Youtube - do you assign all rights to Google - or what is the deal?

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Hi

Heard about Instagram and Facebook, that you give all rights to the hosting company to use anything you upload in any way they like.

What is the deal with Youtube?
Assume rediculous long sheets of conditions that nobody read.

Or did anybody do that?

Thanks.

Post

You don't give up any rights to YouTube if you post there. And for what it's worth, you don't really give up any "rights" to Facebook, either. Facebook may use something you've posted in an ad for themselves, but you can remove your stuff from the site at any time. And all I've seen Facebook use in their advertisements are text and webcam/smartphone videos. I can't remember a time they've ever used music posted by anyone.

Of course if you're really concerned about it, you can post a copyright notice with each post on YouTube, Facebook and anywhere else. It doesn't protect you legally, but it does put people on notice that you own the copyright, that "all rights [are] reserved" (or some similar notice) by you, and that you're aware of--and are willing to enforce--your legal rights.

Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.

Post

This guy is a tech lawyer, he's not affiliated with youtube or any of the major companies. He does regular livestreams where you can ask questions.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkW ... jK0aBWoSXw

Post

Good input, thanks planetearth and mutantdog.

And thanks for correction on Facebook terms.
Instagram I heard from a awarded filmmaker saying that, so that might be true as stated.

I read at both Vimeo and Youtube about Fair Use etc if somebody take your own material and upload on their channel. But only Vimeo said clearly that I own my own uploaded original work.

Post

Well, Facebook owns Instagram (or "IG" as the kids call it :roll:), so unless you've seen in writing where IG "owns" anything you post in some way, I'd assume their policies are now the same, and I'd take whatever you've heard with a grain of salt.

Besides, IG is all about posting photos. You can't even actually post music there. You can post links to music, but that's not the same as uploading an audio file to their servers, where they could then somehow claim "ownership". (A claim that wouldn't hold up in any court of law, anyway.)

Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.

Post

No, neither FB nor YT enjoy any copyright or licensing rights just through hosting your track. Youtube is, for instance making a .mov into a .mp4 and turning whatever audio is contained in it to a 128kbps AAC, so it's not even your track they're even hosting. As far as the composition, actually, publishing it (either case is publication) establishes copyright or reinforces a registered copyright.

Post

ig has more than just photos nowadays, you can post short video clips with audio and there's a fair few modular users posting bits for example.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Be86JIBANsW/

Post

acYm wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:14 am ig has more than just photos nowadays, you can post short video clips with audio and there's a fair few modular users posting bits for example.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Be86JIBANsW/
Yes, there are a few short videos, but 1) the sound is off by default when they're played; and 2) they're still short videos. The maximum length for a video in a "Story" is 15 seconds; videos in the main feed are limited to 60 seconds.

It's a decent platform if you want to demo a synth, but you wouldn't want to try to post your 4-minute video there. :wink: But even if you do post something there, IG won't end up owning your song; you still maintain any and all rights to it.

Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.

Post

jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 am No, neither FB nor YT enjoy any copyright or licensing rights just through hosting your track. Youtube is, for instance making a .mov into a .mp4 and turning whatever audio is contained in it to a 128kbps AAC, so it's not even your track they're even hosting. As far as the composition, actually, publishing it (either case is publication) establishes copyright or reinforces a registered copyright.
Converting to another media does violate copyright, or YT would not have all those descriptions of fair use, disclaimers for 3rd party stuff etc. Same on Vimeo, but they clearly stated creator own all rights to their own material.

The "possible art" you created is intellectual property - that is protected, as I see it even if reduced in bitrate as distributed. I mean you cannot create a mp3 from a cd and distribute and it's ok.

Reading various disclaimers on music concerts on DVD I have - how you cannot use soundtrack apart from that even - or you violate right on that copy you bought. You bought rights for that media format, video+soundtrack, and that copy and use that for personal use.

All this legal red tape(or whatever it's called) is so extensive one never knows.

Post

Rather than mindlessly speculate why don't yall take a read of the license agreement you enter into as part of the TOS agreement when you use the sites?

For example: ucp.php?mode=terms

You need to be aware that by consciously using a service such as KVR to publish your posts and their content in view of the public (it's a public bulletin board) you grant an implicit license for the derivatives which is why the agreement does not have an explicit clause addressing this.

Also note that some larger more evil corporate lawyer of doom sites like Alphabet's demon children often do have explicit "no backsies" clauses. They also have "no telling!" (Arbitration) clauses.

Your ability to revoke/terminate/annul is almost always explicitly limited and according to contract law is inherently/implicitly limited anyway. In addition there are usually slightly tricky "subject to" clause webs that tie your hands with regard to enforcing your rights afterward if you back out of the agreement.

For example "you have the right to arbitration subject to your fulfillment of the terms of this agreement", so backing out means they have zero obligation to fulfill their obligation under the agreement since it ended. This means if you try to dispute how you've licensed things according to the agreement you'll fail to meet the TOS and no longer have a right to see performance of the other party's obligations under that contract.

These are usually considered unfair/unbalanced but the fact is you'll be hopelessly wound up in their web for a decade trying to bring a small claim against a company like YouTube in most cases.

The TOS = the web to catch flies like you.
Last edited by aciddose on Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

lfm wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:52 am
jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 am No, neither FB nor YT enjoy any copyright or licensing rights just through hosting your track. Youtube is, for instance making a .mov into a .mp4 and turning whatever audio is contained in it to a 128kbps AAC, so it's not even your track they're even hosting. As far as the composition, actually, publishing it (either case is publication) establishes copyright or reinforces a registered copyright.
Converting to another media does violate copyright, or YT would not have all those descriptions of fair use, disclaimers for 3rd party stuff etc. Same on Vimeo, but they clearly stated creator own all rights to their own material.

