I’ve released covers before but I’ve had licenses for it because they were tracks I was posting on iTunes and Spotify. There was only one time where I made a music video for Dr. Dre’s Talking To My Diary and I couldn’t upload it to RUclips because of copyright. So I posted on Vimeo and it blew up and went viral. Someone posted it on RUclips, guess him or his team found it and took that down as quickly as possible.
I haven't really done any covers before, even though I have as many of them planned as I do regular songs haha. That being said, Distrokid offers licensing services with their distribution. When you submit your song, all you have to do is select that it's a cover and Distrokid will take care of all the licensing for you (:
You won't get your channel taken down for 3 copyright claims(to my knowledge at least). You WILL for 3 copyright Strikes. I get a claim on every cover I make. Just clarifying, I'm sure that's what you meant, but, not everybody would understand that. Great video tho! Learned a bunch. Thank you
To some people that says " i don't think it could be that serious. No one will ever notice my channel anyways." The other day i was live on instagram. Was listening to Keina Suda - Veil and a minute later they blocked my live stream saying that the song is not mine and that if i do it again my account will be taken down. Bro how fast are they?
My band and I did a cover of a Beatles song that we posted on RUclips. They stated that 30 seconds of my content had to be removed or the volume taken away from the video. I could have disputed it, but I was curious what the issue was, so in the end, they took out the first 30 seconds of the song and let the rest of that particular song play through. We played about 3 to 4 Beatles songs that were not cut, so I don't know why the first 30 seconds of the first song and not the others very strange.
It cant be as complicated as this surely. There are thousands of youtube channels with people sitting in their front rooms, doing simple reaction videos to artists, or singing cover songs etc. There must be an easier answer to be able to do this.
I believe RUclips should make a system where they automatically split the monetisation of the video between you and the OC of the video being reacted to, of course depending on how much of the video is reaction. It would incentivise reaction channels to have deeper and more dense reactions instead. They already have content ID so they have the capability to do this, they just don’t for some reason.
I use Distrokid, have a LEGAL cover song license but my video STILL has a copyright claim for "Melody" in which they are refusing to release. It IS as complicated as all that and youtube is absolute TRASH in handling these issues
Let me clarify further, I don't have a syn license so noone is allowed to listen to my cover if its encoded as a "video" (which is dumb AF considering you cant see music anyway and I personally own all the video content)
I use an app called sing where I sing to a karaoke track. I do pay a subscription to the app. They allow you to upload your video to RUclips. I wonder how that works.
I’ve only got less than 100 subs- however, We are the hits let me know they can monetize my covers, if and when i hit the level to monetize all my videos... they seem like some pretty cool folks.
Actually it also depends on the copyright holders themselves. There’s a reason why it’s “all rights reserved” which means it’s up to them to let you release the cover or not
In my experience, Easy Song tells me everytime it's a custom license and wants like, 300.00. So, I've contacted publishers myself and it's been slow but I got one mechanical license, so far. Songfile seems good.
What I don’t get, is some covers are completely different interpretations with similar notes but different. And those still get strikes. They’re killing music creativity, they’re claiming notes.
Damian Keyes we still love you. And we might remember you when our channel will suddenly shut down with all the hard work we’ve been doing over the years. Knowledge is everything.
I’ve been alternating uploads of originals and covers for a while, and with the covers, alternating whether it’s a live performance vid or a studio equipment recorded version that I have tried to make unique. A few have been claimed, a few haven’t. Not that I’m at the point of making money from RUclips yet. Covers do perform a bit better though, as people actually search for them regularly. Gaining a little bit of awareness and subscribers is good enough for me to continue at the moment. Good video!
@@siyabongamngomezulu6208 It's going alright. I think I've done seven covers so far. I covered a Bruce Springsteen song from his latest album and it became my highest viewed and most liked video, and gained me at least three subscribers so far. That was about half a year ago. So I'd say it was worth the venture so far.
The basic fundamental building blocks of a song is not copyright protected. C-G-Am-F with watever ever key is not copyright protected as it is a fundamental building block chord progression. Thousands if not millions of songs use this basic chord progression. It is not copyrightable and fair game.
Y'know... I wonder how this would boil down if someone raised the fact that a cover is kind of a new master recording of the song. Because legally speaking there are always 2 sections of the copyright: Master and Publishing. Of course the artist would own the publishing since that is the actual song itself, but the label or artist would simply only own their copy of their master. Which means that if they're making money off of both the publishing AND what could be defined as MY master recording of the cover song, it's just as wrong as if I'm making money off of their publishing (their master excluded in this case since it's a new recording). Could be an interesting legal battle...
I definitely needed this video recently 😂 after my latest cover got blocked by Sony. But after some research I found out the cover was actually allowed according to the publishers, so I contacted Sony & my video was unblocked!
So I was about to start putting out weekly RUclips cover videos, full production and all... in this new light, do you think that might be unwise or will it just require a bit more work?
We've done a cover without copyright strikes. What we made sure to do is that we licensed our cover (via DistroKid) before we decided to release the video that goes along with it. Glad that we got that sorted before we released it out in the world.
Helpful information. RUclips copyright is a nightmare and the big music publishers are notoriously aggressive about their copyright. Good stuff, thanks.
I remember the good old days of the internet when it was the wild wild West baby the days of dial-up bbs's the days of downloading music now this was specially helpful if you lived in an area that didn't have a music store and not a lot of music stores around back then you know and a lot of radio station didn't play a certain song because of this jacket probably didn't like it I mean back then friend you was at the mercy of the disc jockey gods and it sucks until the internet which surpassed the world wide Web and to what we got now I can be out in the f****** woods man camping and tell my iPhone play ELO Don't break Me down and I can listen to that music streaming out there in the f****** woods as a matter of fact what the f*** am I doing in the woods anyway LOL but you see my point hey if I wanted to I can do a podcast straight from the woods while law enforcement trying to track me down and they might and that's just one of the many beneficial things you can do I mean come on man we was at the emergency at the radio station God's years ago I tried to get on the radio in my station manager said look here man you got $200 right now cash because he's all about that life he was all about that money he wouldn't f***** up about it and I told him no I don't have the money he's well I can't help you years later the internet came on the scene I did my first podcast on a MP3 stick uploaded to the internet I didn't have it in so I went to the library and did it I got pretty good at it then I started screaming once high-speed bandwidth came on the scene and then years later I called up that manager I said hey man around me kind of I said I'll ask you I need a show he's that's wait a minute I thought it was a note price ain't going up I said guess what I got my own show he said really what station he started to grab a pen scribble it down I said that's not a station in town that wants to hear s*** I got to say he said what I said my stations on the internet it goes out to the whole damn world and there's only one person you got one person one is better than anything either where can I find I said don't worry about it Google it and hung up on his ass
@@DamianKeyes So if I upload a cover of me singing an artist song, like literally using my own voice but using their bgm, if the artist is chill I'm not in trouble? If not Im gonna get copyright strike? And what about shorts?
There’s important things to note here: The actual royalty payments are not that expensive especially if you’re a small artist going through Harry Fox or Easy Song Licensing (because you pay by number of streams/downloads/physical releases, etc) but the fees are atrocious. I believe HFA had an $80 processing fee - on each medium for release! That’s a lot for an artist just trying to get off the ground. My band released a 5 song cover EP, and I paid close to $300 for just licensing which wiped out the band budget, but it would’ve probably been close to $60 without the fees. Are there any options with less in the way of fees? I’m all about artists getting paid for their work, but the copyright holders aren’t getting that money anyway.
I was actually considering starting a channel where I cover songs… this helps a lot, thanks. I’m still stuck on a few things but I’ll do more research on this
I did a cover of time by Pink Floyd on my channel, I usually just do original guitar instrumentals, just like when I tried covers before, the word "copyright" appeared below it , but it wasn't taken down and still plays , ..you mean to tell me Pink Floyd, or their team seen my cover , and caused this copyright claim? and all the other 50 million covers of it have a claim as well? or have permission from Pink Floyd to do their song? not likely,. just like RUclips picks and chooses who to shadow ban , they pick who to discriminate against with these copyright claims 👎
My son died in 1995. I have a sound track of him singing on a karaoke machine with the music in the background. I would really like to share it with my friends to show how he sang. I want to get legal use somehow. I will never make money on this. How do I go about getting permission to use it?
