OT: Using music on a You Tube Video
Hermit Crab
Posts: 833
Hi folks,
I tried a while ago to figure out the mechanisms of using a piece of music to accompany You Tube videos. In the free-to use listings I found almost nothing I wanted. Then there were other listings I saw where the artist (if I understood and recall correctly) would permit use of the music but would monetise the video. I'm not sure how that would work - presumably adverts would pop up.
What I can't understand is how thousands or millions of videos seem to make use, freely, of music which is up for sale elsewhere.
For example, I asked a street musician (I donated to) what the piece was he had just played. When I got home I found multiple You Tube videos using the music. Am I to believe that all those who uploaded the videos sought permission, or paid a fee?
I really, really have no intention of attempting to use what isn't mine in asking this - I just wonder what others do and whether that is an easy process. Vimeo clips all seem to use music so there must be some legal way for this to be facilitated.
With respect to anyone who may reply to this, I hope the topic doesn't stray onto any kind of You Tube / Google bashing which would probably violate the forum TOS.
Thanks for any reply.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
well there is Audioswap and creator studio I make extensive use of.
people upload whatever they want and if it is detected get a message, I have had this happen myself with things I thought were ok but were owned by someone sound effects mostly in my case so no longer use the set I bought long ago as obviously not what it seems.
The warnings vary depending on the content from we will allow it but cannot be monetised to outright deletion.
I find it safer to make my own music and sound effects.
Thanks, th3Digit, for your reply and the info.
I've noticed all kinds of sounds in your videos from home-made, home-sung (!) voice changed and some that sounded like released music. I appreciate your attentiveness to the rights of others in all your work. But I am simply just puzzled by the usage that zillions of other people make of work that isn't theirs. In fact I'm also puzzled by the release of official, current-charts, videos on You Tube. Maybe the buying public get better sound quality than they would get from ripping the music from YT videos.
There is a musician whose epic, cinematic compositions can be used freely apart from a few provisos. I have actually broken one of his pieces into intervals of a few seconds each as the basis for an animation I would like to create some day. The music simply gave rise in my mind to visual images which could form a cohesive short story. I would love to give this my very best shot as a tribute to the composer.
But for another video I have in mind, I would just like to put something familiar into the background - such as Ravel's 'Bolero' or some such. 'Some such' unfortunately might be part of a James Last album and I really don't think James Last would be pleased. (That's just an example plucked from the air - I hope he is still in the land of the living). Yet I can find any number of his complete albums there on You Tube to listen to again and again. Me no understand!
Another thought for a project I sometimes have is to tell the stories of operas, say Puccini's La Boheme. I bet there is a ton of DAZ content could be used for that. The images would be accompanied by snatches of music to give the viewer/listener a taster of the opera. Yet I wouldn't dream of doing that because real life 'Prima Donnas' may not care to be looking like Max Headroom on a Bad Hair Day with their own voices being used.
I realised that I wrote all that reply without checking out the things you mentioned, Audioswap and Creator Studio. I'll have a look!
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6060318?hl=en
the bottom link, create, will take you to downloadable music free to use or CC with attribution
also a page listing popular music and the artist/record companies stance
audiswap is accessible editing any of your uploaded videos
Because a high majority people (with the exception of some high profile creators, and those who are concerned with legalities) are using and uploading music illegally. You need to either own it or get permission to use it legally.
Music rights is a complicated legal structure. In my films, I have to acquire at least 2 different permissions to use an artist's music. I have to get rights from the composer or owner of the music (usually a studio) and I also have to negotiate the rights to the performance (because a song can be performed by multiple artists). This usually is gotten from the artist. Trying to get in touch with the proper parties to make the transaction is a royal pain. Classical music (such as Bolero) is a bit easier. Usually I can find a midi source for the music, thus the performance will be my own, and the song rights are now in public domain after so many years.
