On Episode 233 of “Now Hear This Entertainment,” singer/songwriter Megan Davies (who has over a million subscribers on YouTube) said, "YouTube really doesn't pay a ton for musicians, I hate to break that to anyone." Patent /trademark/copyright attorney Chris Tanner took note and provides the following guest blog to help out performers with insights on YouTube content and the potential to monetize after all.
SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE
1) Does anyone remember when YouTube was a clear violator of US copyright laws? The answer is probably yes, but then, does anyone remember how YouTube worked that out? Basically, YouTube “won”.
2) You musicians (and even podcasters) out there, make sure you understand the value of YouTube. The various monetization aspects of YouTube are often misunderstood.
3) Make sure you also understand that YouTube has superior enforcement mechanisms (e.g. their Content ID system) that are in some ways superior to the US copyright laws.
4) For those of you interested in monetizing your content, please at least be aware of the business models of Jeff Price, Audiam.com, and previously, tunecore.com.
5) If you want to know more about copyrights in general, you can check out the copyright section of my law firm website.
We have gotten to the point that the US Government and federal courts are unable to properly police our copyright system. Further, certain aspects of our copyright laws are antiquated, some going back to the 1860s, and do not properly address changes in technology and technology culture. In short, our copyright laws were made for a different time.
This is important for musicians, people in the music-related industries, and the readers of this blog.
Still, because there is so much money and commerce involved, what we are seeing is private companies stepping in to fill the void normally occupied by the government and the federal courts. An example of such a private entity is Jeff Price, and his various companies Audiam.com and previously, tunecore.com. There are many other examples, including YouTube.
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
To best explain this issue, let’s look backwards into how YouTube came into existence, and how a large private company (Google) more or less forced a very large change in copyright enforcement.
Long ago, before YouTube was acquired by Google, it was predicted that YouTube could not remain a viable business entity. A key principle that made (early) YouTube attractive to users was its skirting of copyright laws. People could and did post copyrighted content on YouTube, and often suffered no penalty.
An early example of this was illustrated when Viacom sued Google over alleged copyright violations. This lawsuit was filed in 2007, but not settled until 2014. At one point Viacom had been seeking $1 billion in damages from Google. However, in the end, Viacom got nothing.
In 2007, the copyright lawsuit looked like it would have major implications for the way the Web worked. As a patent/copyright/trademark attorney, I remember at the time thinking this myself! “OK, that’s the end of that fun,” etc. But by 2014 the core issues had been settled, partly by YouTube’s skillful innovation of a “Content ID” tag.
YouTube’s “Content ID” system now gives content owners the ability to demand “takedowns” of their stuff — or the option to run ads against it (big difference). That is, when a content owner discovers a violation, they can reach the party who posted the material, ask them to run an ad, and both parties can benefit. No “takedown” occurs and the situation does not need to be adversarial.
In fact, many providers of, for example, background music, beat tracks, or other support material, now hope that someone on YouTube is using their material and violating their copyright. With an easy negotiation semi-brokered by Google, each copyright violation can (eventually) mean more money in the pocket! Without using the federal courts. Without using an attorney (which I love)!
In this sense, Google is acting as a de-facto court system, but hugely more efficient and more marketplace-centric. Amazon is also doing something like this for trademarks, doing important work that the federal courts simply cannot get to. This will be the subject of a separate article, too difficult to briefly explain here.
PERSONAL OPINION/EDITORIAL
It is my position, as a patent/trademark/copyright attorney, that the present solution is better for users, viewers, content providers, and even large media companies. Although there are still abuses, leaving the federal courts to resolve this alone, by themselves would not have worked. Further, while YouTube’s beginnings may have been built on copyright violations, YouTube is now the #1 music destination site on the planet for music discovery and search. Further, YouTube also enables and facilitates the end-customer not just listening to music, but also “using” that music in various contexts that in some ways benefit the original artist.
There are things the federal government and courts are good at, and things it shouldn’t be doing, and can’t do.
TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS ARTICLE
1) Does anyone remember when YouTube was a clear violator of US copyright laws? The answer is probably yes, but then, does anyone remember how YouTube worked that out? Basically, YouTube “won”.
2) You musicians (and even podcasters) out there, make sure you understand the value of YouTube. The various monetization aspects of YouTube are often misunderstood.
3) Regarding YouTube, make sure you also understand that YouTube has superior enforcement mechanisms (e.g. their Content ID system) that are in some ways superior to the US copyright laws.
4) For those of you interested in monetizing your content, please at least be aware of the business models of Jeff Price, Audiam.com, and previously, tunecore.com.
5) If you want to know more about copyrights in general, you can check out the copyright section of my law firm website.
Chris Tanner is a patent attorney but also an artist, musician, and inventor. Chris holds several copyrights himself as a composer, is a former Patent Examiner, holds seven patents himself as an inventor, and has been practicing in patent, trademark, and copyright law for 21 years. More information can be found at either TannerPatent.com or SaveMoneyOnPatents.com.
How have potential copyright issues affected your approach to uploading videos to YouTube? What questions do you have for Chris Tanner? Talk about this blog in our Facebook group.