What if I have no intention of monetising the videos, because the money is so little anyway? And I just want to use the cover song as a way to advertise my services as a Guitar teacher or wedding guitarist?
Hey Michael, that would still be breaching copyright as it’s owned by someone else even if it’s not monetised, It’s still being used. You could get a license or if you are teaching a song technically you could argue fair use but Rick Beato has issues with this a lot, defo worth watching some of his copyright videos on RUclips
We film live gigs for unsigned and undiscovered bands and you sometimes we get a set with a cover so our nightmare starts as soon as we upload a video. We always claim fair use, Its always scary that something you have been building for years can be taken away for good.
@@rensdejonge3 As far as i'm concerned fair use is revenue sharing between the one who holds the copyrights and the one who covers it... Fruit grows on branches the more branches the more fruit for the tree... They should embrace interpreters and bands that covers songs for that creates a new revenue stream for them while others do the work... If you can collect a percentage off the work of others keeping your music in circulation that should be a win win and compulsory by law- just like mechanical licenses are... The law is yet to catch up and the antiquated copyright laws were written before the internet was a thing- hence mechanical licenses not digital licenses as a indication of how out of date these laws are... The law is stifling the music industry and they are losing because of it- not to mention the artists who can't get paid for their work because of these broken laws...
@@v4v819 The thing is, your revenue description isn't really what the law is all about. I get that you don't particularly like the way the laws work, but I thought you should at least be aware that uploading videos of covers without any licenses is in breach of copyright law.
@@rensdejonge3 If you read my reply I said "as far as I'M concerned", meaning this is what the law should consider, going forward, in my opinion- not what the law is- at, presently. Obviously Laws are always evolving with the times just always about half a century behind the times... These copyright laws for music are so antiquated it's a bad joke now a days and is what is allowing these labels and tech companies to exploit the gaping holes so they can take advantage of artists- which has always been the history of music industry unfortunately... Can we honestly say these laws recognize the times and stakes that are at play in this day in age in the music industry. Can we really say the law is protecting all parties the way they intend to... No one in their right mind who knows anything about the present day plight of the musician would say the law isn't in desperate need of an overhaul- regarding the copyright mandates... That's is my point... I'm sticking to it..
@@rensdejonge3 I mean you know the act is outdated when they still use "phonograph" as the distribution example when expressing what the law covers... The newer mandates doesn't bring it up to the digital age either... And any legislation they did with the Spotify arbitration was all scrubbed and their honoring the contract they made with the labels- en passant... big lobbiest almost got away with one there but still manage to crush an extra pawn, instead... In pawn, of course, the artists- so history once again repeats... I'm just purposing what i think would get the wheels turning again... Add some grease that trickles down to all major joints of the axel- not just covering the CR holders and Tech Platformers... Makes sense if you think about it- and this is congruent with the progress that is being made in the adjacent industries that they- music- needs to catch up to big time... I mean they all losing out on a bigger potential market place by not fully utilizing the onset of the youtube artists who want to churn out video performances of the current chart toppers... It's simple supply and demand... The it stands- the demand cannot be supplied in any measure at the moment... How you like them law that allows that blockage in everyone's means to music- business and consumer wise... TIME TO REHAUL AND BRING LAW TO REFLECT THE MODERN MEANS OF BOTH ARTISTS AND CONSUMERS...
This was great! We just put out a cover of Like a Stone by Audioslave and thankfully it's still up. My drummer however just tried putting a drum cover up of a different song and completely got blocked. He's been scratching his head for the last few days so I'll forward this to him.
A mechanics license doesn't always protect you on RUclips. I've published over 130 covers and have purchased licenses for 30 of these for distribution on other music channels with success. Using these licenses to try to monetize a cover that is ineligible on RUclips through an appeal has worked a few times, but it has also resulted in a threat of a Copyright Strike if I did not withdraw the appeal.
So i think i will avoid covers for the rest of my career as much as it sucks, I feel its not worth paying some rich label head to play a song i like. I will just create my own music and still get sued for someone copyrighting all 12 tones of the musical dictionary as well as all scales chords and rhythms possible in western music lmfao thanks for the heads up man i was literally about to upload a cover tomorrow...but you totally changed my mind on that.
If you're already done, upload it. Strikes are unlikely. Claims are fine I already have had one, and I have let the revenue go(which is nothing anyway). I wish revenue sharing was there more often tho'
Exactly how I feel. I thought music was made to be enjoyed by others. That includes praising the original artist/songwriter, singing said song and performing said song. We all learn and grow from one another as instrumentalists and singers. Absolute credit monetary and otherwise to be given to the wonderful songwriters and artists.. not disputing that. Just the difficult process in getting things accomplished legally and in a quick manner. I'm sure using my loop library in logic pro x will not be ok either. So frustrated.
@@pattyspeedmusic I thought so too. However there are still music out there that was made to be enjoyed, not necessarily to be profited from. Big businesses just blurred the line between them but such music does exist
I record songs from Starmaker and post them on RUclips by editing the video, but most of the copyrights come from which app, if I record songs from RUclips, there will be no problem if I upload them to RUclips. Please tell me.I didn't teach myself any music please help me
Compulsory “mechanical” licenses (not needing to ask permission in advance, just pay the appropriate “statutory” royalty rate to the rights holder) have existed for a long time for audio-only recordings. It’s “synchronization” to film or video that requires advance permission negotiated directly with the rights holder, and still does. The key differences between mechanical and sync licenses: - “mechanical” (for audio-only uses like records, CDs, streaming): no need to get advance permission or negotiate a rate. There is a “statutory” rate per song or minute of use set by law that you need to pay to the rights holder to use the composition, and it is a “compulsory” license - the rights holder cannot refuse you that permission. - “synchronization” (to film or video): there is no compulsory license or statutory rate. You need to ask advance permission and negotiate the rate directly with the rights holder. In the past, making a film or video or TV show, at least one that many people might see and that might be sold or supported by ads, was a big, expensive deal. “Clearing” all the rights first was just part of the expected production process and budget. What cell phones/cheap hd cameras, cheap video editing software, the internet, streaming, and social media/discovery sites like RUclips have done is make it trivially easy for anyone to create and share videos with huge audiences - and the creators are unlikely to have the time, team or budget to clear licenses, or even know that they are legally required to do so. But the copyright laws regarding getting a sync license have not changed despite the change in technology. What RUclips and Facebook do with ContentID is a compromise negotiated with major rights holders to allow them to let users bypass getting a sync license in exchange for some tools the rights holders can use to monetize or block the content without invoking legal remedies. How ContentID, monetization, and blocking work is outside of copyright law, it’s just a business agreement between large corporations to avoid mass lawsuits and mass bans of infringing users. But it has a lot of problems, like mistakenly identifying new performances of public domain works (or even hours of white noise) as infringing, and a total inability to identify and allow for fair use. On the one hand, there is still tons of infringing content, not all of which is monetized or blocked. On the other hand, true fair use (which should not even be monetized by the rights holder) is dying at the hands of unthinking bots and low-level employees. Also, to have a monetization option but occasionally get blocked entirely seems contrary to the fundamental goals of copyright and the prevailing use in audio-only recordings. It seems that copyright law should enact a new compulsory sync license to better meet today’s reality. Then songs would never get blocked, only monetized, the monetization rate would be known in advance (though probably a percent of associated revenues relative to the length of use as a proportion of the entire video would make more sense than a flat cost per use), and nobody would be in violation for not having negotiated advance permission. (But automated misidentification of public domain works and fair use could remain a problem.) Fair use was also always a thing written into copyright law, such as for reviews, commentary, satire, and certain educational uses of excerpts. What Rick Beato does, for instance, is clearly always 100% fair use, as would be a few seconds of a song on a tv in the background while taking a video of your kid, just as was “Siskel and Ebert At the Movies” (though it’s quite likely even they received advance permission to air the clips in that show, and were careful to give proper on-screen copyright credit to the rights holders). Reaction videos not so much - playing an entire song as the focus of a video with only minimal analysis and commentary likely does not fall under fair use, and neither do most cellphone videos of live concerts. Even Leland Sklar playing along to bass lines he originally performed is also likely not fair use (it’s a cover performance), so unless he was the sole copyright holder of that entire composition (unlikely), he can be monetized or blocked (or sued) unless he gets permission from the rights holder. According to at least one US federal appeals court, fair use is supposed to be a right in itself that should not be violated. In other words, rather than just being an affirmative defense in case of being sued, according to this appeals court decision, clear examples of fair use should protect someone from being sued in the first place. In other words, it may be against the law for someone to even try to deprive you of your fair use rights. But again, ContentID etc. are contractual agreements between corporations and not really embodiments of copyright law directly. This question of whether blocking or monetizing a video that is clearly fair use is itself an illegal act has not been tested in court that I am aware of.
