As is clearly to see in Alumos statement excerpt, you have the individual vids (aka usages) and in the right column the viewcount per video.
The amount of unauthorized usage is incredibly higher than the amount of sold licenses. Sad but true and the onyl reason why I joined this programme. To compensate for unauthorized usages. If the usage is authorized I don’t (and can’t) make money of it when the claim is solved.
Koster, since you chimed in…
...assume they have stolen that music.
That was your wording and it is plainly wrong, Alumo and a lot of others don’t use that term as it is just not true. We are speaking of tracked unauthorized usages. Again, this is what you buy a LICENCE for. To turn it into an AUTHORIZED usage.
If a claim remains unsolved there’s a high chance of unauthorized usage.Surely there are channels that are too lazy to solve a claim though they have a proper license. Some may not even be aware of that. Again, this is where education kicks in.
I get claims on my own videos (from my own AdRev registered music) each time I upload music. When a copyright match is detected the user will ALWAYS get an email from YT, you just can’t tell me that you are the only exception who didn’t get an email about it. And even if you missed that claim notification – can happen to all of us – when you see the 3rd party content match notice in your dashboard (given it’s AdRev) – it’s 2 mouseclicks from being gone, following the often cited steps.
I’m sorry guys, but I find that unacceptable. I know you’re going to say, ‘well educate them about it’ – Should we be having to though, really?Yes, we have to educate everybody involved, as this is the future, if you like it or not. Like Gareth had so nice words a few entries before, the whole thing is still in it’s infancy, and the way to make it bearable for anyone involved is education, and communication.
Koster, Thanks for these open words. Although I still disagree based on the arguments that have been given I understand your point of view as well.
That comment on “educating the client” came from my side and that is, what I initially do when it really comes to a clients annoyance with my sold goods becauseof Adrev. So far I was able to solve any misunderstanding. I’m sure that I will encounter the day I meet a client that has absolutely no ear for what I’m telling him and why I’m doing things. Then may it be. But I am not willing to give way for piracy and being ripped for the sake of a few clients that don’t care.
Maybe there will be marketplaces for Adrev-free music (I can already see the slogans lol, Royaltyfree, Adrevfree music mega marketplace…) and then be it so. It’s a race to the bottom anyway (also in the visual industry as you’ve stated). But it is the responsibility of each content creator to either bow to it or state an opinion. I decided for the latter, and I’m still happy doing so.
Thanks for a very interesting discussion.
Koster, again thank you for this open (and necessary) discussion here, it’s not always that a client dedicates so much time and energy in here. It is much appreciated.
But ‘royalty free’ in my book (at least as far as YouTube is concerned) is not having to pay by having other people’s ads thrown onto my work and my client’s paid videos. ... But making me and my client pay for it isn’t the answer.
This is one of the keystones here – you don’t HAVE anything to pay. Even the client does not have anything to pay. I totally agree that it is a ridiculous situation of potentially having a competitors ad running on a clients vid. Nobody would want that. And once more, there are several ways to solve things, up to having a clients channel completely whitelisted so there’s no more hassle. But all this doesn’t get rid of the fact that we as creators are responsible for educating our own clients, as well as you as a middleman are responsible for that as well. There might be still non-contentID’ed music out there but I strongly believe that it will become less and less.
Just imagine this scenario: In two years time there will be no more audio market places with non-trackable tunes. Do you drop your business then, because you can’t deliver non-trackable music anymore? I don’t think so. You’re likely to adapt to the markets demands.
We’re not right there yet and, I wish you luck in finding HQ productions that don’t use fingerprinting or any other sort of copyright mechanism. But I’m sure it will be gettin tougher. Ideally there will be a solution soon to solve possible claims pre-upload.
Studiomonkey, I appreciate your input and taking the time to put down your extensively and well thought-out opinion.
Nevertheless bottom line there may be only left, that we agree to disagree. From my experience the majority of my clients (from “low level” to high profile) have a solid understanding pre purchase or were open for discussion and solving once we had contact because of a claim.
I personally haven’t had any negative experiences so far on any of my items, that does not only include audiojungle.
As much as you defend the buyers perspective, and that “the client is king” approach weighs more than a creators wish to protect his/her work, I represent the opposite side that the client is not always king, but sometimes needs to be educated, especially when technology / systems change. Right now we are amidst of such a change, and as it has been stated before, to my knowledge there is NO OTHER solution out there to protect my work other then just letting it go for the sake of a few clients happiness. In the long run I think, this is the approach that takes the creative industry down, not the other way around.
My 2 c
Blinn saidWhat? Sure this might be a heated discussion with varying viewpoints but I don’t see anybody bashing on one another. I totally understand both sides, but I may be allowed to have an opinion Lets keep this straight and fair for everyone involved.
Guys, stop hounding this guy! I can’t read all these comments with a straight face, the indifference and patronizing posts I’m seeing here in response to this guy’s problem is disgusting.
Chances are most of you have nothing to do with this and therefore is none of your business. Leave this man alone, he’s suffered enough already! He’s probably humiliated and brought to his knees by now…
The public humiliation on these forums is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my entire life. I’m ashamed to be an author now…Koster, pay no attention to these men. They will only see eye-to-eye with you when they’re brought to their knees, too. What you brought up here is a real, legitimate issue that is causing pain and suffering to many, many people. I just hope the staff arrive to deal with this quickly…
The fact that you said this proves you have not understood my point. This has nothing to do with how high the profile of someone is. The point I made is that they (high profile music artists) are not in the business of selling royalty free rights licences to use their music, hence the need to employ AdRev to protect their music.Got your point here, though I don’t see a difference whether a “high profile artists” music or a stock artists music is worth protecting more than the other. It’s all intellectual property and must be trwated as such.
