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 UA-cam because of copyright. So I posted on Vimeo and it blew up and went viral. Someone posted it on UA-cam, 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?
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 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 UA-cam 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.
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 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!
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam. I wonder how that works.
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
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.
Helpful information. UA-cam 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?
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...
My band and I did a cover of a Beatles song that we posted on UA-cam. 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.
Your title is inaccurate and faults all cover songs on UA-cam 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.
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.
So I was about to start putting out weekly UA-cam 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?
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.
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
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 UA-cam does it on their own whenever videos are uploaded. So it's possible to have false positives. Once UA-cam 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).
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.
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
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.
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 UA-cam. Thanks again.
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.
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...
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam 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.
I have done a lot of covers in my time. It's something I have largely phased out, I still do the odd one from time to time as it is fun to play someone else's tune. I have only ever had one video/cover be blocked worldwide. (thankfully it never resulted in a strike and my copyright standing is still good). I used to only ever use karaoke tracks to sing over as I had no idea back then how to either record or create my own backing tracks lol. Thankfully things have changed 😂 9 out of 10 times if I'm ever going to do a cover I will record it live with a bit of piano. None of my covers since that change have been caught in the content ID, maybe I've just gotten lucky and they're all cool with it. I have noticed that more often than not at least in my case my videos are actually sharing the ad revenue, it must be some kind of deal some labels have came to with UA-cam or something. Anyway, still love you videos Damian. I have learnt so much about the music industry from you as I'm still a bit of a newbie even after making my own music for 2 years. ❤️ 🦌
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 UA-cam. They get claimed immediately after uploading and UA-cam 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 UA-cam will rarely go to court. Still. It's a grey area. In 2020. Kinda weird they didn't solve this until now...
Great video, as always. I "liked" it- in more ways than one LOL. Question: Despite the end of the "wild west" and beginning of the "Brave New World", now that the industry has seemingly caught up- even though the law remains stuck in the last century. Is It still viable to grow a fanbase through covering current songs on the hit list of pop charts? Is this still the best means to that- fandom- end- or at least a worthwhile one? Or has this river run dry...
One way to legally upload covers to UA-cam 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 UA-cam'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...
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?
I've uploaded covers and originals. I've had a few videos claimed, but they have generated some awareness, so it's a pretty good tradeoff. Good to know all of this though, I'll definitely look into using one of the licensing tools in the future
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 UA-cam isn't going to penalize Warner Bros/Sony/Top Tier labels that have deals with UA-cam 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. :)
Posting originals and renditions of traditional music is certainly easier than going through this juridical jungle. Thanks for shining some light on this, Damo!
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
Super informative video! Thank you so much. I especially liked the part about Rick Beato using snippets of videos to demonstrate something he just explained. I wonder how he reacts to it if the video gets demonetized for that reason.
Yes Tina. I follow Rick's channel and this stuff actually really pisses him off. He has a good rant about it. He does great educational videos and gets this happening a lot!
Rick has other revenue streams, such as his books and his royalties as a successful music producer. So he can survive a proportion of his instructional videos being demonetized. What he hates is them being blocked! All the time spent making them is wasted, and nobody gets to see them. So where is the next generation of musicians going to come from, if genuine fair use affordable education on UA-cam is stopped? He has testified to a Congressional Committee about this - the current law isn't working.
Fantastic video with tons of directly applicable info. I read a bunch of articles before finding this video and I wish I found this first. You covered everything I was looking for without forcing me to, you know, read ... like a caveman! ;) Well done, friend.
Damien, I do have a question. Let's suppose one obtains the required licenses for a UA-cam cover (sync license) - either through one of those agencies or directly by publisher. That will typically NOT prevent the automatic music recognition bots from identifying your cover as being owned by copyright holder. And I assume this will then automatically result in either the 'de monitized' or 'blocked' or 'copyright strike' notifications. In this case, you have legal right to make the cover, and you would be forced then to have to prove this. This must be a common situation. Can you make a video that discusses this situation and the process of making an 'appeal'?
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
A mechanics license doesn't always protect you on UA-cam. 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 UA-cam 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.
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 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!]
That was a damn good explanation. I'm still left wondering how DJs do it. It seems they can do whole sets and UA-cam automatically detects and indicates the names of the tracks in the comments. And isn't there a youtube-organized scheme where you can do a cover and the artist automatically gets a share? Also: what about jazz tunes? Say Miles Davis, released from 50s to 90s at least? Jazz is about interpretation, so it seems weird I can't do jazz covers. Is there a list of artists who don't care and say it?