So I understand, if I publish a tutorial it‘s fine, because educational use is fair use. What if I publish an online course for sale (that includes song tutorials). what licence would I have to get?
One way to legally upload covers to RUclips is to upload through a service such as 'We Are The Hits' which has a database of approved songs and uploading through them gets around RUclips's copyright minefield!... 👍
How long does it take for them(We Are The Hits) to upload your video cover song on youtube? i plan to start my youtube channel soon but want to avoid copyright claims
@@itsivan172 Go to their site and have a look and I'm sure they'll have that info, though I"ve had a look myself and it seems very straightforward to follow their upload procedure...
Is it considered a copyright strike if you're just playing the song on an instrument but not over the track itself? For example, the audience only hears you doing a drum cover but you hear the song in your headphones.
Did I hear this correctly? You say we can't have more than 3 "claims" (as opposed to "strikes") in 90 days? So you can't upload more than one cover a month?
I think if you keep it as a private video, you might be able to check if you might get a copyright strike before releasing your cover to the public. I'm no completely sure tho
Hey dude, Yeah it will show you the automatic ones but you can still get a claim from someone who owns it and more and more labels are employing people for these types of claims
Your title is inaccurate and faults all cover songs on RUclips are going to get some sort of claim when they get those claims for the cover songs in most cases it will still have an option saying you can still have this enabled for monetization and when you fill out that information what happens is is the revenue gets split between you and the label. But whenever you post any sort of cover song no matter what it's still going to get some sort of claim.
Yeah good point I should have pointed this out as it is an option even if most artists won’t go through an aggregator for uploading to RUclips but maybe that will be become the new normal. Thanks Dude
So in my experience this has gotten a lot better for someone who wants to do a cover. Nearly all the major and minor labels licensed all their songs to RUclips. They get claimed immediately after uploading and RUclips tells you: Nothings wrong. All good. The label allows you to use it, you just don't make any money. For me, this is alright, as I'm not big enough for monetization anyway. For people who do education it's a whole different story. The system needs to be revisited for sure. I never heard of any legal issues, though. Labels normally don't care about covers as they have an easy way now, to just make some extra money with them. A copyright infringement on RUclips will rarely go to court. Still. It's a grey area. In 2020. Kinda weird they didn't solve this until now...
At least so far we don't yet have spy listening devices in our living rooms reporting us for singing copyrighted songs out loud at the top of our voices.
What’s stupid is that you get copyrighted just for sing words and no instruments just when you think you found a loop whole like “we can’t use the actual song what if we can just sing the words”
What about actually getting the permission before doing the cover? I know that there are services specializing in that. Have you used any, and do you have any tips on obtaining the right to cover before actually doing it?
Labels and opportunistic music bussines lawyers are the xxxxxxxx of the creativity. We are living in total spiritual and intellectual revolution. New era is about to begin, everyone has right to squeeze out of their head&heart the stuff that media has put there. Imagine: someone stabs knife with a copyrighted poem in it, in to your heart. When you pull it out, copyright lawyer comes and tells:”You have to pay, you are using our intellectual property!” Law has to change: ”If it’s been in top 100 list, it has become public domain.”
There got to be a way to change the situation. Music that is played constantly in radio/tv/web, cannot maintain it’s untouchability until 100 years of artists dead. It gradually becomes folk music. In other words: if you hear a song from the radio in the food store, so that you cannot avoid of hearing it, it cannot be in any manner totally protected piece of art. Individual has to have right to communicate: “this song got stucked in my head for twenty years, and it has had an effect how my personality has developed.” It has become part of “me”, part of my decision making proces, part of information about the world where I’m about to spend 50-100 years. Songs are mantras (mind tool, Sanskrit) and they have affect on how young human brain/mind/thinking developes. Somebody with understanding should create “copyright algorithms” how copyrighted pop-art gradually turns to copyright free folk music, once it has been delivered through mass-media.
But doesn't the mandatory licence rule apply once a song has been released? Under this rule, you don't need to get permission to do a cover (once the original has been released to public) as long as the original owner gets their royalties.
A lot of people probably get mad about copyright strikes, fair use, demonetization, etc but I'm actually glad it is the way that it is. Could you imagine being an original artist and releasing your own original stuff but the second it goes public it's just fair game and anyone can do whatever they want with it, including making money from YOUR art that you put blood, sweat, and tears into? While you just sit back powerless? That would suck so bad
What about the RUclips channels that do bass covers or drums covers, etc that have millions of subscribers and just credit the song used in the description, like "music in this video"? How are they able to get away with it? What kind of "license" is that?
Ooooof, this is overwhelming! We play a weekly live happy hour here on YT where we play jazz ish covers of all sorts of tunes (sort of like pmj) we do get copyright claims occasionally but never strikes... how can we approach getting rights to the songs if we don't even know what we gonna play till we play it online? I feel lile live streams are the new wild west these days and I am sure the big guys are looking for ways to monetize this as well
Posting originals and renditions of traditional music is certainly easier than going through this juridical jungle. Thanks for shining some light on this, Damo!
So most covers on youtube are not monetised? There are ads there though... it would be more fair if cover artists got some % of the money because they do contribute in many cases to the popularity of the song. I am not saying getting 50% but at least 10-25%. Right?
I use CDBaby - $14.95 all included to get the song and a couple of bucks more to get it to allbthe streaming sites AND get sync license money from RUclips
There should be a monetary penalty for false claims. Way too easy for these publisher detectives to claim everything and sit back and wait for people to just let the monetization flow to the publishers. Would take a third party to make that decision. I personally have had friends get claims on their own music. Had another get a notice on a video where he was showing how to set up his guitar amplifier and was just noodling on the guitar. Funny part of that story is that the 7 seconds they made claim to - was the guitar feeding back while he was changing a setting on the amp. There are scam publishing companies ( always has been too ) that make false claims to artists or record companies for copyright infringement - the old days it was to obtain a quick cash settlement to go away- but I can this youTube claiming as a new frontier for shady publishing companies to exploit. I think accusations need to be first proven before youTube does anything. The way you explained it - youTubers are guilty until they prove themselves innocent- which is backwards to conventional law.
Absolutelly agree! Once I get claim because I was demoing rhythm machine I made myself. It was piece od electrinic board laying on a floor, and me playing some basic groove with it. At least YT claim algorithm should be at least veryfied by the person. Mad world! I might get claim now, as that is the song of Tears For Fears. :/
@@fibranijevidra It's not youTube - the claims are made by contractors from publishing companies. They are taking advantage of the situation by just laying claim to anything - their hope is that youTube gives them the monetization and you or I just don't attempt to fight it. I said if they had to put up like $20.00 even as collateral - and the claim is not disputed - they get it back. If they are just making frivolous claims - then they lose the 20.00. Right now it's too easy for them just to lay claim with nothing to lose.
@@JimRobinson-colors claims are done by youtube with machine algorithm, publishing companies upload the songs they want to claim and RUclips does it on their own whenever videos are uploaded. So it's possible to have false positives. Once RUclips detects the song and makes a claim, the publisher is notified of the video and give them data like where is the link and how many people are viewing, then if the publisher wants to, can review the video and either keep the claim or if they don't like your video at all, issue a take down. Most publishers wants to be lazy and just keep the claim (and bring in money).
