Vimeo Licensing

[jem5136]

I just wanted to let everyone know that Vimeo is starting to take videos down that don't have licensed music in them. They took down a video of my 4th of July show with the song "Boom Boom Pow" by Black Eyed Peas. They sent me an email about it and I am going to email them back, but I have to provide a written counter-notification. Has this happened to anyone else?
They do, however, have a music store you can get license music from, and there is Christmas music in it, I don't know how good the music is, but it is there and it's licensed.

Jesse

[Guest guest]

jem5136 wrote:

I just wanted to let everyone know that Vimeo is starting to take videos down that don't have licensed music in them. They took down a video of my 4th of July show with the song "Boom Boom Pow" by Black Eyed Peas. They sent me an email about it and I am going to email them back, but I have to provide a written counter-notification. Has this happened to anyone else?
They do, however, have a music store you can get license music from, and there is Christmas music in it, I don't know how good the music is, but it is there and it's licensed.

Jesse

This is NOT meant to be political, but unfortunately politics do play a large part in this response.

And I really do hate to sound political, but can't see any way around this particular issue.

We can thank Congress for that idiotic law they are trying to pass (or did it pass already?) that will start causing issues for many sites, not just Vimeo but for everyone that posts even a snippet of a song or some other item that may be copyrighted. I forget what they called it, just know it's downright idiotic thinking on Congresses part.

And of course, we, the general public probably won't even have a say or a vote on this, which, in my own opinion is grossly unfair.

How they can continue to pass such ludicrous laws and the public just end up accepting them really behooves me.

And then we all suffer the consequences of these actions by our own governmental officials.

My apologies if this is too political for the forums, but it does support the original post as to why many sites are starting to remove music videos and other related criteria from them.

[Guest guest]

BTW: So far I have not had any videos taken down from Vimeo yet. Nor have I received any e-mails from them presently.

But after seeing the original post here, I will be expecting it to happen sometime.

[Pipelayer]

Just had a email of vimeo taking one of ours down as well. Have submitted a ticket to them, letting them know we do this as a charity each year at Christmas and no one profits from anything being sold.

Waiting for a return email from them at the moment.

[jem5136]

Pipelayer wrote:

Just had a email of vimeo taking one of ours down as well. Have submitted a ticket to them, letting them know we do this as a charity each year at Christmas and no one profits from anything being sold.

Waiting for a return email from them at the moment.

Well, at least I am not the only one this has happened too. I am getting ready to email them my ticket because I really don't want to loose that video on Vimeo, and I know YouTube will do the same thing if I upload it there. I'll look in there music and see if they have anything good they can't take it down, but it probably is nothing that is really good.

[pstigerfan]

pikadroo wrote:

I doubt any of this will ever stop. Perhaps we need our own site like candycanetube.com for our videos. Video social networks aren't hard to setup.

Drew

Drew, I like your idea. Right now I have my videos on Vimeo as well, but I received three emails from them today telling me that my videos were in copyright violation and that they would be removed. I sent my response back to them stating that I make no money off the display (I don't collect donations) and that I was not profitting off the use of the music. Hopefully they realize that and allow me to keep the videos online.

I just took a look at candycanetube.com and that domain is available. If others are interested in doing something like that, I can purchase the domain and set up a video sharing site for us to use. I've got plenty of space on my hosting account for it if there is enough interest.

Only reason this stuff is happening is because the Republicans in the House & Senate want to jam PIPA and SOPA through making everything illegal, even if you are not making any profits off of it. Thankfully both have stalled for the time-being, but if/when these do pass, the Internet will definitely be different.

Paul

[Guest guest]

pstigerfan wrote:

pikadroo wrote:

I doubt any of this will ever stop. Perhaps we need our own site like candycanetube.com for our videos. Video social networks aren't hard to setup.

Drew

Drew, I like your idea. Right now I have my videos on Vimeo as well, but I received three emails from them today telling me that my videos were in copyright violation and that they would be removed. I sent my response back to them stating that I make no money off the display (I don't collect donations) and that I was not profitting off the use of the music. Hopefully they realize that and allow me to keep the videos online.

I just took a look at candycanetube.com and that domain is available. If others are interested in doing something like that, I can purchase the domain and set up a video sharing site for us to use. I've got plenty of space on my hosting account for it if there is enough interest.

Only reason this stuff is happening is because the Republicans in the House & Senate want to jam PIPA and SOPA through making everything illegal, even if you are not making any profits off of it. Thankfully both have stalled for the time-being, but if/when these do pass, the Internet will definitely be different.

