youtube and copyright

jonnyburgo

Following on from threads a while back about amateur guitar lessons etc being removed due to copyright issues, how is it that the big boys, like Andersons and Pro Guitar Shop are making vids with covers or sections of in them all the time? Do they have to pay?

soma1975

Probably. 

TheOtherDennis

From what I understand, stores like that will more than likely have paid for a PRS licence that allows them to do stuff, in the same way that a shop with a radio in it will have to have one too.

skunkwerx

I've used the actual artists recorded music in videos before, but I'm not monetising my vids. 

A few of them have filed a copyright thing but allowed me to use the music providing its not monetised. 

Others have muted the track. Most have allowed me though.  

For stuff I've actually played on guitar its not been an issue at all, presumably because it either hasnt picked up the song, im not making money off it, or both?

the big boys probably pay for a license like mentioned above

Lestratcaster

I regularly take lesson video clips of my learners jamming through songs they've learnt to play. I use the live audio in the room as opposed to putting it on separately post-editing. I've only ever had one copyright warning last year, but as its an "educational" type video I've not had any other issues, the vocals are just about audible to hear what the song is and the clip is only 1 minute long max.

allen

Most of the time they aren't playing anything by other people. 

Mind you I mainly watch the vids with danish pete and a looper. And never watch the 'sound like...' ones.

thegummy

How utterly pathetic is it that someone has taken a guitar lesson down because of copyright of the song they're teaching?

Fair enough having copyright so the songwriter can make money off his own song rather than someone else stealing it (though I bet it's very often some corporate [bad word] who makes the money more than the songwriter). But a guitar lesson?

It's not as if someone's going to save themselves the price of the record by sitting listening to a guitar lesson instead.

TJT1979

thegummy said:

How utterly pathetic is it that someone has taken a guitar lesson down because of copyright of the song they're teaching?

Fair enough having copyright so the songwriter can make money off his own song rather than someone else stealing it (though I bet it's very often some corporate [bad word] who makes the money more than the songwriter). But a guitar lesson?

It's not as if someone's going to save themselves the price of the record by sitting listening to a guitar lesson instead.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen some videos with a link in the description to buy the song on iTunes or whatever. I wonder if this is potentially a way around it?

Litterick

TJT1979 said:

've seen some videos with a link in the description to buy the song on iTunes or whatever. I wonder if this is potentially a way around it?

No, it is not. Nor are verbal gymnastics, such as claiming the video is solely for educational purposes. The fact is that the publishers own the rights. They exercise their rights, persecuting guitar tutors, because they can and because they do not want property to become generic. If many little guys copy the song, big  guys might be able to justify their infringement of the copyright by saying everyone did it and the owners did not care.

TheOtherDennis

^This. It's why guitar teacher organisations often have their own music for teachers to teach, or they use really, really old stuff that's out of copyright (because the people who wrote it have been dead for more than 75 years), because it's so much easier to avoid the issue than fight it. Which is why so many tutor books have tunes like Shenandoah or Bach or things like that.

I appreciate it may not seem fair, but the publishers often see it as all or nothing and it's much easier for them to stomp on teachers' heads than try to fight the octopus of the guys who really are trying to rook them out of money at every turn.