I still don't understand how others are doing it. There are cover videos with thousands, or even millions of views. Are they all licensed? Is copyright an issue even if your videos aren't monetized? Thanks.
I can understand about the money part - but if you tuber is getting zero money for it, it’s just free promotion so I can’t understand why anybody would block that. Just look what happened with that twins reaction video to the Phil Collins song. Now that song is running up the charts.
So I've arranged my own cover of a song on garageband. I've yet to completely finish it, but I would like to know what license do I need for me to use my version of the song, and post it up on any streaming platforms.
OAC (Official Artist Channel) was RUclips's answer to empower artists to deal with their own copyright claims (say someone made a cover of one of my songs), whilst taking a step back and let the hounds fight for the bones. It's a mixture of "hey, we're doing more for artists" and "hey, take it directly with the dude". Having said that, I have noticed it allows for greater opportunities and control over my own stuff. And that's always welcome!
I record everything myself, change tempo and still get the claim.. I guess I will just write song names without arists from now on which seems so disrespectful
So I recently watched this channel is a 12 year old kid singing covers. He posts a cover like every other week. Is he able to do it because of the grey area? It's not just like small songs either, but some songs from bigger artists too like multiple from Ed Sheeran, Olivia Rodrigo, Harry Styles, Miley Cyrus, etc.
I really like 'versions' of songs, where the artist is interpreting the song, and adding their own musical personality, and even creatively expanding on it.[Taylor Swift cover: NO!]
What if it's a rewrite? As in, a cover song I reworked into my own style? The words would be mostly the same. Lyrical edits could very well be involved along the way as well.
I used to do a lot of covers, but I actually got a copyright strike for a Supertramp cover this winter, and that shook me a lot! Claims and strikes are very different, however. I don't mind getting claims, I think it's fair that potential money goes to the copyright owner. You said in the video that the channel can be taken down if it gets three claims, but that's not the case, claims will not damage the channel, they just make sure the money goes the right place! But getting three copyright strikes within 90 days will take down the channel. I've actually studied copyright and music business, so I should have seen this coming, but I guess I thought covers were fair use, and that music companies liked them because of the extra publicity. It's been over 90 days since I got my strike, so my channel is in the clear again (for now). But I think this is a really scary issue, so I've actually listed a lot of my old cover videos, and started making other kinds of content (original songs, behind the scenes, tutorials). If I'm going to make covers in the future, I will focus on covering smaller unsigned artists who will appreciate the extra exposure! Thanks for this video, it's an important topic to talk about!:)
testubevideos hehe you can still get strikes for old videos, so as long as they’re up they could be a problem! But I guess you could upload one every 90 days, and set it to listed or private before you upload another one? Haha
Thank you for this. I researched copyright a couple of years ago and found exactly what you mentioned in the video, and realized I had several infringements. I deleted those videos and now only do original, public domain that I’ve arranged, or works that I can secure the permissions to. There is so much misinformation about copyright on RUclips. Thanks again.
Is there any problem if I only want to post covers with no monetization? I'm not trying to earn money off of it, I just want to be able to post covers without copyright claims
I have at least 7 remixes out, just put one out a week ago, and it's absolutely working. Now these are full out remixes not covers, I'm usually taking just the vocals and creating an entire instrumental around it. So the music is different, just the vocals remain. I never have any issues, if I do get a copyright claim, I then promote the living hell out of it, simply because I know RUclips isn't going to penalize Warner Bros/Sony/Top Tier labels that have deals with RUclips directly. Which means I get some benefits/rule bending marketing methods going full force with no issues. Things I wouldn't ever do on my monetized videos. You can always find a positive in an apparent negative. Now sitting at 65,000 monthly listeners on Spotify for reference of my abilities. Edit: Dua Lipa Remix is the only one that has been blocked in 5 years of making remixes. Had a Tiktok go viral featuring the remix/next day blocked, haha. Her team is really nasty about it, so I just removed her vocals, and uploaded it as an instrumental original. :)
Damian there used to be a list on RUclips that told you which tracks allowed covers - a list publish by RUclips listing the most common tracks with details from the publisher on what is allowed. I can't find the link.Does it still exist, do you know? John Gubba PS: We met when you spoke at a business expo in Telford. a couple of years ago.
If I play a drumcover, write in the video that this song is "blabla" written by "artist-A" and Even if I write in the info that I have no problems that the Artists, claims the copyright so they could generate the money from my video, can I even at that point, get indicted?
How To Avoid Copyright Strikes: Scroll back up and hit the like button!
Seriously tho, tell me about your experiences with using covers!
I’ve released covers before but I’ve had licenses for it because they were tracks I was posting on iTunes and Spotify. There was only one time where I made a music video for Dr. Dre’s Talking To My Diary and I couldn’t upload it to RUclips because of copyright. So I posted on Vimeo and it blew up and went viral. Someone posted it on RUclips, guess him or his team found it and took that down as quickly as possible.
I haven't really done any covers before, even though I have as many of them planned as I do regular songs haha.
That being said, Distrokid offers licensing services with their distribution. When you submit your song, all you have to do is select that it's a cover and Distrokid will take care of all the licensing for you (:
We’re not doing covers because of the complications you’ve noted.
You won't get your channel taken down for 3 copyright claims(to my knowledge at least). You WILL for 3 copyright Strikes. I get a claim on every cover I make. Just clarifying, I'm sure that's what you meant, but, not everybody would understand that. Great video tho! Learned a bunch. Thank you
Justin Wunderlich do you get email or something ? Where do you see copyright claim?
11:16 you're welcome.
jesus, thank you
Thank you
I gave up and deleted my whole channel 🙃
Thxxxxxx
Tqsm !
Actual tip starts at 12:13
bruhhh
Thank you 🙏
Thank you so much!
My hero!
Is it me or he basically said NOTHING
Speed 1.5x much better
thanks
To some people that says " i don't think it could be that serious. No one will ever notice my channel anyways." The other day i was live on instagram. Was listening to Keina Suda - Veil and a minute later they blocked my live stream saying that the song is not mine and that if i do it again my account will be taken down. Bro how fast are they?
that is nasty im shaking in my chair now this is nightmare material
But...I released plenty of cover songs on Instagram, but I never got banned !
You missed it! He said “make sure it’s fair use…” that was the advice… it was also the extent of his explanation
14 minutes long video containing 0 practical advice on how to actually publish a cover song properly. Bravo.
i found it very informative and helpful
Welcome to RUclips idk how people like him can talk and say nothing at the same time
True what a waste of time
@@hypercept 9cents per view compared to a flat fee? Where in video does he say that
12:21 its here e.g. "we are the hits" though he waited until the very end to say it.
My band and I did a cover of a Beatles song that we posted on RUclips. They stated that 30 seconds of my content had to be removed or the volume taken away from the video. I could have disputed it, but I was curious what the issue was, so in the end, they took out the first 30 seconds of the song and let the rest of that particular song play through. We played about 3 to 4 Beatles songs that were not cut, so I don't know why the first 30 seconds of the first song and not the others very strange.
can you "Imagine" how many Beatles covers there are..
😂👌👌
😂😂😂
that's easy… if you try
Oh, you're just a dreamer...
@@andrewbuhman1066 But he's not the only one...
I hate this whole thread. :P
It cant be as complicated as this surely. There are thousands of youtube channels with people sitting in their front rooms, doing simple reaction videos to artists, or singing cover songs etc. There must be an easier answer to be able to do this.
I believe RUclips should make a system where they automatically split the monetisation of the video between you and the OC of the video being reacted to, of course depending on how much of the video is reaction.
It would incentivise reaction channels to have deeper and more dense reactions instead.
They already have content ID so they have the capability to do this, they just don’t for some reason.
It looks like DistroKid will get clearance.
