Now I have a total of nine videos that I created using Roger Waters songs and slides/pics that I found "for free" on the internet. All the songs are in fact owned by me as I bought the CD's and I also use these videos for "not for profit".
But the email raises a huge issue. As most are aware, there are millions of music videos on YouTube where folks have used soundtracks to create their own video. This is the beauty of YouTube, the ability for people to show their creative side. Sure, many are just songs with one image right through, but there are many more that show a willingness to improve on their skills and to highlight a song and how they see it through their eyes. That's my videos down to a T.
EMI may be looking after their artists interest "in their own eyes" but reality is that they don't have a leg to stand on. If someone paid for their music, then they should be able to share it with whomever they so wish, in whatever format that suits them, with no change to the original. As long as they don't profit financially from it.
It's a bit pissy really. Through these videos on YouTube, many folks get the opportunity to hear "new" music and willingly trundle off to one of many music stores and buy the product, a win win for the originator of the video, and for the Record Companies.
I think YouTube have panicked here. Sure the copyright issue is borderline but YouTube sending out copyright notices to maybe half their clientele doesn't bode well for the future of YouTube. I think they are running scared from copyright hungry record companies (and maybe others) and are scared that these same companies could end the great service YouTube is.
It's ironic however as I said, I have nine videos on YouTube that were all created at the same time with the same technique, and only one gets picked up by EMI and YouTube. Come on folks, if you are going to do a job on your users for crying out loud be fair and across the board. I want nine emails, and I want EMI to sue me.
You may owe the CD's but I thought copyright says you can't broadcast to a large audience, which your blog and facebook clearly must have (or could potentially have). It's the same with hiring movies from the video shop, you can't show them to move than around 10 people. You need a licence to do that whether they are on you tube or not.... as International Law dictates. At least, that was always my understanding. So it's not the uploading from you tube but what you then do with it.
ReplyDeleteSo if that's the case, then when you have a party and get your CD's out you have to make sure there are less than ten people in the room right? My beef isn't so much the copyright, but the effect it has on art and expression. YouTube gives individuals the right to post videos that are creative or an expression of personal taste. And it's an ego trip too for the poster. I think EMI (and I hear they aren't the only record company) are being pedantic and YouTube are bowing to pressure, but not wholeheartedly as they state in their email to me:
ReplyDeleteDear KingThane,
Your video, The Gunners Dream Tribute - Pink Floyd, may have content that is owned or licensed by EMI.
No action is required on your part; however, if you're interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.
Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team
As I stated, I got this warning on one of nine videos. If it's a major issue, all the videos, plus 90% of YouTube music videos, should have been red flagged.
Sounds more like someone taking the piss Thane. Where do you call yourself King Thane?
ReplyDeleteAt YouTube, was a suggested name by them.
ReplyDelete