So much of it seems to do with luck. I've been releasing covers on UA-cam for a while and a fair amount have been picked up by Content ID but in almost every case the rights holders are happy to let it stay up. I've never had a copyright strike and have only had one video blocked (and even that was 6 years after it was originally uploaded). Meanwhile I've had friends who put up their first cover and it gets taken down immediately, so very much seems like luck of the draw! That said, I don't know if doing covers is much use anymore since it's still really difficult to cut through the noise. Even after a few of mine did really well it never translated into people wanting to find out more. They mostly just watched whatever cover they were looking for and then moved on 😆 Thanks for the great videos as always Damo!
Yep it’s still in it’s infancy I think of what it will be. It’s a really tough thing to control, so as every week that goes by, UA-cam will get better at spotting it, which is why it seems like luck! There’s also differences between how much certain publishers mind too... so it’s not a straightforward no!
@@DamianKeyes I don't think it's really in it's infancy... after all UA-cam Content ID is nearly 10 years old now... but more like it's ever evolving and changing - mostly for the better. Personally I think most publishers are realising it makes sense to allow covers to stay up. As you said in the video, it's free marketing for them that they can also monetise so win win in a way 😀
Agree. Depends on which boat you are in. If you are a very small time beginner it isn't a big deal taking your chances. If, however you invest thousands of dollars to create a video, audio + videography, mixing, mastering, editing, etc., by skilled people (who aren't cheap), it's probably not wise to take the risk.
I wish I knew this. My entire channel was hit with a copyright strike and every single video was taken down, even my private videos I sent to my family.
Hi Damian, thank you for this informative video. I have a question. What happens if I use Smule or Starmaker to sing a cover? I can obviously publish it on their channel but they also urge you to publish it on other socials. My point is publishing anywhere according to the new norms is a violation, then how do they get the rights to have tracks of famous covers? Confused and more confused!
Wow!! What a great video - This is what happened to me yesterday. I am a songwriter that has my songs on iTunes, Spotify etc. I noticed a few copywrite strikes against some of my live videos on YT. I contacted YT and politely informed them that I am the writer, producer, performer - and in this case, the videographer! They then lifted the strike (it helps to be polite in your message). But this is getting crazy. Did they decide to strike the songs just because of their scraping algo that detected a match? Thanks again for your content.
Very sadly, I know 131 former UA-cam content creators who had their channels totally taken away for 3 copyright strikes. Out of those - 4 OF THEM ARE NOW IN JAIL SERVING UP TO 5 YEARS FOR CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
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 UA-cam but maybe that will be become the new normal. Thanks Dude
And the industry wonders why it’s dying... covers used to be how bands cut their teeth and gained exposure... what will labels do when there are no new bands to profiteer from? I love music, I love the music scenes and genres... it is so sad to see 🙁🙁🙁
If journey didn't find a replacement ....then the group would not have performed around the world without Steve Perry. Guess where they got the replacement...from.UA-cam. There has to be a little leniency on these.
Hello Damian (or any other kind folks!) How does licensing actually prevent UA-cam from recognizing the song/backing track and demonetizing a video? I get that you can obtain permission, but how does that change the system's way of automatically copyright claiming the music?
OAC (Official Artist Channel) was UA-cam'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!
So thankful for the time stamps. I was 7 minutes into this video that gave 0 information related to the title of it. 7 minutes deep and not one word about how to legally cover a song without a copyright claim like not one word. Check the timestamps and saw This whole thing is just another clickbait because I actually thought he would tell me how to legally do it. You're right bud if I get a license I can legally do it what a waste of time. 7 minutes at least lol
Perfect timing for this vid Damo! I recently had a guitar cover video of mine do really well, with people asking me to do more. The thing is I used the original track and played along to it, does it matter if I do that or should I re-create the whole backing track so that there's no mechanical rights violations? Or does it not matter either way?
Playing along to the original track exposes you to the risk of a copyright strike. Recreating someone else's track and playing along to it also exposes you to the risk of a copyright strike.
