YouTube Kills Fair Use, Mutes Audio

I disagree that YouTube is "killing" fair use.

Does background music mixed into a video constitute "fair use" or copyright infringement?

Use of copyrighted music to create your own music video with is NOT fair use -- even if you don't do it for profit.

Re-mixes that use copyright material without permission are violating copyright if they are not used in accordance with the license or fair use.

The answer?

Video producers need to educate themselves. Not sure if the music in the background of a video will violate copyright? Research the answer.

Use Creative Commons music http://creativecommons.org/ and make sure to provide the appropriate attributions.

Get permission if you want to use copyrighted works and make sure you know how to state why you think you have a right to use those works.

Just saying you know it's copyright but are using it anyway is not good enough.

If an artist is cluey, they'll ensure that their record label allows fans to make their own music videos - I agree with you there.

But these cluey artists need to license their works accordingly so that people aren't confused about what they can and cannot do with them.

These are issues that educators are wrangling with because in the near future, it's hoped that every learner will have a digital portfolio of work that will last a lifetime.

What happened to innocent AMVs and lip syncing videos?

People ( like KerryJ ) are being way too serious about it.

For example, my 4 year-old brother was on the official Hotwheels site watching videos entered in by toddlers for a contest to have their name put on a Hotwheels car. Of course, they'd put music on their videos.
The winner made a music video of their Hotwheel cars. You could tell this kid was around 6 years-old and had his parents or older siblings help out with the video.

Obviously, he didn't have rights to the music he used in his video.
But it was a contest to have your name put on a Hotwheels car.

Saying people are unfairly stealing music like filthy, immoral criminals is outrageous.

How does one go about doing that, KerryJ?

I agree with "undead".

I have a friend who was lip syncing to the song "Kiss Me" by Sixpence None The Richer. The video portion was completely hers, but the audio was the song "Kiss Me". The video was up there for years and became very popular. One day she logged into youtube and had a email saying the video infringed on copyrights and had been immediately removed. She was really hurt.

Creative Commons is providing a viable alternative AND giving up and coming artists a chance to get exposure.

By using Creative Commons and promoting artists who get it, video creators can send a clear message to artists: if you lock up your work and don't consider the fact that people are now active participants in art rather than passive consumers -- you'll be left behind.

We've GOT to take this seriously because there are a lot of freedoms at stake.

Politicians take silence as consent. Artists need to feel a pinch if they try to lock things up too tightly. And the recording industry needs to rethink their business model.

Ignoring the people who are trying to make changes through legal channels (Creative Commons) is about as fruitful as ignoring the law because it doesn't suit you personally.

If you don't like the current law, work to change it.

I have a feeling that it's only going to get worse before it gets any better. KerryJ is right that the recording industry needs to rethink its business model. I'd argue that the same goes for the film industry. But for now we have no choice but to educate ourselves the best we can, and to make sure we know what our rights are. Michael C. Donaldson, the author of Clearance and Copyright: Everything You Need to know for Film and Television, has some excellent articles regarding fair use and copyright issues on his website. They're worth taking the time to read and a good start at gaining an understanding of what's involved and at stake here.

I don't understand these rules. Isn't the point of these songs to be heard so that people will BUY it? In this day and age there are less and less people listening to the radio and more and more people here their music on the internet one way or another. I would think they would want the free advertising. But who cares. I guess they figure if you watch youtube you are nothing but a crook that downloads music anyway. There is no doubt that this will give rise to other video sharing sites.

The problem is, many people were using youtube to upload songs and just slapped a video on it. It's pirating. Using an entire song on a video has never been fair use. Fair use would be like using 10 seconds of an song on a clip.

"people don't go to YouTube to listen to music for free". This isn't really a fact, a lot of people go to YouTube to listen music for free. Maybe more than 50 percent! Have you ever checked out all the music playlists? And what about the most viewed videos how many videos are music clips? Please do a bit of research..