I use Distrokid, have a LEGAL cover song license but my video STILL has a copyright claim for "Melody" in which they are refusing to release. It IS as complicated as all that and youtube is absolute TRASH in handling these issues
Let me clarify further, I don't have a syn license so noone is allowed to listen to my cover if its encoded as a "video" (which is dumb AF considering you cant see music anyway and I personally own all the video content)
I use an app called sing where I sing to a karaoke track. I do pay a subscription to the app. They allow you to upload your video to RUclips. I wonder how that works.
I've been making a whole bunch of covers over the past weeks and spent ageeesss finding all of this information. Good to have it all in one place!
I've been constantly researching and getting frustrated.
In summary:
- The Harry Fox Agency
- Louder
- Easy Song Licensing
- We Are The Hits
- Contact the publishers yourself
Literally. lol!
🤣
Easy *Song* Licensing
Bless, was looking for this comment
I’ve only got less than 100 subs- however, We are the hits let me know they can monetize my covers, if and when i hit the level to monetize all my videos... they seem like some pretty cool folks.
I've actually licensed two songs for covering and selling... Licenses are purchased at Harry Fox Agency...
Hi! which songs and how much was it?
Actually it also depends on the copyright holders themselves. There’s a reason why it’s “all rights reserved” which means it’s up to them to let you release the cover or not
In my experience, Easy Song tells me everytime it's a custom license and wants like, 300.00. So, I've contacted publishers myself and it's been slow but I got one mechanical license, so far. Songfile seems good.
So basiclly if i dont have the money to pay to license company i cant upload covers? thats a bummer
Ikrr!
When there’s a will there’s a way.
What I don’t get, is some covers are completely different interpretations with similar notes but different. And those still get strikes. They’re killing music creativity, they’re claiming notes.
When you thought you're fine and here comes Damo with a reality check.
😂 I feel like I'm always the barer of bad news!
Haha! The truth hurts!
Andy Dion Hey Andy!! Didn’t expect to meet you here mate hahahaha
Damian Keyes we still love you. And we might remember you when our channel will suddenly shut down with all the hard work we’ve been doing over the years. Knowledge is everything.
RockWeller love Damien Keyes!
When fairly big music RUclipsrs do covers, are those licensed?
I’ve been alternating uploads of originals and covers for a while, and with the covers, alternating whether it’s a live performance vid or a studio equipment recorded version that I have tried to make unique. A few have been claimed, a few haven’t. Not that I’m at the point of making money from RUclips yet. Covers do perform a bit better though, as people actually search for them regularly. Gaining a little bit of awareness and subscribers is good enough for me to continue at the moment. Good video!
I'm in the same boat.
I'm in the same boat also.
How is going so far tho?
@@siyabongamngomezulu6208 It's going alright. I think I've done seven covers so far. I covered a Bruce Springsteen song from his latest album and it became my highest viewed and most liked video, and gained me at least three subscribers so far. That was about half a year ago. So I'd say it was worth the venture so far.
@@RickyVolk Woooow, congragts man, more life🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
RUclips used to have a searchable list where you could look to see an artist's or label's policy on sharing/covering their songs were.
Yeah sadly they recently took that away which is a shame
@@DamianKeyes too sad
@@DamianKeyes so sad.
The basic fundamental building blocks of a song is not copyright protected. C-G-Am-F with watever ever key is not copyright protected as it is a fundamental building block chord progression. Thousands if not millions of songs use this basic chord progression. It is not copyrightable and fair game.
Y'know... I wonder how this would boil down if someone raised the fact that a cover is kind of a new master recording of the song. Because legally speaking there are always 2 sections of the copyright: Master and Publishing. Of course the artist would own the publishing since that is the actual song itself, but the label or artist would simply only own their copy of their master. Which means that if they're making money off of both the publishing AND what could be defined as MY master recording of the cover song, it's just as wrong as if I'm making money off of their publishing (their master excluded in this case since it's a new recording). Could be an interesting legal battle...
I definitely needed this video recently 😂 after my latest cover got blocked by Sony. But after some research I found out the cover was actually allowed according to the publishers, so I contacted Sony & my video was unblocked!
A very wise and brave move there ey!
why lie on youtube? what's the point
So I was about to start putting out weekly RUclips cover videos, full production and all... in this new light, do you think that might be unwise or will it just require a bit more work?
We've done a cover without copyright strikes. What we made sure to do is that we licensed our cover (via DistroKid) before we decided to release the video that goes along with it. Glad that we got that sorted before we released it out in the world.
Helpful information. RUclips copyright is a nightmare and the big music publishers are notoriously aggressive about their copyright. Good stuff, thanks.
Glad to help 🤟😊
I remember the good old days of the internet when it was the wild wild West baby the days of dial-up bbs's the days of downloading music now this was specially helpful if you lived in an area that didn't have a music store and not a lot of music stores around back then you know and a lot of radio station didn't play a certain song because of this jacket probably didn't like it I mean back then friend you was at the mercy of the disc jockey gods and it sucks until the internet which surpassed the world wide Web and to what we got now I can be out in the f****** woods man camping and tell my iPhone play ELO Don't break Me down and I can listen to that music streaming out there in the f****** woods as a matter of fact what the f*** am I doing in the woods anyway LOL but you see my point hey if I wanted to I can do a podcast straight from the woods while law enforcement trying to track me down and they might and that's just one of the many beneficial things you can do I mean come on man we was at the emergency at the radio station God's years ago I tried to get on the radio in my station manager said look here man you got $200 right now cash because he's all about that life he was all about that money he wouldn't f***** up about it and I told him no I don't have the money he's well I can't help you years later the internet came on the scene I did my first podcast on a MP3 stick uploaded to the internet I didn't have it in so I went to the library and did it I got pretty good at it then I started screaming once high-speed bandwidth came on the scene and then years later I called up that manager I said hey man around me kind of I said I'll ask you I need a show he's that's wait a minute I thought it was a note price ain't going up I said guess what I got my own show he said really what station he started to grab a pen scribble it down I said that's not a station in town that wants to hear s*** I got to say he said what I said my stations on the internet it goes out to the whole damn world and there's only one person you got one person one is better than anything either where can I find I said don't worry about it Google it and hung up on his ass
@@DamianKeyes So if I upload a cover of me singing an artist song, like literally using my own voice but using their bgm, if the artist is chill I'm not in trouble? If not Im gonna get copyright strike?
And what about shorts?
There’s important things to note here: The actual royalty payments are not that expensive especially if you’re a small artist going through Harry Fox or Easy Song Licensing (because you pay by number of streams/downloads/physical releases, etc) but the fees are atrocious. I believe HFA had an $80 processing fee - on each medium for release! That’s a lot for an artist just trying to get off the ground. My band released a 5 song cover EP, and I paid close to $300 for just licensing which wiped out the band budget, but it would’ve probably been close to $60 without the fees. Are there any options with less in the way of fees? I’m all about artists getting paid for their work, but the copyright holders aren’t getting that money anyway.
Hey did you find a solution yet?
I just basically asked, posted the same thing.
F for update
Distrokid
Following
actually chord progressions are not copyrightable and the building blocks of songs as well.
I was actually considering starting a channel where I cover songs… this helps a lot, thanks. I’m still stuck on a few things but I’ll do more research on this
I did a cover of time by Pink Floyd on my channel, I usually just do original guitar instrumentals, just like when I tried covers before, the word "copyright" appeared below it , but it wasn't taken down and still plays , ..you mean to tell me Pink Floyd, or their team seen my cover , and caused this copyright claim? and all the other 50 million covers of it have a claim as well? or have permission from Pink Floyd to do their song? not likely,. just like RUclips picks and chooses who to shadow ban , they pick who to discriminate against with these copyright claims 👎
Thanks, this was really helpful because I’ve been meaning to upload covers to RUclips for a while now
Once a copyright claim is put on a video, what happens if I just delete that video?
If i see someone doing a cover on a song, can i find an instrumental and make a cover?
My son died in 1995. I have a sound track of him singing on a karaoke machine with the music in the background. I would really like to share it with my friends to show how he sang. I want to get legal use somehow. I will never make money on this. How do I go about getting permission to use it?