@Rickerby, The "sound recording" (i.e. from CD/mp3, samples, stems or backing/karaoke track) has a separate copyright from the "musical work" (song/composition). To use someone else's SR you need an additional "master use" license and a sync license (for video) in addition to the licenses for using the song/composition. Damien also mentioned yet another license is needed to print the lyrics. Changing the lyrics or adapting for another genre? You need still another license to create an arrangement/derivative work. You cannot get those through the convenience licensing services he mentions. You would need to contact the owner of the audio master recording (usually the label or distributor). TL;DR record your own tracks then you only need to deal with the copyright in the music work (song) with the composer/publisher. Then, check the catalogs of companies like "We Are The Hits" and upload your cover video through them to stay legit AND possibly share in the ad revenue that was going to be claimed anyway. If it takes off and you want to sell your audio recording on CD or downloads, then it's super easy to get compulsary mechanical licenses through "Easy Song Licensing" and others. IMHO, YMMV.
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
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 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.
What about the UA-cam 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?
Hey -- well done vid and coverage of very important, complicated things people need to know. I disagree with your statement at 9:30, however, You state that "as soon as you write something down it becomes copyrighted." That is not true. Said writing must be published in some form of physical media in order to become copyrighted. The copyright is established by the publisher of said media when it is put up for sale to the public. OR you can file a copyright form with the US Govt (FYI: my legal perspective is US Copyrights) and have the copyright established. There is also a methodology from the old days (pre-2000) whereby if you mailed a copy of your material to yourself it established copyright (not really sure how, but they used to call it "poor man's copyright"). PS Is that an Orange Vocoder in the background??????
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.
Damian there used to be a list on UA-cam that told you which tracks allowed covers - a list publish by UA-cam 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 do a cover video every week and I do get claims fairly regularly(only had one blocked in US territories and no strikes), but I make sure that in the 6 week block that I record each time I have 2 songs at least that are public domain or my own work. I'm currently embroiled in an argument over "the parting glass" with Sony as they have decided that a 400 year old melody is no longer in the public domain....
Just a clarifying question- it sounds like if you're ok with not making money from your particular cover video, you could upload it and just recognize that it will probably either be claimed (which if I'm understanding right would be just fine- you're just giving the owner his/her money) or blocked/copyright striked... If you get a strike, I assume best practice is just to remove the video and not do anything similar for 90 days. If it's claimed, it was once upon a time my understanding that publishers were kind of ok with this and it was sort of an agreement between the holder and the UA-camr... is that not right?
these fucking vampire record compies can lie too because I wrote a few songs an composed the music for them an got hit with copyright for shit I made without any samples an my songs still got removed
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 UA-cam
Thanks for posting this! Best information on cover songs I've seen so far! Will have to check out some of your other videos, seeing as I am a folk musician interested in uploading folk covers, as well as my own versions of traditional folk material...
I record songs from Starmaker and post them on UA-cam by editing the video, but most of the copyrights come from which app, if I record songs from UA-cam, there will be no problem if I upload them to UA-cam. Please tell me.I didn't teach myself any music please help me
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?
This video is really *on point* for me because I'm starting to release remixes on UA-cam to gain notoriety and got my first copyright claim and didn"t know what to think of it. Much love and thank you Damian🌸
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 UA-cam picks and chooses who to shadow ban , they pick who to discriminate against with these copyright claims 👎
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 UA-cam because of copyright. So I posted on Vimeo and it blew up and went viral. Someone posted it on UA-cam, 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 !
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.
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
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 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 UA-cam 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🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
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 UA-cam 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.
Thanks, this was really helpful because I’ve been meaning to upload covers to UA-cam for a while now
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!
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
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam. I wonder how that works.
When fairly big music UA-camrs do covers, are those licensed?
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
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.
Helpful information. UA-cam 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?
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...
My band and I did a cover of a Beatles song that we posted on UA-cam. 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.
Your title is inaccurate and faults all cover songs on UA-cam 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.
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.
So I was about to start putting out weekly UA-cam 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?
OH MY GOD.. I needed this video so long🙌🏼🙌🏼
It’s here 😊😊
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.
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?
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
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam does it on their own whenever videos are uploaded. So it's possible to have false positives. Once UA-cam 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).
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.
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
This is something I've been confused about for a lot of time. Thanks a lot Damo!
Glad to help 🤟😊
Me too. There were so many different tactics it seems.
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.
UA-cam 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.
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 UA-cam. Thanks again.
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
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...
I'm strapped in and ready.
Thank you so much for making this content. It has been a huge struggle to find all this information in one spot to start a UA-cam channel from.
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam 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.