This is ridiculous. I uploaded a video not too long ago, with the song "Just Dance" by Lady GaGa, and that message came up. My video was muted, and I was forced to use "Audio Swap," unfortunately. It's just very upsetting knowing that YouTube once permitted users to upload videos with their own music. What I still don't get though, is the fact that some users have videos with their own music :s

The problem with this is youtube has gotten so aggressive that even the actual copyright holders are getting slammed.

For example, the Disturbed rock band use to have many of their music videos on their youtube channel. Their official web page doesn't even acknowledge the youtube channel anymore. The few links that go back to the youTube video they use to have there say "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WMG."

So the band that wrote the song, that sung the song, that filmed the video has THEIR songs removed by the *distributor* of the songs?!?

Youtube is managed by morons.

I think blame being placed on Youtube is misplaced. They are just protecting themselves from being sued. If you want to blame anyone, blame the record companies, distributors and the artists.

Also, many people do in fact go to YouTube to watch/ listen to music. I do. If I have heard good things about a band I am not familiar with, I will try to check them out on YouTube. If I like what I hear, I am more apt to go and buy the album. It is much better than the 20 second clip you get on Amazon...

I have a question: if you edit the song, is it still considered as a copyright violation? The material you used wasn't yours but you changed it to BE yours. So, will youtube still mute the audio of this? Cuz I've seen a bunch of videos with songs I know but have been edited.

And I agree, that it isn't Youtube's fault. It's the damn overlords of the distributors, recording companies, and artists' fault. Don't they want the free publicity? It's free advertising. Cuz I've seen a lot of videos I don't recognize and I like the song, so I buy them online. Isn't that good for them?

I agree with JF.
We shouldn't be pissed at youtube, it's not their fault.
It's the record companies faults.
Like WMG for example. Warner is getting ridiculous when it comes to copyright claim. So many videos are getting their audio deleted because WMG owns it.
Even innocent little AMVs.
It's getting out of hand.
I recently uploaded a video that I worked very hard on.
But the audio was disabled due to copyright claim.
and the video was nothing without the music, so I had to delete it.
All that hard work for nothing.

Just recently, I tried to upload the best video I've made in my life, a tribute to Fight Club using a song from the soundtrack. Seconds after uploading, it was removed due to copyright infringement. And the video is nothing without the song.
Guess who owned the rights?
Yep, that's right, WMG.
What the FUCK?
This is the third time that's happened. If someone wanted that song bad enough, they could find it better somewhere else, somewhere with better quality sound than a YouTube video. I don't see why companies pull audio like that. It's free exposure for the band, really, and I always site the band. It pisses me off because it's so purposeless. All we're doing is melding someone else's art with our own. Isn't that the purpose of art? Of music? To inspire people, and to inspire new creation?
Not according to WMG.
We need to do something about this, I just don't know what to do. Petition? Protest? Letter writing campaign?

This is completely stupid. I made a graduation picture slideshow with a couple songs, and both were muted.

If you deliberately add someone else's music to your video I don't think you can claim that you should be allowed to republish that on the internet.

What really bites however is that WMG is blocking audio where the music was playing IN A PUBLIC PLACE and the person recording had no way to block it, or substitute it, ... the music playing was entirely incidental but WMG still wades in and blocks the ENTIRE audio track ... no ambient noise, no commentary, no crowd cheering, ... all gone! If they have the technology to detect their music they ought to be able to also remove 'their' music AND leave the rest of the audio alone!

I think that YouTube has gone too far, and my friend who had a YouTube account got suspended for uploading copyrighted videos. I think YouTube ignored 'fair-use'. Screw the Digital Milliennium Copyright Act, and freedom of speach rules. I wished they go back to their old ways.

It's really frustrating. I had two videos on youtube which had short splices of songs at the start and end which had nothing to do with the videos. WMG filed a complaint blocking my whole audio track effectively destroying the videos. All the talking, sound effects etc. that weren't copyrighted were blocked and I no longer have the original copy of the videos so I cant change the soundtrack. I don't know what is with WMG but they're really anal about the whole copyright issue. I think people need to boycott their music or something to send them a message.