I have my music on a site that lets video makers pay to use it for their own use (weddings etc) and that ends up on Youtube for their friends/relatives to see but again they have paid for it.
They have a license to use it then – does that site issue them with one? If so, the point of that license (as is being thrashed about in the other thread by a video producer) is as a proof of purchase and to be used to easily remove AdRev third-party match claims on their YouTube videos.
Read up about AdRev to see if it’s right for you. While it works for a lot people, some people dislike the idea of it as they see it as an inconvenience to customers.
I thought of another bad aspect to AdRev. Let’s say you have been selling your tracks here for a couple of years. And your buyers for the past two years used your tracks in their videos or videos for their clients. And everything is perfect!
Then you decide to sign up with AdRev. And AdRev starts flagging all videos on YouTube that use your music. Some of your buyers and/or their customers will not even notice that ads have been added to their videos. Others will get the notice and be somewhere between annoyed and angry! I don’t think any buyer is gonna say “Oh, that is normal. No problem!”
Essentially, in this scenario, the seller has changed the terms of the agreement well after the sale. If the music did not have ContentID when the buyer purchased and used it how can it be fair to add it later on?Wondering how those of you who use AdRev handle this? Do you exclude tracks with previous sales?
It’s a shame you seem to be looking purely for the negatives of AdRev LeatherwingStudios, but I know you’re thoroughly against it so I suppose that’s to be expected.
This point has been mentioned before and I agree that tracks that are registered with AdRev should only prompt third-party matches from the date they are registered. It’s not perfect, like I’ve said many times, but it’s happening and will continue to happen in the future as more things become digitally ‘locked down’, so I honestly believe the best thing is to adapt and educate.
I don’t really understand Adrev. I have pro content I earn money from Youtube so don’t want to mess up those sales if Adrev mistakenly detect paid for usage.
Are you earning money from YouTube via advertising / monetising your videos? AdRev is there to collect on illegal usage of your music on YouTube and is completely separate to PRO collections which would collect royalties on broadcast usage.
Answer me this, if AdRev offered a payed service to do this for composers would you pay for it ?
If the benefits outweighed the costs, then yes of course. Many people use TuneSat for this sort of monitoring as well.
@Koster, no confusion here, I was referring to the confusion over what buyers think a license is for. Still interested to hear a clear answer from you on that.
I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t true. It isn’t that I don’t want to, it’s that somewhere out there is a huge mess of dozens of videos we created, with music licenses properly purchased in good faith, and some of you are earning money from the adverts that are popping up on them.
Still trying to look at things from your perspective here as it’s really quite important to those of us already on AdRev to try and see things from both sides.But one thing I’m genuinely curious to hear and would be quite useful to know is, as a buyer, what you thought the licenses you had been purchasing were supposed to be used for? ie. for what purpose do you believe they serve?
+1 as well, I’m also genuinely interested too, might help us clarify where the confusion stems from.
This License ID seems brilliant and I think is the future.
I read about License ID a while back and I’m pretty sure it’s primary purpose is for identifying where a track came from so that disputes over Content ID claims can be attributed to the correct licensor of that music.
That’s one of the biggest issues for YouTube at the moment as there are so many multiple claims for the same music (which supposedly shouldn’t happen in theory because music registered with Content ID should be from an exclusive licensor). I think AudioSocket were solving that part of the problem, although this part of the statement Dejans quoted does make me question if that truly is the case:
“LicenseID enables digital distribution platforms to automatically detect and verify a license while reporting back valuable data and analytics to the licensor…LicenseID is a solution that acts as a digital proof of purchase thereby protecting the interests of all parties involved”
If they are embedding customer information into each audio file (like a lot of software companies are doing these days), then that’s like a digital receipt. The only question is how they would automate that as people can upload a video anywhere, so presumably the same checks would still be needed i.e. someone would need to certify they are the real purchaser.
Whoooah, mind-bending dude….
Toivo, grab another bag of popcorn, here’s another awkward one for you.