I have done a lot of covers in my time. It's something I have largely phased out, I still do the odd one from time to time as it is fun to play someone else's tune. I have only ever had one video/cover be blocked worldwide. (thankfully it never resulted in a strike and my copyright standing is still good). I used to only ever use karaoke tracks to sing over as I had no idea back then how to either record or create my own backing tracks lol. Thankfully things have changed 😂 9 out of 10 times if I'm ever going to do a cover I will record it live with a bit of piano. None of my covers since that change have been caught in the content ID, maybe I've just gotten lucky and they're all cool with it. I have noticed that more often than not at least in my case my videos are actually sharing the ad revenue, it must be some kind of deal some labels have came to with UA-cam or something.
Anyway, still love you videos Damian. I have learnt so much about the music industry from you as I'm still a bit of a newbie even after making my own music for 2 years. ❤️ 🦌
“Am I cool or am I cool”, literally got you a like on this video. 🍻
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 UA-cam. They get claimed immediately after uploading and UA-cam 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 UA-cam will rarely go to court. Still. It's a grey area. In 2020. Kinda weird they didn't solve this until now...
Great video, as always. I "liked" it- in more ways than one LOL.
Question: Despite the end of the "wild west" and beginning of the "Brave New World", now that the industry has seemingly caught up- even though the law remains stuck in the last century. Is It still viable to grow a fanbase through covering current songs on the hit list of pop charts? Is this still the best means to that- fandom- end- or at least a worthwhile one? Or has this river run dry...
One way to legally upload covers to UA-cam 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 UA-cam'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...
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?
I've uploaded covers and originals. I've had a few videos claimed, but they have generated some awareness, so it's a pretty good tradeoff. Good to know all of this though, I'll definitely look into using one of the licensing tools in the future
The more info you have, the better armed you are 😊
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 UA-cam isn't going to penalize Warner Bros/Sony/Top Tier labels that have deals with UA-cam 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. :)
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. 😅
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
Super informative video! Thank you so much. I especially liked the part about Rick Beato using snippets of videos to demonstrate something he just explained. I wonder how he reacts to it if the video gets demonetized for that reason.
Yes Tina. I follow Rick's channel and this stuff actually really pisses him off. He has a good rant about it. He does great educational videos and gets this happening a lot!
He doesn't mind at all getting demonetised. He objects to getting his videos blocked or threatened with his channel being removed.
Rick has other revenue streams, such as his books and his royalties as a successful music producer. So he can survive a proportion of his instructional videos being demonetized. What he hates is them being blocked! All the time spent making them is wasted, and nobody gets to see them. So where is the next generation of musicians going to come from, if genuine fair use affordable education on UA-cam is stopped? He has testified to a Congressional Committee about this - the current law isn't working.
@@ianstobie it's such a farce!! Not looking great for the future of music from a creative standpoint. Let's see where this all goes from here.
Fantastic video with tons of directly applicable info. I read a bunch of articles before finding this video and I wish I found this first. You covered everything I was looking for without forcing me to, you know, read ... like a caveman! ;) Well done, friend.
13:37 "Depending upon where you are in a world..."
Wait, what worlds might someone be in?
multiverse
"Back in the day (which was a Wednesday)..."
Damien, I do have a question. Let's suppose one obtains the required licenses for a UA-cam cover (sync license) - either through one of those agencies or directly by publisher. That will typically NOT prevent the automatic music recognition bots from identifying your cover as being owned by copyright holder. And I assume this will then automatically result in either the 'de monitized' or 'blocked' or 'copyright strike' notifications. In this case, you have legal right to make the cover, and you would be forced then to have to prove this. This must be a common situation. Can you make a video that discusses this situation and the process of making an 'appeal'?
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 UA-cam 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
A mechanics license doesn't always protect you on UA-cam. 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 UA-cam 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.
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 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] 😂😂😂😂😂
This is why I hate UA-cam and other streaming services because of this!
That was a damn good explanation. I'm still left wondering how DJs do it. It seems they can do whole sets and UA-cam automatically detects and indicates the names of the tracks in the comments. And isn't there a youtube-organized scheme where you can do a cover and the artist automatically gets a share? Also: what about jazz tunes? Say Miles Davis, released from 50s to 90s at least? Jazz is about interpretation, so it seems weird I can't do jazz covers. Is there a list of artists who don't care and say it?
This topic has been on my mind. Perfect time for this video! 😍 Thanks!
Wooop woop! 😊😊😊
So much of it seems to do with luck. I've been releasing covers on UA-cam for a while and a fair amount have been picked up by Content ID but in almost every case the rights holders are happy to let it stay up. I've never had a copyright strike and have only had one video blocked (and even that was 6 years after it was originally uploaded). Meanwhile I've had friends who put up their first cover and it gets taken down immediately, so very much seems like luck of the draw!