As for all the youtube videos using modern music, I am also puzzled. It is probably a result of a deal between studios and youtube. They may allow usage of the song as long as the song isn't changed or used in a soundtrack. After all, watching someone dance to their favorite song on youtube can only mean more revenues for the music studio. But if they are using the music in their own creative project (such as a short film), then they are clearly breaking copyright laws. As has been mentioned, there are numerous websites that offer royalty-free music and there are others who will help you negotiate with studios and artists for rights to a specific piece of music.
I have used Jamendo in the past.
https://licensing.jamendo.com/en/catalog
I also did my own music using sound samples and Magix Music Maker one of which was flagged by YouTube as a commercial piece. I followed the link to the piece of music, and it was so close to mine to be nearly the same piece, mine was slightly different. As the original had been released a long while before mine, even though I had never heard of it or the musicians, I removed it.
I recently did a lot of research into using popular songs in a documentary. My conclusion for the most part is: avoid dealing with the whole mess whenever that is an option.
To legally use a piece of currently copyrighted music in your video that will be broadcast or performed, you need permission from the publisher and composer, the performing artist, and the record company. Sometimes, these are handled all by a single clearing house for a fee. We are talking thousands of dollars per song. These clearing houses are looking to place materials in medium to big budget film.
Otherwise you will need to do the legwork yourself and contact all the entities one by one. If you're lucky, the publishing rights will also be held by the record company or the artist. So, it is possible to do. I spent months tracking down one composer / artist and their representatives, only to have the manager come back with a "no." So, even after getting permission from normal channels, the artist's people decided they didn't want to let usage rights go for the money I was offering. Although I was disappointed, I understood. The artist's management was worried that allowing a low dollar usage would devalue the song for a bigger budget project in the future. It's doubtful that will ever be an issue. But, I get it.
Also, one song was from an old Louis Armstrong recording that was officially in the Public Domain. You'd think that'd be all clear, right? But, guess what. The Louis Armstrong foundation holds all rights to Louis' likeness, including his voice. So, even though usage of the material is legal via copyright law, it might still be tied up by the foundation's right to limit Armstrong's likeness use. Truthfully, I'm not sure that they can legally do that. But more importantly, legal or not, they are effectively tying up usage to the point that would make it counterproductive to fight.
Here's another crazy thing with YouTube... I obtained permission to use a song loop that was published as royalty free music for soundtracks. Well, someone used that loop in a song and published it. So, YouTube recognized the song loop in my video as being a copyright infringement on the published song that was using the same royalty free piece...LOL!
Once again, it was just too much of a mess to fight.
To answer your question as to how people are getting away with using some copyrighted material, like your street musician - They are performing it themselves, which knocks out the sound recording copyright to some degree. Although in truth, they are not legal. They still officially require permission to use a composition even as their own performance. It is just much harder to enforce. So, most of the time it gets left alone...particularly since there's generally no money in it to sue. But, if that same musician performs the piece on their album and the album starts to sell, you can bet the publisher will take notice.
The bottom line is this: If you can obtain direct permission to use a piece of copyrighted music and have that permission in writing from all parties, you can use it. Generally, it is going to be a far better use of your time to find the material on a royalty free music site, than tracking down artists, publishers, composers, and record companies.
Sincere thanks to all for the replies - they're very much appreciated. The experiences related in these replies show what a legal minefield there is and also how easy it is to be seen to be in the wrong. It's astonishing that someone can use a free loop only to be told that it has become part of a new work created by someone who also used the free loop. Or to compose something in music-making software only to find that someone else had created an almost identical work.
I'm not in any way complaining that music creators have every right to protect their work. It is a pity that seeking permission will probably involve lots of research with no certainty of the request being granted.
Thanks also for the links to free music sources. I will need some time to check these out.
There is another site called 'Audio Jungle' which offers a great many pieces of original music for a fee. I only glanced at it a while back when I was really impressed by the music chosen for a You Tube video and the description credited the source. Apart from the payment of a small fee, there may be limits on how many times the video using it gets seen. Again, I would need to check it out. Here is a link: https://licensing.jamendo.com/en/catalog
I have used artists from Ektoplazm.com in several videos. No commercial use.
