Are mounting copyright infringement strikes going to render commercial sample content useless?

[Roger Newton]

I know they are great when you need to manufacture some poop in a hurry, but…yawn. I’m not anti-loop as a value, I just don’t enjoy working with the pre-made ones.

Strangely, not many do. And also, a lot of people don't know how to; which is even weirder but true. So what you tend to get is someone plonking down and holding a chord and that's it, in a lot of instances; which again, segueways back to the OP.

 

[jonnybutter]

Strangely, not many do. And also, a lot of people don't know how to; which is even weirder but true. So what you tend to get is someone plonking down and holding a chord and that's it, in a lot of instances; which again, segueways back to the OP.

I know that you can do a lot with a pre-made loop if you dig into it and use your imagination, chop it up, mangle it, etc. I just don’t like being stuck with a super loud/compressed piece of audio to start with. I sometimes use them as a sort of groove-guide and then delete them once the track gets built up. But yes, some ppl just hold down their finger and Voila, drums. Your ear gets bored in about 10 seconds

 

[Lee Blaske]

Well people are not allowed to upload files that use publicly available samples to content id (yes, you read that right, recordings that use *any* sample from *any* sample library, not just loops, are prohibited from content id protection), so this shouldn’t be happening.

People should be getting sued for lying when they check the box saying that their work doesn’t contain any publicly available samples or loops if in reality it does.

That's an underlying point of my OP. If we're buying library content for the purposes of creating music that we hope to monetize, it makes buying that content for that purpose useless. If we're just hobbyists having fun, everything is fine.

 

[Lee Blaske]

I've read a long time ago an interesting advise to put all information about used samples and licenses into the video description. The bots should check them and when they read which sample library was used and that the samples are royalty free they shouldn't block the video.

That would be really complicated without some sort of ID/code/watermark. But beyond that, why would the "bots" assume that the person posting that info is being honest?

 

[Lee Blaske]

I know that you can do a lot with a pre-made loop if you dig into it and use your imagination, chop it up, mangle it, etc.

Lots of people aren't particularly out there making great art for the ages. They're earning money making bread-and-butter underscore music, cranking out a LOT of it to generate some income. And in an awful lot of cases, the music is under a pile of other audio, so nobody is focusing on the music creator's imagination, or lack thereof. That's the reality.

 

[Sophus]

That would be really complicated without some sort of ID/code/watermark. But beyond that, why would the "bots" assume that the person posting that info is being honest?

No, just copy the relevant parts of the EULA of the libraries you used into the description.

I assume that 99.9% of all support staff members at YouTube are bots. So I think it is better to give them possible important license information before a copyright claim happens.

 

[NekujaK]

That's an underlying point of my OP. If we're buying library content for the purposes of creating music that we hope to monetize, it makes buying that content for that purpose useless. If we're just hobbyists having fun, everything is fine.

The restriction against using loops is only for Content ID registration. You can choose not to register your works with Content ID, and you can still upload your music to YouTube and monetize it - even if you use loops.

Besides, YouTube is only one small method of monetizing music, and I'm not even sure it's all that lucrative. There are many ways to earn meaningful money from writing music: libraries, video games, music supervisors, film, TV, Crucial Music, Bandcamp, CD Baby, etc. None of these have restrictions against using loops.

 

[Lee Blaske]

None of these have restrictions against using loops.

Yet. And it's not a restriction against using loops as far as YouTube is concerned. It's just that the watchful AI can't tell the difference between what you just made, yourself, and what's legally purchased content from a library.

 

[Lee Blaske]

No, just copy the relevant parts of the EULA of the libraries you used into the description.

I assume that 99.9% of all support staff members at YouTube are bots. So I think it is better to give them possible important license information before a copyright claim happens.

There's no actual interest from YouTube when it comes to protecting music producers. It's all about YouTube protecting itself. Easy to have a computer spitting out warnings. It would be a MASSIVE project to have a bot read things written into a comment section, interpret that, connect it with all the purchased content out there, and identify the loops in your piece, etc., etc. My mind is almost exploding with how huge of a task that would be.

 

[NekujaK]

Yet. And it's not a restriction against using loops as far as YouTube is concerned. It's just that the watchful AI can't tell the difference between what you just made, yourself, and what's legally purchased content from a library.

If music libraries suddenly put a ban on using loops, they'd have to purge 98% of their music collections!

We all agree, YouTube's detection AI is severely flawed on many levels, as has been repeatedly discussed in several earlier posts. So if YouTube's copyright patrolling policies don't work for you, simply ignore YouTube and use other methods to monetize your music. The choice is yours.

 

[Lee Blaske]

Maybe YouTube has to become a part of the library licensing industry, itself. If it was earning income from all the music licensing, there would be more of an incentive to provide actual service to content creators.

 

[Lee Blaske]

So if YouTube's copyright patrolling policies don't work for you, simply ignore YouTube and use other methods to monetize your music. The choice is yours.

Except choosing "where it's going" isn't available to the person creating music for music libraries. The end user is the one deciding where it will go. The person uploading tracks to a place like Pond5 can't tell Pond5 that "this music is NOT to be used on YouTube."

 

[NekujaK]

Except choosing "where it's going" isn't available to the person creating music for music libraries. The end user is the one deciding where it will go. The person uploading tracks to a place like Pond5 can't tell Pond5 that "this music is NOT to be used on YouTube."