Paul

Paul, what would the cost be, if any, to the end user to post videos if you get enough interest in this?

It does have my interest.

[George Simmons]

pstigerfan wrote:

Only reason this stuff is happening is because the Republicans in the House & Senate want to jam PIPA and SOPA through making everything illegal, even if you are not making any profits off of it. Thankfully both have stalled for the time-being, but if/when these do pass, the Internet will definitely be different.

If you're going to flount Dan's anti-politics decree, how about doing it with facts rather than biased inaccuracies.

SOPA and PIPA were each introduced with support from both sides of the aisle. While most agree that something substantive needs to be done to help curb piracy, these two bills are deeply flawed. In an amazing display of common sense, both the Senate and the House have pulled back and are currently in the process of re-examining and hopefully re-writing the bills to achieve the basic goal without some of the more troublesome unintended effects.

[gizmomkr]

Im not a legal expert. someone who is can fill in the details, but I have had to get releases for music in the past. There is an allowance "fair use" 30 seconds or 10% Something... but thats not the point.

Somewhere a starving artist sits, eating cup-o-soup. singing on every corner, every bar ,every open mic night - just to catch a break (maybe) one day, and get signed. then get an agent, a manager, a song writer, a stylist, makeup artist, vocal coach, PAY ALL OF THEM - spend months in a recording studio, producers, recording engineers, PA's getting coffe. Only to release a song that you now feel like you should be able to STEAL from all of the above people because "its for your charity" or just that your not making any money.

If you rob a bank, and throw the cash across the highway keeping nothing - you still robbed a bank.

Countless people make there living in some way from the royalities that get paid. When you break the copyright - those royalties dont get paid. That PA that does nothing but get everyone Coffe and get yelled at because they got a double half caf mocha and it should have been a vanilla chai, might have made another buck an hour...

Im as guilty as any other - I dont take up a collection from everyone that hears what I broadcast - but that doesnt mean the artist doesnt deserve it. I pay for every track I use, and if ascap came after me, I would have to say THEY are right.

Its YOUR display, YOUR charity - and they are ALL things of beauty, but none of us have the right to take .01 away from all those people making a living making that music.

If you want to bust out the guitar and record your own song and sequence it, and post it - Im sure the folks at youtube will let it be.

[Surfing4Dough]

George Simmons wrote:

pstigerfan wrote:

Only reason this stuff is happening is because the Republicans in the House & Senate want to jam PIPA and SOPA through making everything illegal, even if you are not making any profits off of it. Thankfully both have stalled for the time-being, but if/when these do pass, the Internet will definitely be different.

If you're going to flount Dan's anti-politics decree, how about doing it with facts rather than biased inaccuracies.

SOPA and PIPA were each introduced with support from both sides of the aisle. While most agree that something substantive needs to be done to help curb piracy, these two bills are deeply flawed. In an amazing display of common sense, both the Senate and the House have pulled back and are currently in the process of re-examining and hopefully re-writing the bills to achieve the basic goal without some of the more troublesome unintended effects.

Here are the facts listing who sponsored these bills:
http://www.pipasponsors.org

http://www.sopasponsors.org

Feel free to contact your senators/representatives to share your opinions.

(and stating the above isn't a political statement, it is a discussion of the laws/potential laws that will greatly affect our ability to share our displays online. Now inaccurate inflammatory statements about it is where politics come into play.)

[Guest guest]

gizmomkr wrote:

Im not a legal expert. someone who is can fill in the details, but I have had to get releases for music in the past. There is an allowance "fair use" 30 seconds or 10% Something... but thats not the point.

Somewhere a starving artist sits, eating cup-o-soup. singing on every corner, every bar ,every open mic night - just to catch a break (maybe) one day, and get signed. then get an agent, a manager, a song writer, a stylist, makeup artist, vocal coach, PAY ALL OF THEM - spend months in a recording studio, producers, recording engineers, PA's getting coffe. Only to release a song that you now feel like you should be able to STEAL from all of the above people because "its for your charity" or just that your not making any money.

If you rob a bank, and throw the cash across the highway keeping nothing - you still robbed a bank.

Countless people make there living in some way from the royalities that get paid. When you break the copyright - those royalties dont get paid. That PA that does nothing but get everyone Coffe and get yelled at because they got a double half caf mocha and it should have been a vanilla chai, might have made another buck an hour...

Im as guilty as any other - I dont take up a collection from everyone that hears what I broadcast - but that doesnt mean the artist doesnt deserve it. I pay for every track I use, and if ascap came after me, I would have to say THEY are right.

