[BillyGreece]

I have received a copyright strike on my alto saxophone cover on "Watermelon Man" by Herbie Hancock!

I have used a public domain backing track (Jamey Aebersold Publications) and a public domain vector (an obligatory attribution of vector maker though).

I cannot figure out, what should i do now, after receiving strike by this party or multiple entities:
"
APRA_CS
MESAM / MSG CS
KODA_CS
ICE_CS
SGAE_CS
TONO_CS
SACEM
TEOSTO_CS
UMPI"

Am i not legitimate on posting my recording? Should i submit a dispute?
Has anyone encounter such experience in YouTube?

Thanks in advance SOTW community!

PS: Last minute notice. A sax player (via Facebook) told me, that Jamey Aebersold material is not poublic domain and does not allow free distribution in other sources (i.e. Youtube). It's only for educational reasons!

BillyGreece

 

[littlewailer]

Interesting! and unfortunate.

Are your videos set to monetized? Because that would be red flag number one for youtube.

 

[BillyGreece]

Interesting! and unfortunate.

Are your videos set to monetized? Because that would be red flag number one for youtube.

Well no, i don't have monetization enabled on my YouTube account! My account is still, unverified, in order to avoid any "income production"
triggerings! A useful answer has been already submitted on YouTube community:

"You own the rights to your performance of the work, however, someone still holds the copyright to the music composition that you are performing.
You might also want to contact the publisher of the backing track to ask them about the license for it as well. A performance of a copyrighted work doesn't necessarily make that recording public domain and they may have specific licensing terms, such as private performance, etc..."

All this copyright policy philosophy, seems to be very mixed up! I mean when you perform a melody or a solo, this turns to be, yours in a way. Well if this isn't Jazz, what is it anyways? That's the reason i try to buy backing tracks, and in this way i m "buying" any copyright rights.

 

[1saxman]

Do nothing and eventually find out what they're up to. In other words, if you're not selling your recordings, there's nothing to sue over. You made a recording of yourself playing a song and you put it up for others to listen to. There are millions of these on You Tube. People put up the actual artist original recordings all the time too, just for the sake of sharing. I for one am very happy about that because it has turned You Tube into the largest music library in the world for working musicians who need to hear a song fast so they can work it up for a gig. Not only do you have the originals, you also have countless versions. So how can these entities you referenced have any objection to you messing around with a song and putting it on You Tube for fun?

 

[BillyGreece]

Do nothing and eventually find out what they're up to. In other words, if you're not selling your recordings, there's nothing to sue over. You made a recording of yourself playing a song and you put it up for others to listen to. There are millions of these on You Tube. People put up the actual artist original recordings all the time too, just for the sake of sharing. I for one am very happy about that because it has turned You Tube into the largest music library in the world for working musicians who need to hear a song fast so they can work it up for a gig. Not only do you have the originals, you also have countless versions. So how can these entities you referenced have any objection to you messing around with a song and putting it on You Tube for fun?

Dunno what's it all about, but it seems that it might be a "scams" case here. Many people through the web, report same incidents of fake copyright claimants! I ve just uploaded my stuff in YouTube, cause it's easily accessible for someone to hear the tune, rapidly (i.e. from a smartphone). There's a lot of background here, so SOTW people have an eye when you re uploading stuff in YouTube. Hope this raise some awareness!

 

[Pete Thomas]

All this copyright policy philosophy, seems to be very mixed up! I mean when you perform a melody or a solo, this turns to be, yours in a way. Well if this isn't Jazz, what is it anyways? That's the reason i try to buy backing tracks, and in this way i m "buying" any copyright rights.

It's not that mixed up, it's quite simple as there is a copyright in the tune Watermelon Man, so the rights owner has the right to either allow or disallow the publication of that tune on Youtube. Some rights owners will allow, some allow but monetise with an ad, others have the right to get the video taken down.

PS: Last minute notice. A sax player (via Facebook) told me, that Jamey Aebersold material is not poublic domain and does not allow free distribution in other sources (i.e. Youtube). It's only for educational reasons!

BillyGreece

This is partly true I believe, Jamey Aebersold tracks are not public domain. I'm not sure that is true about educational reasons, I thought the standard licence that you agree to when buying the backing tracks was only for personal use (so no publishing, further distribution or educational use).

 

[MLucky]

Do nothing. Because you're not making any money off of your video, the copyright holder has nothing to gain by pursuing the matter, and they'll just drop it.

I suspect that the notice is probably coming from a bot: it wouldn't be too difficult to design a program that could detect every version of "Watermelon Man" (and countless other tunes) that went on Youtube and then generate notice that would go to the poster. Employing an actual human being (let alone a lawyer) to do that would cost more than it was worth.

It's kind of ridiculous that, in this situation where a company like Youtube is making billions off of copyrighted material uploaded to their, somebody is picking on a guy uploading his alto solo on an Aebersold track.

