Right i thought i'd ask as there are some music heads on here , Ive been uploading videos onto youtube of me lads covering songs in the garage - they dont sing so they are instrumental covers lol . Well for their last song i got a notification from youtube that the video posted "Matched 3rd party content" Clicking the link took me to a telling off about copyright infringement / Royalty payments and all that. After a little googling i was under the impression that even covering a favorite song in the garage violates copyright law !!! This video had only received 30 odd views , we pay to see them live , buy the CDs and all that , yet cannt freely make a cover !! Does anyone know what the crack is with copyright and playing your version of someones song , im not expecting action from the record company on this the video IS small fry to them of course , why are they so suffocating ??? thanks ... the offending video below [video=youtube;gU1YoKLLIHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU1YoKLLIHo[/video]
They are gettin dead arsey about it all now, the trust is all published music is copyrighted and reperforming to gain personal advantage or money without permission from the copyright owner is copyright infringement. Certain labels/artists use a new form of copyright where anyone is free to use their music to do whatever with, but as soon as someone makes a penny from it they want their share. Even cutting a 5 second sample out of a song and using it in your own is copyright infringement.
I'm on the ipad so excuse any typos but basically it is unlawful to copy, distribute, publicly perform, or broadcast copyrighted works unless you have permission from the owners of the copyright That includes putting it on the internet, specifically youtube. It matters not that it's an instrumental copy or that they're doing it for fun and not for any real profit. If any money is earned, that will be a consideration when determining what sort of damages should be awarded. The reality is that as olm has said, it was bloody daft putting the name and song up as that is what will have flagged it up to the legal bods employed by the record companjes who simply search the web all day looking for infringements so as to protect their intellectual property rights. Hope that answers your query. Not606 - a place for footie banter and free explanations from lawyers (would have cost you best part of £50 that during office hours!)
well yeah it would be daft putting the band and song title in the video if i wanted to avoid it being flagged as infringing on copyright . The point being i hadn't realised it was against the laws so i didnt bother "hiding" any tracks - that said i/boys would still be in breach and probably plagiarism thrown in for good measure . I just thought what you did yourself was free to distribute the video and the performance , i only thought the problem would be trying to pass off the performance as either the original artists or claim to be the creators of the song/music . i posted about 10 more without incident so i was a bit surprised thats all
there's not much in that track to copyright from what i can hear. but leave the artist name off the title for any more covers you do. at least put 'cover' in the track title. i know someone who played in a band in the 1960s, had a few minor hits, and when he put their stuff up, the record company objected. there's so much other stuff up though. i have seen copyright disclaimer wording along the lines of 'i do not own the copyright to this material' which might keep them quiet.
on second thoughts and after realising the japandroids is them and not you, this kind of thing flags a major irritation for me. if i want to hear the beatles version of hey jude i don't want to plough through a list of thousands and thousands that say HEY JUDE - BEATLES (cover by bill smith) call it hey jude by bill smith and leave the original band name for the search options. maybe add (cover) to the title. maybe mention it in your description.
Yeah i clearly put in the title its a cover , it also says as much in the description - theres no way anyone could be hoodwinked into playing it in expectation of the real thing (its not like i used a pic / still of the actual band) An annoying thing for me is that originally the whole spirit of Youtube was it was USER Generated content and no hint of "official" "viral" and misleading videos trying to get bit hits :/ thanks everyone for your comments / advice on the subject of copyright though . I suppose its impossible for someone to justify copyright infringements , its just when its in black n white it seems a bit excessive even if im not sat here in fear of a lawyers neckchoke
it is overkill. as i say, omit the original artist's name next time you put a cover up and see how that goes. perhaps you could ask them for a clarification and ask a few questions about what would be acceptable and what wouldn't, bearing in mind you're not attempting to make any money from it.
I'm waiting for them unwittingly sue someone who's piracy has made them money to see what the outcome is. I'm sure amongst people around my age Eidos and Sports Interactive have made an absolute killing on later sales of Championship and then Football Manager as a result of us having all 'borrowed' a friends copy of one in the late 90s. I've had 4 or 5 since then, I wouldn't have bought any if I'd not had the copied disk for 50p to get me into the game in the first place.
there is nothing at all to stop someone recording a version of a song. it's what happens with the recording that's the debate. it could be said that the net is a publishing medium and that's where the problems start. there is no intention in this instance to attempt to profit from the recording or to deprive the copyright owners of any money. youtube is awash with covers as well as originals and youtube gets round this to a degree by giving copyright holders a share of advertising revenue.
i have a sneaky suspicion they wont give a flying fart what you think about them though - same as what reaction Jessie J would have if she knew my thoughts on her music , no doubt .
It's odd you should mention her on this thread. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18616154 I like the bit where the guy accusing her uploaded a video to youtube and her record label had it removed for breaching copyright.