Its YOUR display, YOUR charity - and they are ALL things of beauty, but none of us have the right to take .01 away from all those people making a living making that music.

If you want to bust out the guitar and record your own song and sequence it, and post it - Im sure the folks at youtube will let it be.

Hopefully someone knows where the thread still is, at least I hope it's still here, but I believe both ASCAP and BMI were contacted about licensing issues using music for what we do.

Both had said NO LICENSING or FEES were required to use their music in our display as long as no charge or admission fee was collected to watch the display. A charity IS NOT a charge, it is a voluntary donation and are fine.

You just have to own/buy your own copy of the CD or song you want to use, which I'd say the majority of us here do.

So if you own a copy and you get a customized edit of the same song from someone, you've paid for the song already, you're just getting a version that may be shorter than the original or cleaned up in some instances, depending on the song lyrics. The key is you bought the music, the edited version is something you could have requested someone to do on the music or they have already done it and shared that version.

Now if they, or you, had not purchased the song, I can see some issues coming into play from that.

I hope someone can post the link to that thread, because a couple of folks here did make contact and got a lot of good information for us about this.

But if the gov't gets there way, no matter what the recording industry says we can do, the law would still say otherwise and this is where the problems are all going to stem from. At least in the way I see it.

[Guest guest]

This: The key is you bought the music, the edited version is something you could have requested someone to do on the music or they have already done it and shared that version.


Should have been this: The key is you bought the music, the edited version is something you could have requested someone to do on the music or they have already done it and have either shared that version with those that have purchased the song or edited for someone that did by request.

[Guest wbottomley]

Yes. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC said it was fine to use music in our displays without a license as long was we aren't charging. But... they did not say we could put it online without a license. This area has not been discussed or covered as far as I can remember.

[Guest guest]

Thanks William.

I couldn't recall if that had been discussed in that thread or not. I had thought it may have been, but wasn't completely sure about that.

[George Simmons]

wbottomley wrote:

Yes. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC said it was fine to use music in our displays without a license as long was we aren't charging. But... they did not say we could put it online without a license. This area has not been discussed or covered as far as I can remember.

Well, well, well - who'd have thought it would be ME with a superior memory than anyone else...

Actually it WAS briefly discussed at one time. (I'm sure our resident super-sleuth SFD can find the thread) It can be argued that what we do falls under the aspect of "artistic interpretation", and as such, it would be permitted as fair use.

[shfr26]

http://forums.lightorama.com/view_topic.php?id=27840&forum_id=80&highlight=ASCAP

Is this it??

[DownTown]

George Simmons wrote:

pstigerfan wrote:

Only reason this stuff is happening is because the Republicans in the House & Senate want to jam PIPA and SOPA through making everything illegal, even if you are not making any profits off of it. Thankfully both have stalled for the time-being, but if/when these do pass, the Internet will definitely be different.

If you're going to flount Dan's anti-politics decree, how about doing it with facts rather than biased inaccuracies.

SOPA and PIPA were each introduced with support from both sides of the aisle. While most agree that something substantive needs to be done to help curb piracy, these two bills are deeply flawed. In an amazing display of common sense, both the Senate and the House have pulled back and are currently in the process of re-examining and hopefully re-writing the bills to achieve the basic goal without some of the more troublesome unintended effects.

Thanks for that reply George. You saved me from having to write it.

D.T.

[Guest wbottomley]

George Simmons wrote:

wbottomley wrote:

Yes. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC said it was fine to use music in our displays without a license as long was we aren't charging. But... they did not say we could put it online without a license. This area has not been discussed or covered as far as I can remember.

Well, well, well - who'd have thought it would be ME with a superior memory than anyone else...

Actually it WAS briefly discussed at one time. (I'm sure our resident super-sleuth SFD can find the thread)  It can be argued that what we do falls under the aspect of "artistic interpretation", and as such, it would be permitted as fair use.

Lol George.

If I read every thread, I would be crazier than I am now.

[Guest guest]

shfr26 wrote:

http://forums.lightorama.com/view_topic.php?id=27840&forum_id=80&highlight=ASCAP

Is this it??

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of.

Although on-line videos are mentioned in the thread, it's not covered enough to be sure you can post video of your display on sites like YouTube or Vimeo without an on-line license.

But then again, like all things, that's still open to interpretation and I would think the "fair use" would actually cover a video of ones Halloween or Christmas display.

Again, open to interpretation.


Thanks for finding that!

[jem5136]

Wow, when I started to get into light shows, I never would have thought I would end up where I am right now and I've said it before, but it seems like every day there is something that complicates things to make it harder and harder to bring joy to people.