Eagles & YouTube etc

[VAisForEagleLovers]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

[TimothyBFan]

I'm trying to remember if I actually read it, or imagined that, the Eagles filmed every show that they did. If they did, then the vanity issue wouldn't apply as a reason for them to not want the audience to film them. I know Barry Manilow films all his shows, and he's now made the archive public, though you have to subscribe. http://www.manilowarchives.com/
(Not sure if you get to see the whole show, or just some of it.)
The possible drawback to the Eagles doing this sort of thing is that I think they have a more limited number of songs to choose from than Barry.

I'd so be all over this if the Eagles did this!! And the subscription would be so worth whatever they charged and the Eagles would make some money from the subscriptions. Win/win!!!!

[TimothyBFan]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

From my experience (and I'm in no way a Styx expert) but I'd be willing to bet Styx wouldn't care one way or the other. Like I've said before, they play up to anyone in the audience that has a camera and at the concert I went to in June, after hamming it up for one camera during a song, Tommy yelled, "put that sh*t on YouTube!!".

[sodascouts]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

No, the uploader doesn't get revenue unless they're a partner. If ads are popping up, it's because Styx has allowed YouTube to put ads up on their behalf on illegally uploaded videos of their songs instead of ordering YouTube to take it down. It's a choice a lot of artists are making.

You can find more info here:

http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2011/1...t-compensation

Here is the relevant excerpt from that article:

"When a song — whether part of a static slideshow or the background music for a home movie — is matched in YouTube database, the site provides the copyright holder three options:

1. Take it down. As the copyright holder, you can outright block the use of the song in a particular video. YouTube will notify the user, inform them of the infringement associated with the use of the song and tell that user the stop the use of the song.

2. Track it. Say you don’t want YouTube to send a takedown notice to the user who is soundtracking their movie with your song, as [you] see marketing potential as a result of the video getting some traffic. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0"]some traffic[/ame] You can choose to simply track the “success” of that video by being notified periodically of the video statistics on views, demographics, referrals and engagement.

3. Get paid. As the exclusive copyright holder, you can choose to monetize the use of your song on YouTube. Once you have chosen this option and your song is matched, YouTube will track the use of that video with ads and share that revenue with you, the artist or rightsholder."

[Topkat]

I'd so be all over this if the Eagles did this!! And the subscription would be so worth whatever they charged and the Eagles would make some money from the subscriptions. Win/win!!!!

I would be too. I mean I love to go to the shows, but let's face it, if they are playing in Japan or Australia, I know I won't be going to that. I would love to see the shows they do especially the overseas shows! Even the US shows, it's unlikely I would be able to attend more than one or two.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

From my experience (and I'm in no way a Styx expert) but I'd be willing to bet Styx wouldn't care one way or the other. Like I've said before, they play up to anyone in the audience that has a camera and at the concert I went to in June, after hamming it up for one camera during a song, Tommy yelled, "put that sh*t on YouTube!!".

I've seen interviews where they say they are completely honored to have Renegade played in the stadium when the defense needs a pick-me-up. I can't even imagine one of their concerts in Pittsburgh when that song is played! They were showed a YouTube video during the interview and were very supportive. However, guaranteed the NFL isn't as 'sharing'. Those out there who think Don goes a little crazy over this issue would think the NFL completely insane. Anyway, my point is, just because Styx doesn't care doesn't mean YouTube should allow a revenue-generating ad to be placed on the video, unless it's in writing from Styx. And the NFL.

[sodascouts]

Anyway, my point is, just because Styx doesn't care doesn't mean YouTube should allow a revenue-generating ad to be placed on the video, unless it's in writing from Styx. And the NFL.

Which it very well might be. See my above post.

ETA: YouTube is secretive about how they place ads, though. On their site, they imply they do so only at the copyright holder's behest, but they never actually say that... and if that's the case, why do we have ads on videos like this?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I wonder how it works when the music is owned by one entity and the content is owned by another? I thought the NFL required the words 'used by permission of the NFL' or something like that on all clips of their footage. Like with concerts, the NFL owns the copyrights to video taken by fans in the stands. They are an organization that sues people for allowing too many people to view one broadcast over public TV, so they don't play nicely. Maybe they just pick and choose what they go after and what they let go and rake in the ad revenue.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

3. Get paid. As the exclusive copyright holder, you can choose to monetize the use of your song on YouTube. Once you have chosen this option and your song is matched, YouTube will track the use of that video with ads and share that revenue with you, the artist or rightsholder."[/INDENT]

The HC video that was referenced in the 9/02 concert thread has no ads on it at all. Not on the page anywhere, or on or in the video. I assume that if the Eagles opt for #3 (not that they would) that would get an ad placed on it? Otherwise, it's just out there for free?

[sodascouts]

It's very confusing. I did some more research and they are not very up-front about how this is handled. Here's what I edited to add on my previous post:

YouTube is secretive about how they place ads, though. On their site, they imply they do so only at the copyright holder's behest, but they never actually say that... and if that's the case, why do we have ads on videos like this?

It also appears that until it becomes popular enough to garner YouTube's interest or catches the eye of the copyright holder, then yes, it is "out there for free." That way, users will continue to upload their videos, and when/if they build an audience, YouTube (or rather, its parent company Google) can cash in.