That said, I don't know if doing covers is much use anymore since it's still really difficult to cut through the noise. Even after a few of mine did really well it never translated into people wanting to find out more. They mostly just watched whatever cover they were looking for and then moved on 😆
Thanks for the great videos as always Damo!
Yep it’s still in it’s infancy I think of what it will be. It’s a really tough thing to control, so as every week that goes by, UA-cam will get better at spotting it, which is why it seems like luck! There’s also differences between how much certain publishers mind too... so it’s not a straightforward no!
@@DamianKeyes I don't think it's really in it's infancy... after all UA-cam Content ID is nearly 10 years old now... but more like it's ever evolving and changing - mostly for the better. Personally I think most publishers are realising it makes sense to allow covers to stay up. As you said in the video, it's free marketing for them that they can also monetise so win win in a way 😀
Agree. Depends on which boat you are in. If you are a very small time beginner it isn't a big deal taking your chances. If, however you invest thousands of dollars to create a video, audio + videography, mixing, mastering, editing, etc., by skilled people (who aren't cheap), it's probably not wise to take the risk.
when you get content id’d, you are unable to monetize right?
How about the new trend , AI covering songs by swapping vocals? Will those uploads will be banned over time?
I wish I knew this. My entire channel was hit with a copyright strike and every single video was taken down, even my private videos I sent to my family.
Hi Damian, thank you for this informative video. I have a question. What happens if I use Smule or Starmaker to sing a cover? I can obviously publish it on their channel but they also urge you to publish it on other socials. My point is publishing anywhere according to the new norms is a violation, then how do they get the rights to have tracks of famous covers? Confused and more confused!
I have this concern too as I really want to upload my own cover songs from Starmaker app
Wow!! What a great video - This is what happened to me yesterday. I am a songwriter that has my songs on iTunes, Spotify etc. I noticed a few copywrite strikes against some of my live videos on YT.
I contacted YT and politely informed them that I am the writer, producer, performer - and in this case, the videographer! They then lifted the strike (it helps to be polite in your message). But this is getting crazy. Did they decide to strike the songs just because of their scraping algo that detected a match? Thanks again for your content.
Very sadly, I know 131 former UA-cam content creators who had their channels totally taken away for 3 copyright strikes. Out of those - 4 OF THEM ARE NOW IN JAIL SERVING UP TO 5 YEARS FOR CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
@@charlessmith263 seriously? So you really shouldn't monetize covers or you might risk going to jail?
i like to do covers for fun and yeah sometimes i get claims, sometimes not, lets just celebrate music and have some fun with i!
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 UA-cam but maybe that will be become the new normal. Thanks Dude
It's 13 bucks per year per cover, actually.
actually chord progressions are not copyrightable and the building blocks of songs as well.
And the industry wonders why it’s dying... covers used to be how bands cut their teeth and gained exposure... what will labels do when there are no new bands to profiteer from? I love music, I love the music scenes and genres... it is so sad to see 🙁🙁🙁
If journey didn't find a replacement ....then the group would not have performed around the world without Steve Perry. Guess where they got the replacement...from.UA-cam. There has to be a little leniency on these.
Hello Damian (or any other kind folks!) How does licensing actually prevent UA-cam from recognizing the song/backing track and demonetizing a video? I get that you can obtain permission, but how does that change the system's way of automatically copyright claiming the music?
OAC (Official Artist Channel) was UA-cam'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!
So thankful for the time stamps. I was 7 minutes into this video that gave 0 information related to the title of it. 7 minutes deep and not one word about how to legally cover a song without a copyright claim like not one word. Check the timestamps and saw This whole thing is just another clickbait because I actually thought he would tell me how to legally do it. You're right bud if I get a license I can legally do it what a waste of time. 7 minutes at least lol
Perfect timing for this vid Damo! I recently had a guitar cover video of mine do really well, with people asking me to do more. The thing is I used the original track and played along to it, does it matter if I do that or should I re-create the whole backing track so that there's no mechanical rights violations? Or does it not matter either way?
Playing along to the original track exposes you to the risk of a copyright strike. Recreating someone else's track and playing along to it also exposes you to the risk of a copyright strike.
