Q. YouTube. What’s the skinny on copyright?
A. Whenever you get permission from a composer/publisher, please ask them to include you on their YouTube “whitelist”. This hopefully ensures you don’t get kicked off for uploading the music. Although, nothing is guaranteed with ContentID. We all bear the unknown outcome of that software. Facebook doesn’t have anything that I’m aware of at this moment like YouTube.
Q. Last min request for performance recording via private YouTube link.
A. Still need a sync license for a recording. BUT….if you play a live streaming gig, you’re covered.
Q. We found a recording/vid of Max Impact of their own song on YouTube. Can we use it?
A. It’s public domain. Created by gov. Open to public. Would be nice for a courtesy notice/request so we can track if someone is using for appropriate or inappropriate use. If inappropriate, we should be absolved of any responsibility.
Q. YouTube covers all our uploads with their license agreements. They didn’t take ours down. We’re covered, right?
A. Not necessarily. If you play a protected song (whether registered or not), it’s on you to get permission first (either buy a sync or get permission from publisher/owner). YT only provides means to upload. It doesn’t cover any permissions to upload someone else’s creation. The owner sets the permission in their accounts if others can upload derivatives and copies (covers) of their music. It’s a case-by-case situation.
*Gee Whiz: YouTube won’t come after you for infringement even though it looks like that if you get a claim on your video. Only the copyright owner can do that….and there are many steps to requesting the takedown request before it happens with punishment. The owner has to search you out, then file a request, upload their personal contact info, then go to YT court to see it through.
Q. We performed/arranged/uploaded content. But, we had a miscommunication about getting license first. Can we get a license after the fact?
A. Yes, you can. Please pursue all available means to secure a license. Put safeguards in place to prevent the mishap/oversight in future. This isn’t a guarantee that a penalty may be assessed from other angles, but in past experiences, publishers and owners are usually understanding and accommodating.
Q. YT took down/muted/put ads/claimed my video for alleged infringement, but I have a license.
A. This is a symptom of the ContentID algorithm on YouTube. It isn’t a blanket accusation of infringement. Go to YT video manager section and dispute the claim. YT has no ability to confirm prior to your upload if you got a license or not. But, they claim to respond quickly to disputes and uploading proof of license. (evidence). This is unfortunately the only way to prove authority.
Q. For the music.af.mil website, do you know why “we cannot post anything that might be copyright protected – even if licensing was secured at initial release?” Thoughts: I know that our HIB videos can’t be used because we only procured the licensing for 30 days on TV and social media, but if we do have videos that have procured licensing for websites, why can’t we offer those?
A. There are no restrictions if licensing was obtained prior to upload. YouTube/Facebook may still block (if posted there), unless the licensee was able to procure a "whitelist" exemption by the publisher so the video wouldn't be kicked off YouTube. Posting a video on their own website (with valid license) is completely fine per the terms of the contract. It's up to the website manager to know when to remove the video after the license has expired.
Q. Can I show YT/FB videos (or any protected content) to a gathering of colleagues without permission? Not virtual. All in person.
A. BLUF: I think it's acceptable to show the videos. This is not considered infringement since you are utilizing content in a small/personal setting per copyright law. Plus, you are controlling the audience that is in attendance and not showing to everyone in an uncontrolled public setting.
Deeper dive: The issue at hand would fall under a "public performance" license inquiry. But, Fair Use can be utilized in this setting without needing a public performance license. Showing protected content to a "small group" or educational/analysis setting supports criteria #1: Purpose and Character. Fair Use #1 is defined as, "...original works may be used by others for activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research." (Title 17, section 107) I would argue this falls into the fair use category as long as the other criteria are met.
Extra deep dive:
Justification from my seat: (Fair Use Criteria)
- All the videos are already available to the public via their DSTs (Digital Streaming Service) and have not been removed via software algorithms
- Since they're already publicly available, showing them at a gathering doesn't seem to violate any unforeseen laws/policies
- permission/licenses were likely granted for the original recording (regardless of age)
- no revenue generated for the AF
- no strikes or DMCA take down requests to user’s accounts (or you wouldn't be able to see them in the first place)
- videos shown for potential discussion/training/research/comment
- closed/select audience
- no market infliction to the original owners by the AF (hold harmless)
Additional info: The bands should police their licensing contracts for "end of life" time frame to remove their video(s) at the appropriate time. But, even if a band forgets to remove, YouTube and Facebook have multiple options to allow protected videos to live in perpetuity. (E.g., placing ads, doing nothing or until the copyright owner requests a takedown.) After more research, both FB and YT original owners have the option to add users to their “whitelist.” It should now be a stated policy when any AF band requests permission (or paying for a license), the requester should also require a provision in the contract to be included on the owner’s YT/FB whitelist. This protects them against strikes or takedowns from the DSP site that otherwise might be erroneously struck down (muted, removed, strike, etc.) automatically via software algorithms (Audible Magic, ContentID).
Q. We want to make a sizzle reel. It's only 15-30 seconds. Do I still need a license for any social media site?
A. It depends. All protected content is protected no matter how much you use for your video. There are stipulations though: you would have to be using the main melody (or clearly recognizable "hook" of the song) for copyright to play a significant role. Chords and chord progressions are not protected. Are you making short videos for specific audiences that you control? Are you directly controlling the distribution? If you answer No to those questions, you need a license. If you are controlling all aspects of the reel/video to a controlled audience, and do not disseminate to the open public, you typically will not need a license. Remember, fair use supports the 4 criteria and military bands are typically covered by 2 already. Even better, if you are making sizzle reels for education purposes, that aspect goes far into fair use without needing a license.