I imagine that being repeatedly told that you’re a cash-hungry sellout for something you spend most of your spare time basically doing for free would get pretty tiresome.
Interestingly, the figures here suggest that YouTube themselves may be getting something in the ballpark of $50/month for a moderately popular video. That might sound like a lot, but 10k views on a 100MB video also means 1TB/month in extra bandwidth charges. For comparison, if they were an Amazon S3 customer, that alone would cost $50.
This makes me wonder how much of a license to print money their “free” business model actually is. Would they be sustainable if ad-blocking reduced their ad revenue by 5%? Or 10%? I’m thinking that YouTube may not enjoy their sole dependence on ads any more than the rest of us do.
4 Likes
I did appeal the strike - but the strike still counts against me. Just receiving a claim is a mark against you under Google’s system, regardless of the outcome. And only using the Google music everyone uses over and over and over to avoid false Content ID flags is a temporary work around for a broken system, not a long term plan.
Music licensing has never previously allowed a copyright claimant to just seize ad revenue on their say so, either. So we are talking about new paradigms.
And in the case of films that are unavailable during clearance issues, that’s typically because the producers only bought rights for theatrical distribution, and then wound up with clearance issues when they wanted to release a home video version. Heavy Metal comes to mind. And TV shows, such as WKRP in Cincinnati.
2 Likes
The only new paradigm here is that they let you keep your content up at all. Which seems more than fair. Unless you’re doing music criticism it’s very difficult to prove you aren’t profiting off of the musical work.
He’s definitely saving money on sets.
The revenue seizure is a new paradigm. It is not mutually exclusive with “they let you keep your content up”.
It’s actually not hard at all - you want to use my content? it costs this much. same with licensing photos.
1 Like
That would make more sense if there really was a rate sheet. There is not.
I like Patrick (H) Willems adverts for Dollar Shaving Club.
Music rights have two components: performance rights (use of a recording by an artist) and publishing rights (use of a song). If I covered “Eye of the Tiger” in a movie, I would not owe Survivor’s recording label anything, but I would owe the publisher(s).
Using the example above, we did not owe MIley Cyrus’ label anything for covering “Party in the USA,” but we owed THREE publishers money:
9 Likes
In some cases I think they had to renegotiate for syndicated TV, then again for VHS, then again for DVDs, etc. (possibly again for streaming?) So some shows’ DVD releases took several years and/or ended up with only a season or two and/or retracked with different music (sometimes even the iconic theme song).
Then some video games seem to have them licensed only for a limited time frame, after which they have to release ‘updates’ that strip the music out, resulting in player-made downgrade/sidegrade patches to restore the missing content (hopefully while retaining any fixes made in the update).
And after a bit of time, even trying to track down who legally can renegotiate it now becomes very difficult, resulting in a lot of stuff being lost. If you do, trying to convince some of the older people (or their older managers) can be difficult. Bob Seger’s manager didn’t allow streaming until last summer.
Sometimes they’ll make things available and then pull them, which with some systems can cause them to just vanish even after you already had them.
Overall, it’s a mess.
4 Likes
Even more complicated than that. Separate copyrights for lyrics and book if the words and music were written by different authors. Then the copyright for the recording. And all of those can have split authorship. Plus more stuff I can’t even think of at the moment.
3 Likes
Yep. For instance, filmmakers can often negotiate a cheaper “festival license,” but if the movie sells at a festival, they are going to have to cough up a big chunk of money to keep the song.
In my example above, we licensed the song for our two-year Showtime run, then dropped the broadcast license. It’s definitely a mess.
3 Likes
we obviously have enough unhappy, non-creative, bitter and boring people on this planet. Let him be who he is - he is better than you.
1 Like
Sounds like you tube needs an easy way to licence music for videos where people can pay a fee and not 100% of their revenue…
you would think in 2018 they could do that, with all the computer power in the world they have…
1 Like
The Fitness Marshall is in the T-shirt Business…
2 Likes
When I bought Julia Davis’s Nighty Night series on DVD, I was looking forward to the key scene where Jill rides a horse into her husband’s funeral and does a dance number to “Alone” by Heart, and it was semi-ruined because they’d had to replace it with a different track.
It seems like there’s definitely something broken in the way creators (or more realistically, copyright rentiers) can sell their rights to downstream creators, yet still have rights over the derivative work. Rights holders like to insist that IP is exactly like physical goods, but when you sell a pineapple, the whole point is that you get paid because you lose the right to eat the pineapple.
3 Likes
Every time I’ve read about someone working as a youtuber, it seems like just an incredibly stressful unpleasant job
3 Likes
Never heard of this show, and I really wanted to see this particular scene, but I couldn’t find it on YouTube! This one?
1 Like
