiojungle to release it without audio watermarking, to YouTube who montiors which videos are monitized. So you won’t “have compassion” because it takes 24 hours (not to mention a clients reaction or an expensive call to legal counsel.) to clear a claim.
Well ok, so if I paid $30 or $40 for a license, and the video was uploaded without noticing the claim that’s my bad luck beause your “earnings decreased a lot this year”. Got it.
With all the free music available, and and inability of creators to whitelist return customers, any thoughts on why your “earnings decreased a lot this year”, Anyone?
You can complain to Youtube if you are unhappy with how their system works. We authors have nothing to do with it.
The best way would be to have a field in the video upload form where you can simply attach the license, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, they didn’t go that way.
Now, music is a copyrighted asset, you simply have to show that you have the license for it. The way you show you have a proper license is entirely up to Youtube. They created your inconvenience, so being mad at music authors is pretty pointless.
Interesting assumption. Since a lot of my work is for a government agency, we had discussion with YouTube, Envato, and the claimants. Their consensus is for the “creator to whitelist” the license purchaser.
No skin off my nose, because there are tons of license free music out there. and so far, Epidemic has not caused me the same issues.
Whitelisting a channel is indeed a specific option authors can do, in the case of a series, or as a courtesy for a loyal customers they built a relationship with. However the process is still in the hands of Youtube and authors cannot guarantee the channel will remain whitelisted, as any other copyright claims on other assets used on the channel would cancel the whitelist status. This process is thus specific to certain cases only and in no way generalized.
As for the normal claim clearing process, it is what it is, as set up by Youtube. Authors can help you with the process when there’s an issue, but that’s about it.
Now, feel free to used even more exploitive platforms to fulfill your music needs. But as a rule of thumb, it’s never a good idea to go with unregistered music, as those tracks eventually get fraudulently claimed, in which case you won’t be able to clear the claim at all.
I don’t want to upset anyone, but I do believe both @EquisN and @tatyanahill2 (who posted in other thread) have indeed very valid points here. Please, don’t get me wrong, all my portfolio is registred with ContentID and I do think that protecting our intelectual property is of the utmost importance but I also can stand on the shoes of a costumer that has to deal with process of removing a claim (that’s not always that stratight) or maybe they are not fully familiar with what a claim exactly is and don’t want any headaches.
Recent real case, from a few days ago actually: The footage guy of a project I was working on asked me for some guidance to browse through some stock music. Among others I mentioned Envato. He instantly stopped me with something like “not a chance, every single time I use something from there I get my contents banned and have to explain to a pissed off client (sometimes months after the video was uploaded) that it might take me a few days to solve this. They sometimes get it, but sometimes they seem like they might hire another guy the next time.”. Not literally, hahaha, but really, this happened to me a few days ago in a Construction Event Coverage doing location sound and post.
I fully agree with @PurpleFog that YouTube should implement a way to upload a video directly with the license PDF to avoid claims in the first place, but right now it might be a PITA for many.
I’m not taking a side here, just bringing up that both parts, authors and customers, have their reasons and that the current system could be improved in some way that allows us authors to protect our copyrights and spare the content creators a worry.
But I don’t think we have to handle such complain, direspect, on our forum. So sorry if my words were too passionnate but we handle lot of thing without saying a words. Enough is enough. This thread was an informative thread about content ID. Not a place to complain or taunt author.
Sorry, but that’s not a valid point. Many don’t want any headaches with having to buy a license at all, which is way ContentID is so crucial for us. There’s a process in place, that Youtube has made an industry standard. Seing it as a headache makes no more sense than seeing the Youtube upload page as being a headache.
Now I agree that the way Youtube set this up is far from ideal, but again what do authors have to do with it?
Not an accurate depiction of what happens. Nobody gets their content “banned”. A copyright claim is just a notice that a copyrighted asset is used on the video, it has no negative impact on the channel whatsoever.
Also, this not an Envato thing. Registering your copyrighted asset is an industry standard. Not doing so is unprofessional and exposes you, as well as your customers, to fraudulent claiming. Being mad at authors for registering their music is ill advised and utterly pointless.
I think a fair way of looking at it is that broadcasters have always had to report use of copyrighted assets in their productions, so why should it be any different with online platforms? As much as it is a bit of extra work, anyone who uses YouTube professionally should simply cost for it like any other part of the job. Avoiding tracks that use content ID will only bring deeper potential problems in the future.
YT’s requirement to show proof of sync licensing isn’t just some inconvenience that Google thought of to upset its users, it’s an important tool to police copyright infringement. Any author that offers their music without this protection is playing a dangerous game. Think of it this way… if someone stole some shots from your videos and started selling them as their own, then they protected them meaning that you could no longer use your own work without somebody else getting paid for it, you too, would seek a way to protect your intellectual copyrights, surely?
As for using epidemic, if I needed someone to make a video for me, I wouldn’t pick a company that exploited naive filmmakers, and I would hope that filmmakers using music tracks would do us composers the same courtesy, but such is the stone cold heart of capitalism I suppose.