What if I have no intention of monetising the videos, because the money is so little anyway? And I just want to use the cover song as a way to advertise my services as a Guitar teacher or wedding guitarist?
Hey Michael, that would still be breaching copyright as it’s owned by someone else even if it’s not monetised, It’s still being used. You could get a license or if you are teaching a song technically you could argue fair use but Rick Beato has issues with this a lot, defo worth watching some of his copyright videos on RUclips
@@DamianKeyes Ok thanks for answering, would I just need a sync license if I was just making a RUclips video cover?
We film live gigs for unsigned and undiscovered bands and you sometimes we get a set with a cover so our nightmare starts as soon as we upload a video. We always claim fair use, Its always scary that something you have been building for years can be taken away for good.
Would this really be fair use, though? I can't quickly come up with the fair use qualifier that would apply to this.
@@rensdejonge3 As far as i'm concerned fair use is revenue sharing between the one who holds the copyrights and the one who covers it... Fruit grows on branches the more branches the more fruit for the tree... They should embrace interpreters and bands that covers songs for that creates a new revenue stream for them while others do the work... If you can collect a percentage off the work of others keeping your music in circulation that should be a win win and compulsory by law- just like mechanical licenses are... The law is yet to catch up and the antiquated copyright laws were written before the internet was a thing- hence mechanical licenses not digital licenses as a indication of how out of date these laws are... The law is stifling the music industry and they are losing because of it- not to mention the artists who can't get paid for their work because of these broken laws...
@@v4v819 The thing is, your revenue description isn't really what the law is all about. I get that you don't particularly like the way the laws work, but I thought you should at least be aware that uploading videos of covers without any licenses is in breach of copyright law.
@@rensdejonge3 If you read my reply I said "as far as I'M concerned", meaning this is what the law should consider, going forward, in my opinion- not what the law is- at, presently. Obviously Laws are always evolving with the times just always about half a century behind the times... These copyright laws for music are so antiquated it's a bad joke now a days and is what is allowing these labels and tech companies to exploit the gaping holes so they can take advantage of artists- which has always been the history of music industry unfortunately...
Can we honestly say these laws recognize the times and stakes that are at play in this day in age in the music industry. Can we really say the law is protecting all parties the way they intend to... No one in their right mind who knows anything about the present day plight of the musician would say the law isn't in desperate need of an overhaul- regarding the copyright mandates...
That's is my point... I'm sticking to it..
@@rensdejonge3 I mean you know the act is outdated when they still use "phonograph" as the distribution example when expressing what the law covers... The newer mandates doesn't bring it up to the digital age either... And any legislation they did with the Spotify arbitration was all scrubbed and their honoring the contract they made with the labels- en passant... big lobbiest almost got away with one there but still manage to crush an extra pawn, instead... In pawn, of course, the artists- so history once again repeats...
I'm just purposing what i think would get the wheels turning again... Add some grease that trickles down to all major joints of the axel- not just covering the CR holders and Tech Platformers... Makes sense if you think about it- and this is congruent with the progress that is being made in the adjacent industries that they- music- needs to catch up to big time...
I mean they all losing out on a bigger potential market place by not fully utilizing the onset of the youtube artists who want to churn out video performances of the current chart toppers... It's simple supply and demand... The it stands- the demand cannot be supplied in any measure at the moment... How you like them law that allows that blockage in everyone's means to music- business and consumer wise... TIME TO REHAUL AND BRING LAW TO REFLECT THE MODERN MEANS OF BOTH ARTISTS AND CONSUMERS...
This was great! We just put out a cover of Like a Stone by Audioslave and thankfully it's still up. My drummer however just tried putting a drum cover up of a different song and completely got blocked. He's been scratching his head for the last few days so I'll forward this to him.
A mechanics license doesn't always protect you on RUclips. I've published over 130 covers and have purchased licenses for 30 of these for distribution on other music channels with success. Using these licenses to try to monetize a cover that is ineligible on RUclips through an appeal has worked a few times, but it has also resulted in a threat of a Copyright Strike if I did not withdraw the appeal.
So i think i will avoid covers for the rest of my career as much as it sucks, I feel its not worth paying some rich label head to play a song i like. I will just create my own music and still get sued for someone copyrighting all 12 tones of the musical dictionary as well as all scales chords and rhythms possible in western music lmfao thanks for the heads up man i was literally about to upload a cover tomorrow...but you totally changed my mind on that.
If you're already done, upload it. Strikes are unlikely. Claims are fine I already have had one, and I have let the revenue go(which is nothing anyway). I wish revenue sharing was there more often tho'
mix in eastern music
Exactly how I feel. I thought music was made to be enjoyed by others. That includes praising the original artist/songwriter, singing said song and performing said song. We all learn and grow from one another as instrumentalists and singers. Absolute credit monetary and otherwise to be given to the wonderful songwriters and artists.. not disputing that. Just the difficult process in getting things accomplished legally and in a quick manner. I'm sure using my loop library in logic pro x will not be ok either. So frustrated.
@@pattyspeedmusic I thought so too. However there are still music out there that was made to be enjoyed, not necessarily to be profited from. Big businesses just blurred the line between them but such music does exist
How about the new trend , AI covering songs by swapping vocals? Will those uploads will be banned over time?
So the worst outcome of making a cover song is removing the video? I don't end up in trial or have to pay any compensation?
I record songs from Starmaker and post them on RUclips by editing the video, but most of the copyrights come from which app, if I record songs from RUclips, there will be no problem if I upload them to RUclips. Please tell me.I didn't teach myself any music please help me
Compulsory “mechanical” licenses (not needing to ask permission in advance, just pay the appropriate “statutory” royalty rate to the rights holder) have existed for a long time for audio-only recordings. It’s “synchronization” to film or video that requires advance permission negotiated directly with the rights holder, and still does.
The key differences between mechanical and sync licenses:
- “mechanical” (for audio-only uses like records, CDs, streaming): no need to get advance permission or negotiate a rate. There is a “statutory” rate per song or minute of use set by law that you need to pay to the rights holder to use the composition, and it is a “compulsory” license - the rights holder cannot refuse you that permission.
- “synchronization” (to film or video): there is no compulsory license or statutory rate. You need to ask advance permission and negotiate the rate directly with the rights holder.
In the past, making a film or video or TV show, at least one that many people might see and that might be sold or supported by ads, was a big, expensive deal. “Clearing” all the rights first was just part of the expected production process and budget. What cell phones/cheap hd cameras, cheap video editing software, the internet, streaming, and social media/discovery sites like RUclips have done is make it trivially easy for anyone to create and share videos with huge audiences - and the creators are unlikely to have the time, team or budget to clear licenses, or even know that they are legally required to do so.
But the copyright laws regarding getting a sync license have not changed despite the change in technology. What RUclips and Facebook do with ContentID is a compromise negotiated with major rights holders to allow them to let users bypass getting a sync license in exchange for some tools the rights holders can use to monetize or block the content without invoking legal remedies. How ContentID, monetization, and blocking work is outside of copyright law, it’s just a business agreement between large corporations to avoid mass lawsuits and mass bans of infringing users. But it has a lot of problems, like mistakenly identifying new performances of public domain works (or even hours of white noise) as infringing, and a total inability to identify and allow for fair use. On the one hand, there is still tons of infringing content, not all of which is monetized or blocked. On the other hand, true fair use (which should not even be monetized by the rights holder) is dying at the hands of unthinking bots and low-level employees. Also, to have a monetization option but occasionally get blocked entirely seems contrary to the fundamental goals of copyright and the prevailing use in audio-only recordings.
It seems that copyright law should enact a new compulsory sync license to better meet today’s reality. Then songs would never get blocked, only monetized, the monetization rate would be known in advance (though probably a percent of associated revenues relative to the length of use as a proportion of the entire video would make more sense than a flat cost per use), and nobody would be in violation for not having negotiated advance permission. (But automated misidentification of public domain works and fair use could remain a problem.)
