"Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

mikeymike2000 · Post by **mikeymike2000** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:06 pm

OK so recently with the help of two other Taxi Members (and forum members) we put out a Christmas CD.

It went to CD Baby, iTunes, Amazon and prob a few other places. Then someone suggested we put one song on youtube with the album cover art. So, I did (but animated the cover art so it is somewhat interesting to watch).

Anyway, after I uploaded it I got an alert from Youtube that "3rd party content" has been identified. From there I was alerted that "CD Baby" held the rights. Hmmm, no, they don't. I have disputed this claim stating I was the original copyright holder and that CD Baby has no claim on any content I had posted.

They also said that the video may have advertising placed on it. So I told them NO, I don't want ads on my video. I am aware that ads on video generate a hey penny per click but in this case it would then go to CD Baby. This is a principal over the desire to collect the actual hey penny.

I don't see how any digital distributor should have any rights to monetize something I PAID THEM to put out in the first place. Imagine how many millions of dollars this will add up to over a year with all the hundreds of thousands of indie artists self publishing.

If you know more about this than I please chime in. Shall I start a petition to end this madness before it gets out of hand?

Nice to know it works and if I end up getting something from the ads that is all great but my issue here is a digital audio distributor claiming work they don't own and forcing me to (a) put ads on videos and (b) them collecting money for it being done. - It is not their choice!

michael11 · Post by **michael11** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:46 pm

Interesting post Mike,I don’t know more about it than you,but I do find it very annoying.
Out of five video’s, AdShare have released their claim on three,the other two I will remove,not because they breach any copyright but because I resent them any making money of the back off my efforts.

I have written to Google who now own youtube making them aware of the situation but I doubt it will get much higher than the boy/girl who opens the post.

If you start a petition I will sign it.

I think this situation will get a lot worse,maybe to the point where muso’s just won’t bother.

Mick

mikeymike2000 · Post by **mikeymike2000** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:18 pm

Hey Mick,

Yeah, I am not sure if I understand it correctly or not so I am posting it up here. From what I do know if we register with Sound Exchange this is like the new "digital PRO" for lack of better term but I am wondering if this revenue finds it way back to the artists or if the new "big man of music" gets to keep it all for doing nothing, all while annoying the end user.

It will be interesting to see others chime in here.

cardell · Post by **cardell** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:20 pm

mikeymike2000 wrote:Anyway, after I uploaded it I got an alert from Youtube that "3rd party content" has been identified. From there I was alerted that "CD Baby" held the rights.

...welcome to the [insane] business world.

Stuart

coachdebra · Post by **coachdebra** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:41 pm

I suggest getting on the phone with CDBaby - it's very likely that they are acting as the right's holder in order to collect your digital download fees and it's a glitch in the ID system. Unless you are a Google Apps client or bigwig youtube $$ earner, you're more likely to get action from CDBaby than from youtube/Google.

michael11 · Post by **michael11** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:42 pm

cardell wrote:
mikeymike2000 wrote:Anyway, after I uploaded it I got an alert from Youtube that "3rd party content" has been identified. From there I was alerted that "CD Baby" held the rights.
...welcome to the [insane] business world.

Stuart

I don;t think it’s (good) business Stuart,I am guessing AD Share have some music fingerprint technology which scans youtube and the second it finds some sort of match it slaps a third party content notice on it.
If you have your music in a library that uses these people then automatically you are accused of stealing your own material.

I don’t think they have the capacity or the wherewithal to do the job properly so they use a scattergun approach and then hope people don’t challenge them,the language they use is designed to antagonize.

Just to be on the safe side I have transferred all my property goods and chattels to my family in case they decide to sue me.

Best of luck to em!

Mick.

mikeymike2000 · Post by **mikeymike2000** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm

Just got a message from Youtube:

CD Baby has reviewed my claim and dismissed their claim to all rights.

So, this seems to work, and I like the idea of it. It is an extra step that I suppose may be necessary for our 'protection'.

It also seems that I was wrong in my assumption that CD Baby was attempting to make a few pennies for doing nothing. Refreshing but I still think there will be bumps in the road as we figure all this out. But now I still have the question of:

What if someone else put one of these songs on their video? Personally I don't care, especially if they are kind enough to provide a link. But, if that was the case, would CD Baby slap an ad on the video and quietly collect? OR would they send the money to the artist, as it should be? Or is that Sound Exchanges job?

Maybe CD Baby is simply making their data base available for use to 'content ID'?

(Assume it is OK to name names here cause these are not libraries, they are services)

VTrails · Post by **VTrails** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:13 pm

Two possibilities:

1. Did you, or whoever uploaded to CD Baby, opt in to Sync licensing fo this release? If so, content ID and monetizing via YouTube is part of this (see this link for more info).

2. It was some sort of glitch.

I opted in to CD Baby sync licensing for a while, until I did some further research and decided that the Content ID was too problematic, and I think I remember that the rightsholder was identified as CD Baby's partner for the sync licensing service, so maybe 2. is more likely in your case. The main thing is that CD Baby sorted it out, which is consistent with my experience - it might take a while, but in the end they've sorted out a couple of issues I had with an album I have on their service.

mikeymike2000 · Post by **mikeymike2000** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:39 pm

VTrails wrote: 1. Did you, or whoever uploaded to CD Baby, opt in to Sync licensing fo this release? If so, content ID and monetizing via YouTube is part of this (see this link for more info).

Ahh, yes this is what it is. They make it sound so exciting that I clicked the box. It is good though in that if someone else uses the music for their videos this alert will come up. I am still unclear though if the ad monies go to the artist or if CD Baby just pockets it for doing nothing.

either way in this case it is all worked out now.

VTrails · Post by **VTrails** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:46 am

Tha artist gets the money (after the licensing partner and CD Baby take their cut), but unless you're getting millions of views, it ain't much. I literally made 1c in the month or so it was in place for me.

"Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

"Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Re: "Content ID" seems to be growing but is that really good?

Who is online