Fair point, and I'm really curious to know if that situation has ever come up. But regardless, the worst that could happen is the YouTube AI issues a copyright claim and demonetizes the video, which can easily be disputed and reversed.

As a composer, the best defense is to avoid using loops exposed, or modify them sonically (pitch shifting, time-stretching, distortion, etc...). But let's keep things in perspective, what you're talking about here is library music. It's media production music, not some inspired form of artful creative inner expression. Library music is a dime-a-dozen business these days, and there's no sense wringing our hands over it. Yes of course, we want our library music to be free of any copyright complications, but in today's digital world, we all know that it's practically inevitable we'll eventually get flagged for one reason or another, however justifiable or not. So, we let that one go, and just write another one...

 

[T-LeffoH]

Hasn't happened to me yet, but infringement strikes have been ramping up for people around me. Might only be a matter of time. Might actually be time to hit the panic button on this one, as AI continues to develop and music continues to get greater and greater scrutiny. How many arenas will receive attention?

How much sample library/loop content is capable of generating a strike? How much energy will need to be expended to contest an infringement strike?

I would imagine that the bigger loop producing sample developers are most at risk (e.g. Heavyocity), but I imagine a lot of things could eventually be at risk (e.g. evolving textures that have some melodic content). I do see people out there encouraging people to "make it your own," but I wonder if that might be a moving target. Will the AI develop to detect changes?
Essentially, you can be buying libraries and content with EULA agreements allowing you to freely use them, but if someone beats you to it as far as incorporating something into a composition, that could be flagged as a violation (even though they don't "own" it).
I am already seeing some clients specify "No loop material - one-shots only." That's probably the safest route.
Worst case, I could see present trends impacting vast libraries of music people have already created using a certain amount of loop content that could generate infringement strikes. More important clients are NOT going to want to deal with that, and that could lead to liability issues for music creators. Not a big deal if the infringement involves a piece you personally put out, but it would be a big deal if it's part of a movie, important ad campaign, etc.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming years. We might be in for a rough ride. And, for anyone hoping to create music that has a long shelf-life, it might be a good idea not to touch any looped content, or longer textural content with a ten foot pole.

The underlying issue you reference is not being qualitatively or quantitatively resolved in an appropriate manner due to the disparate nature of the industries involved.

The fact that the B2B music industry licenses stems of its music is confounded by a YouTube service created to try to resolve a problem, which YouTube caused, in more of a B2C market. Not to mention, as of 2018, YouTube couldn't even run that same service against potential infringement occurring in their advertisements.

Due to experience building navigation data products in the manufacturing industry, I have interviewed for product positions with a few different publishing companies, even recently. One hiring manager conceded that they had not yet established what were the quality targets of their data...and this was a very reputable, decades-old company.

So the rough ride you mention has a lot to do with the fundamental flaw I reference - there is a lack of quality control across the board. I'll be happy if I get a chance to help fix it, but a lot of what you mention is a result of that gap in quality control.

 

[Sophus]

It would be a MASSIVE project to have a bot read things written into a comment section, interpret that, connect it with all the purchased content out there, and identify the loops in your piece, etc., etc. My mind is almost exploding with how huge of a task that would be.

Yes, and I think YouTube is doing even more. It automatically creates subtitles for videos and I believe it scans them for a blacklist of words you shouldn't say.

I think the big problem is, that you can copyright claim content without penalties if you do it wrongfully and with bad intent.

But YouTube's customers are the advertisers and not the content creators or users. So of course YouTube will act in favour of its customers.

 

[Pier]

Not sure if this has been posted before on this thread but... Benn Jordan shared this a couple of days ago.

It's a company called Nessmusic claiming copyright infringement on a Youtube video of a Zero-G sample library from like 15 years ago (I owned that library btw).




So now you can't even use sample libraries on Youtube or your video will stop getting monetized.

 

[Nico5]

So what you tend to get is someone plonking down and holding a chord and that's it

... plonking down and holding a chord clearly is for amateurs!

"creating a professional sound" requires "drag and drop" skills and US$67:

 

[NekujaK]

BTW, if YouTube monetization is important to you, I would recommend doing test uploads of your music to YouTube before you deliver it to clients or unleash it on the world (mark the video as Unlisted or Private so no upload notifications are sent to subscribers). As part of the upload process, YouTube's ContentID checker will immediately scan the video and let you know if there are any issues. You can then delete the video if you want.

Of course, this doesn't ensure against possible future claims or copyright actions by humans, but at least you can be somewhat assured that at the time of publication/delivery, your music was clear.

 

[PrimeEagle]

That would be really complicated without some sort of ID/code/watermark. But beyond that, why would the "bots" assume that the person posting that info is being honest?

I would guess, the same way they know any submitted Content ID is honest, even for non-commercial loops. I don't know what method they use, though.

 

[jonnybutter]

Lots of people aren't particularly out there making great art for the ages. They're earning money making bread-and-butter underscore music, cranking out a LOT of it to generate some income. And in an awful lot of cases, the music is under a pile of other audio, so nobody is focusing on the music creator's imagination, or lack thereof. That's the reality.

Yes I know because I have done it. Brutal