The "possible art" you created is intellectual property - that is protected, as I see it even if reduced in bitrate as distributed. I mean you cannot create a mp3 from a cd and distribute and it's ok.

Reading various disclaimers on music concerts on DVD I have - how you cannot use soundtrack apart from that even - or you violate right on that copy you bought. You bought rights for that media format, video+soundtrack, and that copy and use that for personal use.

All this legal red tape(or whatever it's called) is so extensive one never knows.
No, converting to another file format does not necessarily (especially in the cases we're discussing here) violate copyright. YouTube and other video-, audio-, and text-hosting sites don't put the copyright information there for their protection; they put it there for yours. You're not supposed to upload (read: share) any video or audio to which you do not own the copyright. Unfortunately, many people think that anything they find on the Internet is free to download--and that once they download it, it becomes theirs, somehow. YouTube, SoundCloud and others have to stem this tide of misinformation.

If you upload the Thriller album to YouTube or SoundCloud, they will remove it, but they aren't legally liable for it being there in the first place, as long as they make a "good faith" effort to remove it. If they don't make a good faith effort, they can be found negligent, but that's not the same as illegally sharing the content in the first place. They post the notices about copyright for their users--not for themselves. (And considering that most people think the term is actually copywrite/copywritten/copywrote, you can see where YouTube and others have a lot of work to do to educate people who want to share content they don't own.)

Under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), even if you find something of yours on a site where you didn't post it, you can request it be removed from the site, but by and large, you can't sue the site or the webmaster.

This is from https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/dmca/; the underlined section is relevant to our discussion here:

How Does the DMCA Affect Webmasters?
Webmasters who are not engaged in copyright infringement are protected by the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, especially if they host content for other internet users.

For example, one can find countless hours of user-submitted content on the video-hosting website YouTube. It would be impossible for YouTube to monitor all user-submitted items proactively, so the service would generally be protected from liability when users post infringing content.

In exchange for this protection, the service must promptly remove infringing content when notified.

Webmasters who choose not to remove infringing material after getting a notice may be subject to criminal or civil penalties. Generally, prosecution for copyright violations focuses on major perpetrators, often end users.

However, even when webmasters and hosts have not participated directly in wrongdoing, they might be found to contribute to copyright violations through negligence if they do not take proper steps to curb copyright violations.

That includes making contact information available to copyright holders and removing infringing material quickly.


Hope that helps! :)

Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.

Post

Actually they don't need to put in any effort to remove it. They don't need to act unless notified explicitly about the particular location they're hosting the infringing content.

If they were to actively filter content it would strip them of the liability protections under the DMCA.

Also, the DMCA only applies to corporations in the United States but anyone or anything can file a legally obligating notice.

So don't expect Russian or other websites to even respond to you. Most United States websites will also ignore requests that aren't correctly formatted or from a "trusted source" (AKA dangerous source, AKA the companies they're currently engaged being legally hassled by on a regular basis.)

If you're a plug-in author trying to get torrents or similar removed? Good luck.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

aciddose wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:37 am Actually they don't need to put in any effort to remove it. They don't need to act unless notified explicitly about the particular location they're hosting the infringing content.
Yes, technically that's true. I just didn't want to muddy the waters by going into who needs to notify whom (and how and when they need to do this), since that was beyond the scope of the original question.

Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.

Post

planetearth wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:26 am
Hope that helps! :)

Steve
It did, thank you. :)

Post

lfm wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:52 am
jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 am No, neither FB nor YT enjoy any copyright or licensing rights just through hosting your track. Youtube is, for instance making a .mov into a .mp4 and turning whatever audio is contained in it to a 128kbps AAC, so it's not even your track they're even hosting. As far as the composition, actually, publishing it (either case is publication) establishes copyright or reinforces a registered copyright.
Converting to another media does violate copyright, or YT would not have all those descriptions of fair use, disclaimers for 3rd party stuff etc. Same on Vimeo, but they clearly stated creator own all rights to their own material.

The "possible art" you created is intellectual property - that is protected, as I see it even if reduced in bitrate as distributed. I mean you cannot create a mp3 from a cd and distribute and it's ok.

Reading various disclaimers on music concerts on DVD I have - how you cannot use soundtrack apart from that even - or you violate right on that copy you bought. You bought rights for that media format, video+soundtrack, and that copy and use that for personal use.

All this legal red tape(or whatever it's called) is so extensive one never knows.
A composition is published by definition when you publish it at youtube. If someone decided to rip a track of mine and use it for their film even it it's a student film or something non-commercial and I caught it somehow, there is no fair use, regardless of it being a rip of the youtube with the degraded audio. (if I was in business of manufacturing physical media, I would perhaps enjoy mechanical rights to a recording, which is where law enters the picture if someone is ripping from the disc, which is another issue than intellectual property). There is no legal red tape. If it came to a court case any way you look at it it's a crapshoot, but not because of legal complexities. It's cut and dried if I can show I created it. And I would tend to have time-stamped project files and the whole 9 yds.

There is no earthly way YT can establish any rights of any kind just for hosting it. They're not in the business of that, they are in the business of taking a cut of a profitable advertising stream.

If you upload a rip of a commercial product, in its entirety, your fair use can be demonstrated by certain arguments out of the language of Fair Use doctrine variously, but if the copyright holder stands fast, you're probably SOL.

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”