@Rickerby, The "sound recording" (i.e. from CD/mp3, samples, stems or backing/karaoke track) has a separate copyright from the "musical work" (song/composition). To use someone else's SR you need an additional "master use" license and a sync license (for video) in addition to the licenses for using the song/composition. Damien also mentioned yet another license is needed to print the lyrics. Changing the lyrics or adapting for another genre? You need still another license to create an arrangement/derivative work. You cannot get those through the convenience licensing services he mentions. You would need to contact the owner of the audio master recording (usually the label or distributor). TL;DR record your own tracks then you only need to deal with the copyright in the music work (song) with the composer/publisher. Then, check the catalogs of companies like "We Are The Hits" and upload your cover video through them to stay legit AND possibly share in the ad revenue that was going to be claimed anyway. If it takes off and you want to sell your audio recording on CD or downloads, then it's super easy to get compulsary mechanical licenses through "Easy Song Licensing" and others. IMHO, YMMV.
There are some AWFUL covers on Spotify so I guess just get permission... I'm gonna... not decided what to cover yet though... 🤷
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… 😾
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.
This is SO important, thanks for the video Damian!
Not a problem - it is very important 😊
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 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
I was about to film a cover this weekend of Tom Petty’s song You Don’t Know How it Feels so this video came in perfect timing!
Awesome! Good luck!
Damian Keyes THANK YOU SO MUCH! Dumb question probably, but would posting a cover on Instagram through IGTV be the same as posting on UA-cam?
NRF FILMS it’s not a dumb question haha, sadly Instagram can still claim copyright strikes against you
Great song!
Would love to hear it
'Vinyls' - Its already plural, like 'Chinese'. You probably say "I have a software" too. Do you say "I have a hardware"? No.
Good points, thank yous very much 😊😊😊
What about the UA-cam 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?
Hey -- well done vid and coverage of very important, complicated things people need to know. I disagree with your statement at 9:30, however, You state that "as soon as you write something down it becomes copyrighted." That is not true. Said writing must be published in some form of physical media in order to become copyrighted. The copyright is established by the publisher of said media when it is put up for sale to the public. OR you can file a copyright form with the US Govt (FYI: my legal perspective is US Copyrights) and have the copyright established. There is also a methodology from the old days (pre-2000) whereby if you mailed a copy of your material to yourself it established copyright (not really sure how, but they used to call it "poor man's copyright").
PS Is that an Orange Vocoder in the background??????
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.
Damian there used to be a list on UA-cam that told you which tracks allowed covers - a list publish by UA-cam 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.
Just asked about this on DK MBA last week! Thanks for this vid 🙏 !!!
Haha yep you inspired the vid! 😊😊
😎 I feel honored
I do a cover video every week and I do get claims fairly regularly(only had one blocked in US territories and no strikes), but I make sure that in the 6 week block that I record each time I have 2 songs at least that are public domain or my own work. I'm currently embroiled in an argument over "the parting glass" with Sony as they have decided that a 400 year old melody is no longer in the public domain....
Just a clarifying question- it sounds like if you're ok with not making money from your particular cover video, you could upload it and just recognize that it will probably either be claimed (which if I'm understanding right would be just fine- you're just giving the owner his/her money) or blocked/copyright striked... If you get a strike, I assume best practice is just to remove the video and not do anything similar for 90 days. If it's claimed, it was once upon a time my understanding that publishers were kind of ok with this and it was sort of an agreement between the holder and the UA-camr... is that not right?
these fucking vampire record compies can lie too because I wrote a few songs an composed the music for them an got hit with copyright for shit I made without any samples an my songs still got removed
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 UA-cam
@@Vortexafternoon does CDBaby give mechanical license?
Thanks for posting this! Best information on cover songs I've seen so far! Will have to check out some of your other videos, seeing as I am a folk musician interested in uploading folk covers, as well as my own versions of traditional folk material...
I record songs from Starmaker and post them on UA-cam by editing the video, but most of the copyrights come from which app, if I record songs from UA-cam, there will be no problem if I upload them to UA-cam. Please tell me.I didn't teach myself any music please help me
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?
This video is really *on point* for me because I'm starting to release remixes on UA-cam to gain notoriety and got my first copyright claim and didn"t know what to think of it.
Much love and thank you Damian🌸
Thank's so much I hope this helps. Keep smashing it!
thank you for simplifying this very complex topic, and specially for the updates on youtube. cheers!
I mean what if it’s just on SoundCloud with no ads or money involved
Best case scenario: they take a chunk of my revenue and me and Kendrick getting the same royalty cheque 😂😂
How do I know which Record Label or Artist is cool with me posting a Cover?
Email them and contact them
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 UA-cam picks and chooses who to shadow ban , they pick who to discriminate against with these copyright claims 👎