If a composer owns the right to use the samples, and if those samples adhere to the other general rules so it doesn’t screw with the “scanners”, then its a matter of getting in contact with YT and show the a license of sorts. That currently happens through a distributor. So now it comes down to how effective their communication with youtube is. If it’s effective, a problem can be solved fast. A problem in this case being: a composer/producer is denied an upload to CID because of potential copyright doubbles, but does own a license to use which ever material is flagged.
You're not allowed to use Content ID if you've used sample libraries in your track, or are you?
- Thread starter Chris S
- Start date
NekujaK
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
Fair enough, but perhaps you missed the point of my post, too
Some of the discussions in this thread have been concerned with the use of virtual instruments being problematic in the face of Content ID's (allegedly) more aggressive and granular detection algorithms. I was merely pointing out that the same issues that apply to virtual instruments also apply to real instruments - it's all just sound as far as Content ID is concerned. Therefore, all music is potentially affected, not just music that uses virtual instruments, and that's potentially a nightmare scenario for the music biz.
I don't have the time nor resources required to build my own instruments from scratch every time I want to record a piece of music. Everyone uses the same guitars, pianos, basses, drums, etc., and virtual instruments, to record music because they are, after all, musical instruments and that's their intended purpose: to make music. Every symphony orchestra pretty much sounds the same, and that's what most people want - composers aren't trying to make an orchestra sound like "their own", and they shouldn't have to.
If Content ID is identifying and flagging individual instrument sounds, then that's definitely an overreach and impractical, for all the reasons stated above.
Gotya. The thing is that there is a distinction between "sounds like" and "similar product" in the digital world, right? We might feel like two guitar recordings sound the same, but YT doesn't listen with ears and brains - Currently YT does pick up stuff that shouldn't be matched because it "sounds" so alike - right now that's mostly temple bowls or drones with the odd exception. Which is why YT ask people not to release that to CID. So your concern is ok, but right now I don't believe its an issue outside of actual product similarities ie. using the same 70's loop will put some work on one of the parties, depending on who uploaded it first. If you have the license, it's not a problem, it just takes work.Fair enough, but perhaps you missed the point of my post, too
Some of the discussions in this thread have been concerned with the use of virtual instruments being problematic in the face of Content ID's (allegedly) more aggressive and granular detection algorithms. I was merely pointing out that the same issues that apply to virtual instruments also apply to real instruments - it's all just sound as far as Content ID is concerned. Therefore, all music is potentially affected, not just music that uses virtual instruments, and that's potentially a nightmare scenario for the music biz.
I don't have the time nor resources required to build my own instruments from scratch every time I want to record a piece of music. Everyone uses the same guitars, pianos, basses, drums, etc., and virtual instruments, to record music because they are, after all, musical instruments and that's their intended purpose: to make music. Every symphony orchestra pretty much sounds the same, and that's what most people want - composers aren't trying to make an orchestra sound like "their own", and they shouldn't have to.
If Content ID is identifying and flagging individual instrument sounds, then that's definitely an overreach and impractical, for all the reasons stated above.
It's a little bit like AI. So far it hasn't produced anything of artistic value.
So let's not worry too much about symphony orchestras being flagged, or guitar takes with similar models and mics and acoustics, just yet. The tech is not there, and if it gets there its maybe more likely that it becomes better at distinguishing. Is all. I think youtube would love to cut down on copyright staff.
Your concern is absolutely valid though, and if it comes to it, we could think about doing a VI distribution of sorts to put copyright cases on a fast track when they happen. If we own something, and if it's put in front of YT by someone with leverage, it will get sorted justly.. mostly.
jbuhler
Senior Member
Even if this works as you suggest, you need someone to do that labor, and that labor will have to be paid for. You still need the licensing shows to sign off on the arrangement.
There are many potential solutions to the "problem," but they all come with a not insignificant cost, and it's not clear to me who will bear the burden of paying those costs.
There are solutions to this, and I'm not saying that without the experience to back it. Because of course you're right. It will take labor. But if enough composers, with enough of a catalogue are ready to jump on board its absolutely possible. We can take that talk in another thread if come to it. Right now I think it's just important to remember that the solution today, is simple: If you own the license to the stuff you release, you can get it cleared with YouTube through your distributor. If they are too slow, consider changing distributor.
Edit: I'm responding to this thread because I see people reacting, justly so, but in the wrong direction. A copyright claim, strike, what ever, is just a message from a computer, and it can be sorted. With your distributor.