Fair use was also always a thing written into copyright law, such as for reviews, commentary, satire, and certain educational uses of excerpts. What Rick Beato does, for instance, is clearly always 100% fair use, as would be a few seconds of a song on a tv in the background while taking a video of your kid, just as was “Siskel and Ebert At the Movies” (though it’s quite likely even they received advance permission to air the clips in that show, and were careful to give proper on-screen copyright credit to the rights holders). Reaction videos not so much - playing an entire song as the focus of a video with only minimal analysis and commentary likely does not fall under fair use, and neither do most cellphone videos of live concerts. Even Leland Sklar playing along to bass lines he originally performed is also likely not fair use (it’s a cover performance), so unless he was the sole copyright holder of that entire composition (unlikely), he can be monetized or blocked (or sued) unless he gets permission from the rights holder.
According to at least one US federal appeals court, fair use is supposed to be a right in itself that should not be violated. In other words, rather than just being an affirmative defense in case of being sued, according to this appeals court decision, clear examples of fair use should protect someone from being sued in the first place. In other words, it may be against the law for someone to even try to deprive you of your fair use rights. But again, ContentID etc. are contractual agreements between corporations and not really embodiments of copyright law directly. This question of whether blocking or monetizing a video that is clearly fair use is itself an illegal act has not been tested in court that I am aware of.
So I understand, if I publish a tutorial it‘s fine, because educational use is fair use.
What if I publish an online course for sale (that includes song tutorials). what licence would I have to get?
One way to legally upload covers to RUclips is to upload through a service such as 'We Are The Hits' which has a database of approved songs and uploading through them gets around RUclips's copyright minefield!... 👍
How long does it take for them(We Are The Hits) to upload your video cover song on youtube? i plan to start my youtube channel soon but want to avoid copyright claims
@@itsivan172 Go to their site and have a look and I'm sure they'll have that info, though I"ve had a look myself and it seems very straightforward to follow their upload procedure...
Is it considered a copyright strike if you're just playing the song on an instrument but not over the track itself? For example, the audience only hears you doing a drum cover but you hear the song in your headphones.
So if you just want to sing a song without the music. Is it the same thing?
I want to make a music video for my aunt who passed away. Would it be legal to make it but just play it at her funeral?
Did I hear this correctly? You say we can't have more than 3 "claims" (as opposed to "strikes") in 90 days? So you can't upload more than one cover a month?
I just read Google's rules and I think you must have meant to say 3 strikes rather than claims. Man, you worried me there!
I think if you keep it as a private video, you might be able to check if you might get a copyright strike before releasing your cover to the public. I'm no completely sure tho
Hey dude, Yeah it will show you the automatic ones but you can still get a claim from someone who owns it and more and more labels are employing people for these types of claims
😕 even if the automated claims look harmless enough, Universal Music has "60 people in a room, frantically playing whack-a-mole" with our content… 😾
Your title is inaccurate and faults all cover songs on RUclips are going to get some sort of claim when they get those claims for the cover songs in most cases it will still have an option saying you can still have this enabled for monetization and when you fill out that information what happens is is the revenue gets split between you and the label. But whenever you post any sort of cover song no matter what it's still going to get some sort of claim.
What is this "Loudr" company? They have no website and like 3 YT videos from 6 years ago?
I mean what if it’s just on SoundCloud with no ads or money involved
There’s an option on Distrokid which allows you to pay $13 and you can do all the covers you want.
THIS!
Yeah good point I should have pointed this out as it is an option even if most artists won’t go through an aggregator for uploading to RUclips but maybe that will be become the new normal. Thanks Dude
It's 13 bucks per year per cover, actually.
So in my experience this has gotten a lot better for someone who wants to do a cover. Nearly all the major and minor labels licensed all their songs to RUclips. They get claimed immediately after uploading and RUclips tells you: Nothings wrong. All good. The label allows you to use it, you just don't make any money. For me, this is alright, as I'm not big enough for monetization anyway.
For people who do education it's a whole different story. The system needs to be revisited for sure. I never heard of any legal issues, though. Labels normally don't care about covers as they have an easy way now, to just make some extra money with them. A copyright infringement on RUclips will rarely go to court. Still. It's a grey area. In 2020. Kinda weird they didn't solve this until now...
At least so far we don't yet have spy listening devices in our living rooms reporting us for singing copyrighted songs out loud at the top of our voices.
What’s stupid is that you get copyrighted just for sing words and no instruments just when you think you found a loop whole like “we can’t use the actual song what if we can just sing the words”
What about actually getting the permission before doing the cover? I know that there are services specializing in that. Have you used any, and do you have any tips on obtaining the right to cover before actually doing it?
There are some AWFUL covers on Spotify so I guess just get permission... I'm gonna... not decided what to cover yet though... 🤷
What if i never have and never intend to monetize my cover videos and I get 3 strikes in 90 days?
What if a song cover is auto-claimed by another song cover?
I am trying to sing Beetles song yesterday and I get copy right claim . What the hell? what am I going to do?
Labels and opportunistic music bussines lawyers are the xxxxxxxx of the creativity. We are living in total spiritual and intellectual revolution. New era is about to begin, everyone has right to squeeze out of their head&heart the stuff that media has put there.
Imagine: someone stabs knife with a copyrighted poem in it, in to your heart. When you pull it out, copyright lawyer comes and tells:”You have to pay, you are using our intellectual property!”
Law has to change:
”If it’s been in top 100 list, it has become public domain.”
There got to be a way to change the situation.
Music that is played constantly in radio/tv/web, cannot maintain it’s untouchability until 100 years of artists dead.
It gradually becomes folk music.
In other words: if you hear a song from the radio in the food store, so that you cannot avoid of hearing it, it cannot be in any manner totally protected piece of art. Individual has to have right to communicate: “this song got stucked in my head for twenty years, and it has had an effect how my personality has developed.”
It has become part of “me”, part of my decision making proces, part of information about the world where I’m about to spend 50-100 years.
Songs are mantras (mind tool, Sanskrit) and they have affect on how young human brain/mind/thinking developes.
Somebody with understanding should create “copyright algorithms” how copyrighted pop-art gradually turns to copyright free folk music, once it has been delivered through mass-media.
But doesn't the mandatory licence rule apply once a song has been released? Under this rule, you don't need to get permission to do a cover (once the original has been released to public) as long as the original owner gets their royalties.
Sadly not, the only way someone is allowed to use copyright material is through a licence otherwise technically is theft
A lot of people probably get mad about copyright strikes, fair use, demonetization, etc but I'm actually glad it is the way that it is. Could you imagine being an original artist and releasing your own original stuff but the second it goes public it's just fair game and anyone can do whatever they want with it, including making money from YOUR art that you put blood, sweat, and tears into? While you just sit back powerless? That would suck so bad
What about the RUclips channels that do bass covers or drums covers, etc that have millions of subscribers and just credit the song used in the description, like "music in this video"? How are they able to get away with it? What kind of "license" is that?
What if you say up front no copyright infringement intended. I just love to sing this song?????
If you want make music for the sake of music then you should just post your covers if you want. the worst that can happen is the video gets blocked.
Ooooof, this is overwhelming! We play a weekly live happy hour here on YT where we play jazz ish covers of all sorts of tunes (sort of like pmj) we do get copyright claims occasionally but never strikes... how can we approach getting rights to the songs if we don't even know what we gonna play till we play it online? I feel lile live streams are the new wild west these days and I am sure the big guys are looking for ways to monetize this as well
When it is a classical music like Tchaikovsky , Schubert Mozart and I sing into them is it a copyright?
I change the entire track and make it my own.
My personal rule for covers is I wont cover a song unless I think I can Add something to it.
well that s not cover then
Posting originals and renditions of traditional music is certainly easier than going through this juridical jungle. Thanks for shining some light on this, Damo!
well, Beatle songs start becoming copyright free in 2050
@@rickvornbrock8593and technically that's only songs that only written by John Lennon. 😅
What if I don’t want my video to make money at all. I’m not making money, I just don’t like the copyright claim there
If I used a cover song but it only makes up like, 1/10th of the video, does that get fully demonetized?
