Lets be carefull out there

[enc]

Youtube appear to be cracking down on copyright material. iv had two videos pulled in the last fortnight with the following message..... A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video.

One of the videos using a Jimi Hendrix track had been "on the tube" over 12 months.

[Mark W]

My ocean finance spoof got pulled for copyright reasons recently.

It pisses me right off. Auteurs making thier own great films - like where thay have a script and dont film it on a phone, proper stuff - is just the same stuff that is likely to re use copyright material. It doesnt help raise the low average std of tube vids.

No time for a copyright rant - later perhpas. lol.

[Andy Lockwood]

Yup. I had a video pulled which was set to 'Ugly Bug Ball' recently. And then, oddly, the Killer Queen vid (joint first place winner in a highly respected online competion ) has been left up as long as they can monitor it's stats. I feel like pulling it myself.

YouTube has got far too corporate. Far too scared of big business and no place for decent filmakers.

EDIT - In fact, Im off to cancel my account right now.
EDIT AGAIN. Closed. That'll make no difference at all. But it fits in with my recently grumpy Markesque personality.

[Fingercuff]

Originally Posted by Andy Lockwood grumpy Markesque personality.

Marks Grumpy? He kept that well hidden!

I'm still waiting for the inevitable day that this happens to me. Sounds like it could be quite soon the way things are going!

[TimStannard]

Listen Guys, you can't have it both ways. If you want to use copyright material without the owners consent then you have to accept others should equally be able to use your material without your consent.
I'm referring to recent complaints here about so called competitions who then want to use your material in any way they see fit.
Anyone interested in this area must know that copyright law is long overdue for a total overhaul, but what should it be?
There are two main aspects to be considered - 1. Finance (of course this is always the overriding factor as far as the "industry" is concerned) and 2. The right of someone to prevent his work being used in a way he wouldn't like - for example Mark W's films used to promote the BNP .
I have no solutions or suggestions, but I do believe that whatever rules are applied should be applied equally to all.

[rgander1]

That's really not cool. I use alot of soundtracks and music to help set the feel and make the point. Ho, but NO!! someone has to make a dime on everything, sqeezing the creative spirit out of artists who try their best to live a life of expressive freedom. Leave it to the "big dogs" to come in and ruin what few liberties we have. I already got warned about my "lady in red" video, and had to agree to advertising by UMG so NOW I'm nothing but a BillBoard:
Claim Details:
Copyright owner: UMG Content claimed: Some or all of the audio content Policy: Allow this content to remain on YouTube.

• Place advertisements on this video's watch page.

Applies to these locations:
Everywhere

[TimStannard]

Originally Posted by rgander1 I use alot of soundtracks and music to help set the feel and make the point.

Forget the money. I accept the price that you have to pay to use some music is beyond reason for the small film maker.

Where I think copyright does matter is in your point above. Most film makers say sound accounts for 50%-70% of a movie. Of COURSE your film is going to be more impressive if you're using John Carpenters score with a full orchestra. Let's be honest if at least half the film is the sound, then it follows that your film is actually John Carpenters film to which you've contributed some visuals.

Furthermore if your film was about something to which John Carpenter was bitterly opposed, don't you think he'd have a right to be pissed off?

Please note: I've nothing against people making films using other people's material per se, and I wouldn't want to stop this. I just wish there was some legal way of doing this that would suit all parties.

In the UK we have a system which I think is quite reasonable. If you join the IAC (Film and Video Institute) - for amateur filmnakers at a cost of around £35 per year you can buy a licence for abour £7 per year which covers you for dubbing ANY music which you have purchased via UK retail onto films produced for strictly amateur means (ie family & friends distribution, and up to two film festivals that may be open to the public - or something like that anyway). It doesn't cover broadcast so certainly doessn't cover YouTube. But it's a reasonable scheme at a reasonable price.

[rgander1]

Originally Posted by TimStannard Let's be honest if at least half the film is the sound, then it follows that your film is actually John Carpenters film to which you've contributed some visuals. Furthermore if your film was about something to which John Carpenter was bitterly opposed, don't you think he'd have a right to be pissed off?

I never really looked at it that way. I just assumed it was the richer getting richer and the starving artists loosing freedom, but I must agree with you. All of my videos that use music or sound would be completely worthless with out it. I only wish there was a fair way of securing rights at an affordable price. All in all I suppose it is a roadblock that I must overcome. And thank you for educating me on opposing points of view. Ignorance can be dealt with by education, but Arrogance can only by dealt with by humility. I am claiming humility now.

[Marc Peters]

Originally Posted by TimStannard You can't have it both ways. If you want to use copyright material without the owners consent then you have to accept others should equally be able to use your material without your consent.

Completely agree.

[TimStannard]

Didn't mean to get on my high horse. What we have to remember is that laws are actually created to protect the little guy. It's just that the big guys are the people with enough money to turn them to their advantage.
And there's even justification for BMG or whoever charging a fortune to use the latest smash hit in your film which ISN'T just greed.

Every time you or I use the latest Red Hot Chilli's smash hit to accompany our movie, rather than look at it that we are illegally depriving said band/record company of a small fortune to us that they wouldn't even notice, consider that we are actually depriving an unheard of struggling, composer of a much smaller sum. Paying a small fee to a small time composer would be both legal and cheaper.

And, believe it or not, at least some fees paid in respect of the "name" bands do trickle down to the unsigned. Back in the 1970's the drummer of a band I was in set registered himself as the publisher of our bands original material. Despite the fact that we never gigged for a fee, never had a song broadcast and no-one else ever recorded our material he received a very small cheque for royalties for a couple of years.

rgander, you have my full admiration for being so open minded and so quickly accepting there's another side to the argument. I only wish I was as humble.