Thanks, RA. I'll check out that link.
I must admit at this point that I've only ever done a few small videos, most of them just to illustrate something I'm going on about in a forum discussion. But this whole 3d art hobby gives rise to ideas of trying to create something worthwhile and music would be pretty much essential in such a case.
I like the idea of talented musicians, who are unlikely to hit the big time (due to the laws of averages), selling their compositions to the general public in much the same way as individuals can sell 3d assets and make some income from their work.
Music copyright law is a confusing and contradictory morass.
People who make podcasts often don't include music (bumper music, background music), simply because the cost is oppressive. I can't blame them.
At one time when DVDs were more popular, I was involved in an educational video effort. We were going to create and sell a library of dance instruction DVDs. The project never really got off the ground, but it's just as well. The music licensing for popular songs was going to cost thousands of dollars just for a run of 5,000 DVDs, due to the needle-drops pricing structure most copyright agencies had. So I started calling some royalty-free houses that make their own music libraries in whatever style you're looking for, which for us was salsa.
With one particular publishing house, we got the price down to $500-$700 with no requirement for needle-drop nickle-and-diming. The music had no popular or well-known salsa songs, but it was GOOD music, some in Spanish and others in English, with excellent recording quality, arrangement, cheerful key/chord progressions, very good vocals, the correct speed for the dance style, a consistent 8-bar structure that can be danced to, and without foul language, all of which were critical requirements for our project. We could have dropped the audio into our already-taped videos (overlaying the music used for the recorded demonstrations), but at that point the project was going down the drain anyhow, so we stopped our work.
Having had to deal with all that, I've been a bit down on most of the music industry, especially the parts in LA, NY, and Nashville. Yes, I'm down on the artists too. I don't begrudge anybody for making a living, but this was a hideous and unworkable mess. The artists can stop it anytime, but they don't, so I think they're at the core of the problem.
Thanks to you too, Subtropic Pixel, for this account of your experience. The pattern from these anecdotes seems to lean towards the music industry shooting itself in the foot at times. No-one gained anything in the end, in your case.
As an aside, I was drawn into the world of Salsa a while back. I would never have been inclined to listen to that style of music in the normal course of life but there was a large population of fun-loving Latin American people in the town I lived in at the time. I met a few and was lucky enough to join in their Salsa events. The music, even in the background has an uncanny ability to lift the spirits - it's light-hearted and fun.
It is a shame that projects such as yours fell through. My notion of telling opera stories isn't as stuffy as it may seem to some people. Opera suffers from being sung on stage with sometimes unlikely-looking leading characters. But an opera such as Korngold's Die Tode Stadt (just to name one I would have in mind) could be wonderfully done by someone with more ability than I have.
My favorite singer is a mezzo by the name of Cecilia Bartoli. If you are an opera fan, you undoubtably know about her. Her voice is a dream and even though I couldn't understand the words of the opera, I was hooked. I could make a movie featuring only her voice as a soundtrack (and I couldn't publish it because of the wonky copyright system).
Hi Drzap.
It is a great pity but fully understandable that a great performer's work can't legally be used by admirers who would like to enhance their own work and pay tribute at the same time.
Like you, it doesn't matter to me in the least that I don't follow the words of an opera in German or Italian - the voice is only another instrument for me. (I mis-spelled - mis-spelt? - the opera I mentioned. It's called Die Tote Stadt - the Dead City - and is set in Bruges. The old part of Bruges, from photos I've seen, would make a nice DAZ/Poser setting.
I have to admit that my knowledge of opera isn't so great because earlier in life I was kind of fanatical for the work of only a few composers - all of them after Beethoven's time. Nowadays my tastes have mellowed. Unfortunately I hadn't heard of the singer you mentioned - ignorant me - but I see there are a great many of her performances on You Tube. Presumably legally uploaded!