I don’t understand how your music can become misused or pirated as it’s all watermarked before you buy and not high profile enough to find it via traditional means.Because our music gets ripped from videos that use our music legally. Because there are tons of warez sites out there that offer our intellectual property for free. The watermark here is just a drop in the bucket and gives a security to a certain degree on this page itself but doesn’t prevent fraud with the original tracks. That’s why we need to monitor and track illegal usages.
If someone is silly enough to rip the watermarked track – well each to their own, but I have a feeling that you have no idea how much money I loose due to fraud and illegal usage even with non-watermarked audio.
Let me put this straight, I’m not the one saying I don’t care about loosing a client, every lost client is a pita. But from a economical point of view I’m better off losing a potential client who isn’t willing to adapt to the changes of the industry than to lose money on the other side for being ripped off so blatantly.
The only real reason I can see to use AdRev is for an additional revenue stream, to make money by placing ads on visual creations who have (let’s face it, for the majority) of those that have already, legally purchased the rights to use that music
What bothers me is how you steadily go onto the point that we are assumable not able to get enough because we want to make money off legally licensed music on YT. This is just plain wrong and disrespectful. And also not possible when clients follow the given rules. Once a video is cleared we CAN’T make money of it anymore. Blaming us for wanting money off legally purchased music because you don’t want to adapt to changes (aka verify licenses and all is sorted) is just wrong.
This industry is changing and so are the ways we get along with it. I honestly wish you success for your future endeavours but I really doubt that in a few years time there will be much music left that’s not in one way or another tracked and monitored.
As you act as a kind of middle man between us the composers and the enduser, the simplest way would be to offer your client the proper placement of licenses as part of your work for them.
Once the clients video is up clients sends you the vid URL and you solve any possible claim by whitelisting the vid with Adrev.
It has been mentioned before the only problem is, that these claims can’t be solved before uploading a video. We all have to deal with that. As long as YT doesn’t change the way this could be handled (providing license on upload) it’s not gonna change.
You would be in a good position providing this service for your clients. It’s all about education and not about moaning.
Wish you all the best for the future.
One more thing I’d like to add
It’s a case of the music author selling the licenses to use their music here AND they are attempting to grab revenue from it on YouTube also
You got something wrong here, I don’t want to make additional money off a client through Adrev who uses the music legally. Because that’s what the LICENSE is for. The license give these clients the right to use monetization etc. I use Adrev to make money of illegal – unlicensed usages, that is a huge difference. It doesn’t affect the term royalty-free, because it still is royalty free.
You only have to actually “use” the license you’ve purchased.
The problem is not the musician using the service but the client that is unwilling to get a real understanding what he is buying – a license to use this music for their products. Sooner or later I’m pretty sure that this will become the standard for all RF libraries (just personal assumption)
you are not Madonna or Lady Gaga. Now I can understand THEM needing to use AdRev because they aren’t selling royalty free licenses to use their music. But you guys ARE
And because I am not a worldwide high profile selling artist I have no right to protect my work? This is what I meant before with the state of the business. It’s this kind of thinking that is wrong in this industry.
I replied in the other thread as well but will post it here again for again:
Koster, I really appreciate you take the time to provide some insight from the other end of the table, which happens rarely and I’m happy when someone openes the view that we usually never get (unless we get contacted by clients directly).
And let me say, that I truly feel sorry about the loss of your client(s).
Nevertheless I’d like to add my personal viewpoint on that matter, having joined Adrev just a bunch of weeks ago. Already I have discovered that my work has been used unlicensed in numerous YT vids with varying view count from 1 – to 7 digit numbers.
Till short before Adrev (and similar companies) entered the market, there was no way to prevent this fraud and we as artists where simply loosing money and others made money off our work.
That given as a fact I’d just like you to think about this for a moment – would you wanna have someone else (illegaly) earn money off your hard work?
So Adrev came into play and the situation changed. Now the usage is tracked and action is taken on illegal usage – Ad Revenue in favour of the content creator.
This indeed requires an additional step by the legal buyer – to solve that claim by providing the proper license to Adrev. And this is where the only problem is imho.
...should not be having to wade through a bunch copyright disputes is all about going here – http://www.adrev.net/contact-us – and paste the license and the corresponding video url and it’s done. When you buy a software nowadays often times you can not just install and run, often you need to verify your purchase by providing a serial or whatever.
Not any different from the way the music is handled now with Adrev. The problem lies within the industry itself and it’s understanding of the value of creative work. In the end for me, I rather loose a few clients who are not willing to adapt to the evolution of the market than accepting that a broad majority of users have no problem with ripping me off and using my work for free.
Again, I’m sorry for the loss of your client, but instead of going into the future claiming – we go for Adrev free music and drop audiojungle (and every other platform that follows this model in the future) I’d rather see companies like you educating the clients and users and handling these kind of things pro-active – that this a way to protect the content creators and nobody that is legally using this products has to fear any issues – apart from the fact that a claim needs to be cleared – which is done in a blink of an eye.