 

[BillyGreece]

@Pete Thomas

I see your point, but i still believe that this is controversial in any perspective. But if the backing track is protected legally, then the performance of the individual is subsidiary!

 

[BillyGreece]

Do nothing. Because you're not making any money off of your video, the copyright holder has nothing to gain by pursuing the matter, and they'll just drop it.

I suspect that the notice is probably coming from a bot: it wouldn't be too difficult to design a program that could detect every version of "Watermelon Man" (and countless other tunes) that went on Youtube and then generate notice that would go to the poster. Employing an actual human being (let alone a lawyer) to do that would cost more than it was worth.

It's kind of ridiculous that, in this situation where a company like Youtube is making billions off of copyrighted material uploaded to their, somebody is picking on a guy uploading his alto solo on an Aebersold track.

It's also ridiculous, that they have striked my crappy solo!!! That's hilarious folks!


Thank you all for your kind replies people!

 

[Veggie Dave]

This link may help:
https://www.youtube.com/music_policies

 

[Pete Thomas]

It's also ridiculous, that they have striked my crappy solo!!! That's hilarious folks!

The way it works is that an improvised solo (as part of the entire arrangement) is also covered by the copyright. Sad but true.

NB: One thing you should not do is submit a dispute, they can actually suspend your account for bogus disputes and I'm afraid they have you bang to rights either on the tune or the backing track.

I had a copyright notice once and it was on one of my own tracks (from my own CD). I had composed the tune and produced the backing track, paid all the musicians.

The reason for the notice was that my contract with the label/distributor gave them the right to assign the digital protection rights over to a 3rd party. So basically this was for my own protection but stopped me from uploading to Youtube. I did start a process that allows an artist or writer to whitelist their own works, but it's quite complex as most labels do assign the policing over to another company, who hold the database and run all the automatic recognition software which is really quite sophisticated these days.

 

[BillyGreece]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_Performing_Right_Association

This is one of the claimants, that is valid. My video was not taken down, but indicated as " Includes copyrighted content".

 

[BillyGreece]

The way it works is that an improvised solo (as part of the entire arrangement) is also covered by the copyright. Sad but true.

NB: One thing you should not do is submit a dispute, they can actually suspend your account for bogus disputes and I'm afraid they have you bang to rights either on the tune or the backing track.

I had a copyright notice once and it was on one of my own tracks (from my own CD). I had composed the tune and produced the backing track, paid all the musicians.

The reason for the notice was that my contract with the label/distributor gave them the right to assign the digital protection rights over to a 3rd party. So basically this was for my own protection but stopped me from uploading to Youtube. I did start a process that allows an artist or writer to whitelist their own works, but it's quite complex as most labels do assign the policing over to another company, who hold the database and run all the automatic recognition software which is really quite sophisticated these days.

So Mr Thomas, the uploading of your OWN composition, should have been processed by the company that had made the agreement with you (the recording/composing artist)...?

"but it's quite complex as most labels do assign the policing over to another company, who hold the database and run all the automatic recognition software which is really quite sophisticated these days."

Well that's a bit blurred situation...When multiple parties, interfere with an artistic endeavour,what's really left for the artist himself?

 

[Pete Thomas]

So Mr Thomas, the uploading of your OWN composition, should have been processed by the company that had made the agreement with you (the recording/composing artist)...?

Yes and no. In fact it was probably up to me (as composer and artist) to have read the contract a bit better, I had assigned them the right to assign a third part digital rights protection company. Its mentioned, after the fact I can get the tracks whitelisted and did start that process.

I make a living out of copyright, so although I am biased towards the laws in many respects, I do understand the failings and inadequacies of those laws, which have suddenly been put to the test and evolved due to the so-called digital revolution. It's all fascinating, frustrating and complicated. But the first thing to appreciate is that aAny piece of recorded music has two different "types" of copyright.

1 The copyright in the composition (in your case Watermelon man)
2 The copyright in the recording (in your case Jamie Aebersold)

 

[MLucky]

The way it works is that an improvised solo (as part of the entire arrangement) is also covered by the copyright. Sad but true.

This is true. It's also why, especially during the bebop era, it became so common to record well-known standards without playing the original melody.

If you play the melody for "I Got Rhythm" then solo for six choruses and play the melody again, you owe George Gershwin a royalty. If you play the same changes, but make up a different melody, and solo for the same amount of time, you get the copyright credit yourself. If you call it something that's an inside joke based on the song's original title, that's extra bonus points.

 

[Pete Thomas]

If you call it something that's an inside joke based on the song's original title, that's extra bonus points.

I'm about to write and record a tune called I Have no Rhythm Whatsoever.

 

[Keith Ridenhour]

can you get around it if you don't ask for a payment but suggest a donation. To the church of PPT? K

 

[MLucky]

I'm about to write and record a tune called I Have no Rhythm Whatsoever.

Definitely bonus points for that. Right up there with Joel Frahm's "Interesting Perhaps, but Hardly Fascinating Rhythm."