I'll take the liberty of linking to a stage performance of one of the highlights of Die Tote Stadt - a short duet. The first time I heard this I went out the following day and bought a CD version of the whole opera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAwPyEcJW_k
Thanks, Marcus, for the link. I'm sure I will enjoy it.
This topic is very timely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-musicians-are-so-angry-at-the-worlds-most-popular-music-streaming-service/2017/07/14/bf1a6db0-67ee-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.1b68b847f03a
But fair warning: I caution any reader of a WaPo article to assume that several key facts may not be correct, or may have been intentionally or unintentionally presented out of context. Caveat emptor!
Realistically speaking, I highly doubt that people have modified their behavior in any significant way to use YouTube to avoid paid streaming services. Most streaming servcies offer a free option anyhow. Why would anybody bother with YouTube?
Thanks again, Subtropic Pixel, that was a helpful link, which contained further links within the article.
So, hoping not to stray onto saying anything derogatory, I think I have a clearer picture, mostly from the replies here and from the link above.
1 Users put up all sorts of videos to You Tube and many of these users add music which they like or which they hope will increase views of their video.
That is illegal in most cases - as was said above by Jason.lin22.2
2 Copyright holders can issue 'take-down' notices but they have an uphill struggle there because so many uploads take place -one video gets taken down and six others appear. Take-down notices should result in YT being aware that copyright music is being uploaded.and such attempted uploads should automatically be rejected. This doesn't happen effectively, apparently (although, if I attempted it, I would be one to be caught out for sure!)
3 It has been claimed that copyright laws of the US and of Europe have loopholes which are ALLEGEDLY exploited for much of the content on You Tube. You Tube, however, pays a royalty to copyright holders based on the number of downloads of the content. The music industry is APPARENTLY dissatisfied with the amount of this recompence. (I just put stress on these words in the hope of avoiding saying anything that will upset readers here or the forum TOS).
In giving the above summary of what I think is the true picture, I have found, I think, the answer to the questions I had when starting this thread.
I hope this thread may be of some use to anyone wishing to add music to their work as I did. Some of the contributers have certainly faced the problems head on and it seems to me that it is best to go the easier ways that some contributors have provided links for.
It also became clear to me that people (on other places on the internet) voiced strong critical opinions of musicians, the Industry You Tube and of each other! I'm very grateful that none of that entered this thread.
Thanks to all!
I have utilized eProves previously.
https://eproves.com/ru/no-copyright-music/
I have also produced my own music employing sound samples and Magix Music Maker. One of my compositions was labeled as a commercial piece by YouTube. Upon clicking the link to this music, I discovered it closely resembled my work, although mine had minor distinctions. Because the original had been released long before mine, even though I had no prior knowledge of it or the artists, I chose to delete it.
I have a list of those who offers their music for copyright and royalty free, for instance, on youtube, look up NEFFEX, they have a big playlist of music they made specifically for others to use, one of their songs is called Rumans, then there's Backstage.
And then ones like this _ Free with credits + Thanx
Soundimage.org
That's a question to ask YouTube.
My assumption is: Most 'famous' music is matched against by YouTube backend servers and revenue generated from views/listens is distributed to the true rights holder(s). Unknow music by unknown artists would need to register their music with YouTube to have it added to the match list, or maybe YouTube goes by a 1st posted music to a YouTube account is the assumed rights holder.
Surely, YouTube has videos & documents explaining their policies for non-lawyer types.
AI is being increasing used to generate original music that sounds quite good. I actually got an email from a DNA testing company of all things asking if I would buy such products from them!
One can use free and purchased content from Pond5 for use on YouTube. As with all collections, check individual items for any specific restrictions.
I can recommend this guy: https://www.youtube.com/@ScottBuckley You can use his music with credit in the Youtube description. He's also helping people out if their vids are pulled due to false copyright claims, if you credited correctly.
YouTube also has it's own Audio Library you can find in your Channel list which includes dashboard, content, analytics etc