Ultimately, from a composer’s point of view (sorry Koster for shifting away from your perspective for a moment), I think this highlights something that Phil mentioned earlier : faith in humanity. While this is a good thing and I agree we should always start with the standpoint that ‘the customer is always right’, ‘people always do the right thing’ etc., blind faith in humanity when the stats are available to show you otherwise, is not.
If we take an objective look at things for a moment, just to get a little perspective as that’s important when making logical business decisions (something even our OP is doing at this point), then we see a few things:
- People are abusing music copyright online daily and in huge numbers, it’s not just Alumo’s stats that highlight the extent of this, and it’s not restricted to cat video makers based on various reports even just from these forums
- Customers are licensing music here, thus they purchase a license that has a purpose. Any business that protects its own products or services will understand this
- As Gareth said, high-end boutique libraries have signed up as well as Universal, EMI, BMG, Warner etc. which should demonstrate this isn’t something that is just going to disappear (these are big companies with huge clients)
- Protecting digital IP is in its infancy, if something better comes along that works better for everyone, then it will replace AdRev and the like, but this is our current solution
- As Prestashop highlighted, exclusivity refers to your exclusive ownership over the copyright, not whether you’re selling licenses of your music exclusively
- We are talking about YouTube at this point only, other mediums like TV, cinema, podcasts etc. are excluded, but expect this to change as things become more automated
- Some composers who want to see their work protected, others who don’t really care (possibly as they make enough already online / through another job)
Like I said, I totally empathise with Koster’s situation and have lost important clients before myself, and almost always over miscommunication. Either you can ignore something that will become commonplace and buy non-AdRev’d music from a minority of RF libraries (in the hope a new system doesn’t come up that the library signs into anyway, or a composer decides to use Content ID), or pro-actively resolve the license issue now and prepare yourself for future cases.
Sophonic pointed out it is already possible to pre-whitelist channels with AdRev and I expect that will improve as AdRev refines things. Koster, if you tell your clients this may happen with anyone’s music in their films and how you’ll resolve it, then there will be no surprises.
@audiophile-trax: “I wonder why Art-of-Sound had his AdRev account terminated as requested by Youtube”. Ask him directly, but I think offering your work under Creative Commons while trying to monetise it could be the reason.
Listen, I know you’re all thinking emotionally about this and like I’ve said before, that’s great for creating music. But not when we’re putting our business hat on. You will come up against resistance with anything in life, the question you need to ask yourself is whether selling your music is a business decision to earn a living, and therefore an important asset you need to protect in order to survive (plus protect a very damaged industry as a whole). Or whether you should cater to the admirable and respectful minority like Koster who has, unfortunately, felt the brunt of a new system yet been offered solutions.
If that minority turns out to be the hand that feeds us, then I will gladly eat humble pie with a big side of sorry. Looking objectively at the present situation, the facts tell me that things are very much going the way of Content ID and I’ll do everything I can to help my customers resolve claims and understand how they can prepare for it.
@SkylineAudio – I know you’re intent on proving a point here, but let’s clarify something: exclusivity refers to exclusivity of copyright and who registers with Content ID. If you sign up with a library who registers their tracks with Content ID, then you can’t register those tracks with another library who also intends to register them with Content ID. That’s where the conflict arises. It means you CAN sell non-exclusive licenses on various libraries as long as they are not registering them in Content ID on your behalf.
@FirstNote – not sure I understand your sentence ‘Throwing numbers around won’t make them correct you know’, were you referring to thesecession’s percentage, or are you saying numbers and statistics showing mass piracy occurs should be disregarded for a discussion in a forum post?
Been reading this thread with interest as, like many have said, we don’t tend to get to open a direct dialogue with customers. It’s a bit like Gollum coming across someone new in his cave, it’s all a bit exciting and weird at the same time.
So, first off, I’m very sorry to hear you lost a client, that’s never a good situation and I totally empathise with that. I just wanted to clear a few things up as I know it seems like AdRev is the root of all your audio problems, but systems like Content ID in general could well be the cause of other issues further down the line.
