Eagles & YouTube etc

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Who actually owns the copyright on HC? Do we know?

[Topkat]

Yes, it's all VERY confusing because that HC video came up first with an ad, then the 2nd time without an ad. The person that loaded it doesn't have any copyrights to it....so WTH??? It also has over 5 million hits How does that not get noticed?

Now I'm more confused than ever!

[sodascouts]

The way YouTube makes its money bears closer investigation. I'll do more research tonight. One can't make strong arguments unless one is accurately informed.

[sodascouts]

OK, here is what I found out.

YouTube does NOT automatically place ads on uploaded content. However, if an video or channel receives a great deal of traffic and views, YouTube will approach the user about becoming a partner (the user can also apply to become a partner at any time).

A partner has ads placed on his channel and videos, and shares in the revenue generated by those ads. They receive a portion and YouTube/Google receives a portion. However, in order to become a partner, the user must not violate YouTube guidelines which include the uploading of copyrighted material. (I got this information from YouTube's partner page.)

Indeed, YouTube promises advertisers that its content partners undergo a "thorough vetting."

Therefore, theoretically, no one is able to profit from material he or she does not own the rights to.

If the user has ads on his/her video and is NOT a partner, then it is because the material the user uploaded is copyrighted to an artist or entity that has entered into a partnership with YouTube and has exercised the option detailed in an above post to make money off of videos that have been uploaded by users without the copyright holder's consent.

The only catch is this: is YouTube really as diligent as they claim in "vetting" partners and ensuring that no one is illegitimately making money off of videos they don't own the copyright to? Seeing this makes me wonder.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Good detective work, Soda. But it is why I was wondering who owns the copyright to HC. Copyrights are held by the songwriters?

[sodascouts]

Who actually owns the copyright on HC? Do we know?

This is what it says on the liner notes of The Very Best of the Eagles regarding the song "Hotel California":

© 1976 Cass County Music/Red Cloud Music (BMI)/Fingers Music (ASCAP)

Those entities represent Henley, Frey, and Felder, respectively.

However, I believe Warner Brothers (their record company) owns the copyright to the original recording. That's what it says on the Hotel California liner notes, at least:

©1976 Elektra / Asylum / Nonesuch Records, 962 North La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90069. A Division of Warner Communications Inc.

I remember Don Henley made some statements about the related issue of termination rights here, which is a bit tangential for this topic but worth reading if you are interested in such things.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Thanks for the refresher, I had read it before. So, if my thinking is correct (I'll be the first to admit the glass of red I just drank has about knocked me out) WB owns the original recordings, so anything out there using the music off a CD/mp3/album belongs to WB and they can give permission or have an ad placed on it? Copies of live recordings would belong to CC/RC/FM? What happens if one of the three gives permission and puts ads on it? Seems like all three would have to be in agreement to do anything, right?

If my thinking is correct, it explains how ads got put on some and yet others get yanked.

[Topkat]

Wow, I'm impressed with your detective work Soda. I guess that explains why HC never seems to be pulled off YouTube & some other songs are yanked right away. I would guess then that if WB owns the rights to HC, they must have paid for them at some point???? And I'm sure paid BIG, so they have the right to collect on advertising on YouTube & let it out there.

But when you mention Live recordings, does that include the video off say HFO? because that is still up with almost 5 million views. That is the video I posted over in the Sept 2, concert thread.
That must be owned by WB as well, or I think it would have been taken down by now. It's up a long time.

[sodascouts]

There does not have to be consensus for something to get yanked - just one complaint from any involved party will do it. Heck, Joe Walsh's lawyers got YouTube to yank down a Stevie Nicks fanvid just because it had photos of him in it! (A complete abuse of the power to yank, btw.)

Now, monetization is another matter altogether.

Warner Brothers can post ads and gain revenue from Henley's videos from Inside Job, as they do here, because they own the rights to those recordings and videos. However, they do not have the right to place their ads on other versions of the song.

A songwriter does. However, if he or she shares the copyright with someone else, he/she has to provide evidence that the other party/parties involved have granted permission for the ads to be placed.

[sodascouts]

Wow, I'm impressed with your detective work Soda. I guess that explains why HC never seems to be pulled off YouTube & some other songs are yanked right away. I would guess then that if WB owns the rights to HC, they must have paid for them at some point???? And I'm sure paid BIG, so they have the right to collect on advertising on YouTube & let it out there.

Back in the 70s, the Eagles signed a deal with their record company granting them the rights. The record company didn't buy the rights from the Eagles. They had them at the beginning. This is not only true for Hotel California, but for all of their albums except those released by the "Eagles Recording Company" like Long Road Out of Eden.

Also, it should be said that just because something isn't yanked off of YouTube doesn't mean it's been approved. In many cases, they just haven't been spotted.

But when you mention Live recordings, does that include the video off say HFO? because that is still up with almost 5 million views. That is the video I posted over in the Sept 2, concert thread.
That must be owned by WB as well, or I think it would have been taken down by now. It's up a long time.

The amount of time a video has been up doesn't mean anything. I had videos up for two years before they were eventually taken down for copyright violation. Sometimes it takes a while. Don't ask me why - I don't know.

A live recording may be put out by a different record company and not be owned by the same company who owned the original recording. HFO was put out by Geffen Records. However, I believe Geffen Records merged with/was purchased by WB, so HFO is indeed under WB's purview.

My friend Kendel once worked for a country artist, and one of her duties was to scour YouTube and report user-uploaded videos of his songs. Maybe the Eagles have somebody doing that, too!