rockstarzguitarz saidActually you’re paying for a license to use the music. A common misunderstanding. If you get a copyright notice – this is actually why you get a license certification with your purchase, that’s what it is made for.
Im paying for the music.
rockstarzguitarz saidRight, that’s why we take care of that portion ourselves.
as a paying customer..its not my responsibility to protect you
You need to find a solution that does not affect me
Well right now there isn’t one.
Please don’t get me wrong, to a certain degree I can even understand your frustration. And I’m thankful you have bought at this marketplace.
But times are changing, and you either adapt to be prepared for the future, or you don’t. If you decide for the latter – that’s absolutely your decision and I’d say lets agree to disagree on that one.
I notice that too, that there is an unhealthy development on the Adrev/non-Adrev front.
The thing is that every author would immediately take to his heels once a work of his or her own has been illegetimately registered by someone else.
And publicely waving a flag “come here, my stuff is not registered” just directly invites people with suspicious ambitions.
I for one stick with it, if 95% of my customers are happy with the process and have a certain understanding why we do this, well then the 5% need either to adapt and learn or just let it go. Be it so.
I still strongly believe that in a very near future there won’t me much non-trackable music left.
My 0,02 $
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.