You mentioned that you don’t have to prove to YouTube or AdRev that you pay your talent, crew, use stock images / video, permits etc. yet do with music. Content ID scans ‘copyrighted material’ which includes video footage as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if image scanning came in at some point now that Google seems to be building up a huge library of images with their image search.
As a few people have mentioned, this is only for YouTube currently, but Vimeo have recently announced they’re releasing their own Content ID system that is called Audible Magic. As we move to using media online through these channels more and more, this will become the norm, trust me. So while it may seem like you can sidestep the issues now by using non-AdRevved content, I would argue that a better, more proactive approach would be to inform clients of what will happen so there’s no surprises, then clear the third-party matches when they appear.
I think we all agree that post-purchase clearing would be the ideal situation, however, a lot of content producers continue to sign up to this system as they realise it is their only way to get people to buy a license or provide a receipt currently so it’s an issue to address now. I know you’re adamant that this will not work in your company’s workflow, but wouldn’t it would be better to continue having access to a greater variety (and quite likely higher quality) music to offer your clients in exchange for clearing those third-party matches quickly? Especially if things are heading that way across the board?
I also take issue with the notion that having to prove we hold a licence is exactly the same animal as Microsoft or a games developer needing their customers to prove they have a serial code to run the software. This is NOT the same thing and you’re deluding yourselves if you think as such. Professional video producers are not general consumers or members of the public that buy these goods in their millions in the store. So stop treating us as such!
I’m not sure if one has to buy goods in the millions to warrant using IP protection of some sort. I’d argue that protecting music is something that hasn’t been done effectively before (Apple’s DRM failed to a large extent for example). Might this be where the biggest point of contention comes up? Providing evidence of a license is quite a reasonable thing to ask a customer whether for video, music, software or physical goods, although I think we all agree that how AdRev / Content ID does it currently isn’t as ideal as it could be.
You really think my clients need to receive that email? You really think it’s necessary for them to jump through hoops in order to get it online?
I don’t need to receive many emails, but if I’m well-informed about why I’m receiving them when they’re related to a purchase I’ve made (like needing to activate a license), then my understanding and tolerance increases considerably. As I mentioned before, if as part of your service, you said you’d sort these third-party matches for your clients, it could bring you better relationships and possibly even more business. And yes, I know you shouldn’t have to deal with all this, but until an automated system or easier process is put in place, it could be a competitive angle for your business.
AND bear in mind that should our client move forward to dispute this claim and the claim is refused for any reason, that an entire corporate channel is threatened to be closed down, or receive multiple copyright strikes? Eeek! This is an area we definitely don’t want to be in.
That’s not going to happen while you can provide a license for the music. That’s the point of them.
The other black hole that we are faced with and was brought up in our meeting on Friday (and forgot to mention here), is the question of ‘What if the music author/owner decides at a later point in time to suddenly Ad-rev a currently non-ad-revved piece of music’
Yes, I totally empathise with that concern and really any AdRev claims should happen on videos posted since the date the author registers a song. But if you have the license, it’s easy to resolve.
Something else you might want to consider is that AdRev is one of various other services that collect on Content ID matches. If you really are determined not to use AdRev-registered content, you’ll want to include any Content ID-related service that is out there. From my experience, AdRev (and Audiam based on Joel’s response) seem to be the quickest at resolving claims, but I can’t vouch for others so if you do find yourself with a ‘Rumblefish’ match for example, it could be quite a lot trickier and time-consuming to resolve.
All the best,
Logic X is more like Garageband than anything else.
Hi Stockwaves, you turned on the advanced tools in your preferences right?
If you don’t have a retina display, forget about getting all the channel strips to fit into a normal resolution monitor.
I’m not using retina displays on my main set up and can fit everything in nicely – I’m sure you’ve checked this, but might it be a low resolution setting on the display?
I went from L9 to LX and am loving it, particularly the new look and features. I’d give it another go if I were you, it’s a great DAW, especially once you’ve got used to the differences between 9 and X.
@Vsound – if you’ve installed L9 already, you don’t need to worry as you can open it separately (my installation didn’t delete L9 when I installed LX, so I can flip between the two without issue).