So most covers on youtube are not monetised? There are ads there though... it would be more fair if cover artists got some % of the money because they do contribute in many cases to the popularity of the song. I am not saying getting 50% but at least 10-25%. Right?
How do I find licensing for a cover. I’d just like to go the legit route from the start honestly.
Harry Fox Agency
I use CDBaby - $14.95 all included to get the song and a couple of bucks more to get it to allbthe streaming sites AND get sync license money from RUclips
@@Vortexafternoon does CDBaby give mechanical license?
There should be a monetary penalty for false claims. Way too easy for these publisher detectives to claim everything and sit back and wait for people to just let the monetization flow to the publishers. Would take a third party to make that decision. I personally have had friends get claims on their own music. Had another get a notice on a video where he was showing how to set up his guitar amplifier and was just noodling on the guitar. Funny part of that story is that the 7 seconds they made claim to - was the guitar feeding back while he was changing a setting on the amp.
There are scam publishing companies ( always has been too ) that make false claims to artists or record companies for copyright infringement - the old days it was to obtain a quick cash settlement to go away- but I can this youTube claiming as a new frontier for shady publishing companies to exploit. I think accusations need to be first proven before youTube does anything. The way you explained it - youTubers are guilty until they prove themselves innocent- which is backwards to conventional law.
Absolutelly agree! Once I get claim because I was demoing rhythm machine I made myself. It was piece od electrinic board laying on a floor, and me playing some basic groove with it. At least YT claim algorithm should be at least veryfied by the person. Mad world!
I might get claim now, as that is the song of Tears For Fears. :/
This right here is a point RUclips needs to consider!
Why? We have agree to their terms. They can do what they want in their house. And, it will get worse.
@@fibranijevidra It's not youTube - the claims are made by contractors from publishing companies. They are taking advantage of the situation by just laying claim to anything - their hope is that youTube gives them the monetization and you or I just don't attempt to fight it. I said if they had to put up like $20.00 even as collateral - and the claim is not disputed - they get it back. If they are just making frivolous claims - then they lose the 20.00. Right now it's too easy for them just to lay claim with nothing to lose.
@@JimRobinson-colors claims are done by youtube with machine algorithm, publishing companies upload the songs they want to claim and RUclips does it on their own whenever videos are uploaded. So it's possible to have false positives. Once RUclips detects the song and makes a claim, the publisher is notified of the video and give them data like where is the link and how many people are viewing, then if the publisher wants to, can review the video and either keep the claim or if they don't like your video at all, issue a take down. Most publishers wants to be lazy and just keep the claim (and bring in money).
Would a few seconds of a melody be allowed to be copyrighted as a cover? I only used a few seconds of a melody but build a melody around it.
I still don't understand how others are doing it. There are cover videos with thousands, or even millions of views. Are they all licensed? Is copyright an issue even if your videos aren't monetized? Thanks.
I can understand about the money part - but if you tuber is getting zero money for it, it’s just free promotion so I can’t understand why anybody would block that. Just look what happened with that twins reaction video to the Phil Collins song. Now that song is running up the charts.
I did a cover to Andra Day song "Rise Up" but another person who also did cover to the song is claiming my video. Please what do I do about this?
So I've arranged my own cover of a song on garageband. I've yet to completely finish it, but I would like to know what license do I need for me to use my version of the song, and post it up on any streaming platforms.
OAC (Official Artist Channel) was RUclips's answer to empower artists to deal with their own copyright claims (say someone made a cover of one of my songs), whilst taking a step back and let the hounds fight for the bones. It's a mixture of "hey, we're doing more for artists" and "hey, take it directly with the dude". Having said that, I have noticed it allows for greater opportunities and control over my own stuff. And that's always welcome!
I record everything myself, change tempo and still get the claim.. I guess I will just write song names without arists from now on which seems so disrespectful
so if u did a led zeppelin cover it would get struck down before u upload it...
So I recently watched this channel is a 12 year old kid singing covers. He posts a cover like every other week. Is he able to do it because of the grey area? It's not just like small songs either, but some songs from bigger artists too like multiple from Ed Sheeran, Olivia Rodrigo, Harry Styles, Miley Cyrus, etc.
I really like 'versions' of songs, where the artist is interpreting the song, and adding their own musical personality, and even creatively expanding on it.[Taylor Swift cover: NO!]
[Another Taylor Swift cover: NO] 😂😂😂😂😂
What if it's a rewrite? As in, a cover song I reworked into my own style? The words would be mostly the same. Lyrical edits could very well be involved along the way as well.
I used to do a lot of covers, but I actually got a copyright strike for a Supertramp cover this winter, and that shook me a lot! Claims and strikes are very different, however. I don't mind getting claims, I think it's fair that potential money goes to the copyright owner. You said in the video that the channel can be taken down if it gets three claims, but that's not the case, claims will not damage the channel, they just make sure the money goes the right place! But getting three copyright strikes within 90 days will take down the channel. I've actually studied copyright and music business, so I should have seen this coming, but I guess I thought covers were fair use, and that music companies liked them because of the extra publicity. It's been over 90 days since I got my strike, so my channel is in the clear again (for now). But I think this is a really scary issue, so I've actually listed a lot of my old cover videos, and started making other kinds of content (original songs, behind the scenes, tutorials). If I'm going to make covers in the future, I will focus on covering smaller unsigned artists who will appreciate the extra exposure! Thanks for this video, it's an important topic to talk about!:)
Now I see why big channels disappear overnight and come back smaller under a new name.
@@xxnonstopdancingxx Really unhealthy for the creatives,brands and bands who own the channels ey.
Siyabonga Mngomezulu yes. Problem is that I suspect in the small print RUclips own most of it and people are only just waking up to that.
So... upload a cover every 90 days? ;)
testubevideos hehe you can still get strikes for old videos, so as long as they’re up they could be a problem! But I guess you could upload one every 90 days, and set it to listed or private before you upload another one? Haha
Thank you for this. I researched copyright a couple of years ago and found exactly what you mentioned in the video, and realized I had several infringements. I deleted those videos and now only do original, public domain that I’ve arranged, or works that I can secure the permissions to. There is so much misinformation about copyright on RUclips. Thanks again.
Is there any problem if I only want to post covers with no monetization? I'm not trying to earn money off of it, I just want to be able to post covers without copyright claims
"Back in the day (which was a Wednesday)..."
What, if I live in Cambodia and produce a content for Uganda? Which country‘s laws will be applied to my content?
So in a simple short answer do you need permission or a license to cover a song? How much usually do you pay for it
Also, if you have bought the licenses, how do you tell RUclips that?
I have at least 7 remixes out, just put one out a week ago, and it's absolutely working. Now these are full out remixes not covers, I'm usually taking just the vocals and creating an entire instrumental around it. So the music is different, just the vocals remain. I never have any issues, if I do get a copyright claim, I then promote the living hell out of it, simply because I know RUclips isn't going to penalize Warner Bros/Sony/Top Tier labels that have deals with RUclips directly. Which means I get some benefits/rule bending marketing methods going full force with no issues. Things I wouldn't ever do on my monetized videos. You can always find a positive in an apparent negative.
Now sitting at 65,000 monthly listeners on Spotify for reference of my abilities.
Edit: Dua Lipa Remix is the only one that has been blocked in 5 years of making remixes.
Had a Tiktok go viral featuring the remix/next day blocked, haha.
Her team is really nasty about it, so I just removed her vocals, and uploaded it as an instrumental original. :)
“Am I cool or am I cool”, literally got you a like on this video. 🍻
If for some reason we can't get those licenses, what should we do?
Damian there used to be a list on RUclips that told you which tracks allowed covers - a list publish by RUclips listing the most common tracks with details from the publisher on what is allowed. I can't find the link.Does it still exist, do you know? John Gubba PS: We met when you spoke at a business expo in Telford. a couple of years ago.
I'm strapped in and ready.
If I play a drumcover, write in the video that this song is "blabla" written by "artist-A" and Even if I write in the info that I have no problems that the Artists, claims the copyright so they could generate the money from my video, can I even at that point, get indicted?