Tx Alumo for investigative work. The most important thing to remember about submitting to AdRev or any other Content iD system, is it prevents you from using most other non exclusive libraries to license your work. They simply will not consider any tracks in these systems. Simply, if a customer gets a track from them and gets a copyright notice it looks very bad for them and takes up hours of their time to rectify.
Yes, it’s true that some libraries still won’t allow AdRev/ContentID tracked music to be submitted. As I’ve stressed numerous times over the past year on this subject, research libraries thoroughly before submitting, as to avoid any surprises later on. More often than not, these are smaller outfits that don’t have much of a support team at hand. As a result, they’re unfortunately continuing to resist moving forward with this new industry development, for fear of losing customers.
Personally out of the 20 or so libraries I license my music on, I don’t submit to any libraries that won’t allow fingerprinted works to be submitted, and have personally reached out to all my current library owners to explain the situation and explain the full process as to make the process dealing with any customers claims much easier.
I highly recommend that any non-exclusives who are considering getting their music tracked on AdRev or equivalent, consider first getting in touch with their libraries to make sure they’re ok with it.
Sorry I am a stickler for accuracy, if you can point me to anything regarding Youtube and Audiomicro developing content id and Youtube licensing it ?
@SkylineAudio: Not sure you’re still reading this thread Skyline, as you’re probably sleeping soundly, but finally I got to the bottom of it. I knew I wasn’t going crazy! Turns out ContentID was developed and licensed to YouTube by a company called AudibleMagic (not AudioMicro; it must have been the AM bit that threw me off course). It was announced here in 2007 and has been documented on this blog here. Sorry to bring this back up, but I’m a stickler for accuracy!
@ilovemedia-es: No worries Raquel, happy to have helped. Regarding the fingerprinting, that’s a very good question and something I’m struggling to find a definitive answer on. It may well be worth dropping a quick message to AdRev, asking them about it, but I’m almost certain they’d recommend uploading the music via the self-service CID section of the AdRev site, without any watermark attached. The digital fingerprint needs to be as clear as possible for maximum detection results across YouTube, so it only makes sense to use a non watermarked version as the ‘master’.
Regarding uploading cover versions, public domain and remixes, then this won’t be allowed, as you do not own the original rights to the material. AdRev’s statement on this is: “Unless you are a label owner and or have worldwide rights to the ORIGINAL master, you may not upload remixes of any kind”, which can be found via their FAQ section here.
If I had to spend 2 hours a week burning out these petty fires each week iId be quite annoyed by it all…
Then in that case I wouldn’t get involved. As I’ve mentioned numerous times before on this subject (also on other threads), there will be occasions of customers contacting us with concerns, and being prepared with all the right answers is paramount.
It’s all part and parcel of taking on the responsibility. If it’s not your bag, then it’s not your bag and a personal choice at the end of the day. To me it’s no different from the ThemeForest guys providing support for their items, and I certainly don’t view it as ‘burning out petty fires’, especially if it leads to repeat business.
Personally, I like having that peace of mind that my music is digitally protected and thoroughly enjoy helping and communicating with my buyers. I’ve been fortunate to have struck up some excellent business relationships through it too, especially once they realise it’s a painless process.
Taco is also spot on with the fact AdRev also work alongside some of the biggest names in the industry. I also strongly believe this is the way things are going in terms of protecting intellectual property online. I guess I want to be a part of that and just throwing the idea out there for others to consider and get involved with.
It is important for composers to realise and understand the implications for them of entering into any such monetizing programs.
Exactly. Something I’ve always stressed with this.
Alongside that, I just hope composers are also considering the implications of NOT having their music fingerprinted too (and not just for monetization purposes either). It’s something every composer will need to consider on a personal level before committing to such a program.
You say that “ContentID was developed and launched by AudioMicro Inc” how do you know this, Google/Youtube has been using this since 2007, Audiomicro was only formed in 2007. It certainly was not launched by Audiomicro as it already existed. As for contentid.com that was launched in 2013 by adrev and has nothing to do with Youtube apart from adminestering content id.http://pando.com/2013/08/15/adrev-launches-contentid-com-brings-music-rights-management-to-the-youtube-masses/ Audiomicro are the parent company of AdRev you are correct in that. Sorry I am a stickler for accuracy, if you can point me to anything regarding Youtube and Audiomicro developing content id and Youtube licensing it ?
And it’s your sticklerishness (if that’s even a word) that’s just got me trying to trace all my information and look deeper into this…and hands up, seems you are indeed correct.
My apologies to you or anyone that absorbed my inaccuracy on that bit on information. But it looks like I got my wires crossed along the way with AM now using the ContentID moniker to promote their product, which you correctly stated was launched last year. Believe it or not, I’m a stickler for accuracy myself, so I’m kicking myself right now for delivering misinformation. There’s so much going on in this area, it’s a pretty hefty task for one guy alone to keep abreast of it all, so thanks for bringing it up and standing me corrected.
Either way, this fact still doesn’t undermine the value of digital fingerprinting for us composers, and I have first hand knowledge that the folks at AdRev work very closely with YouTube with the maintenance of such.
So you can now sleep soundly Skyline, whilst I’m rummaging around and correcting all my virtual paperwork, whilst scratching my head!
Can anyone help me identify this piece of music/ jingle? Thanks https://soundcloud.com/boris-vera-marrero/audiojungle
Here you go
Scratch that…My question was answered… Just and FYI, I have spoken to a library owner who made the statement that they are generating $1000 a day of revenue on YOUTUBE. BUT…they clearly have thousands of tracks on thousands of YOUTUBE videos and the model is entirely based on giving away writer’s music for free to YOUTUBE videomakers (already unethical at best) so they can be the first one’s to profit from the ad REV scheme. Then supposedly they keep accounting and have a share of that revenue trickle down to writers. How can you possibly maintain records of that?
Hi Zineb, what you’re referring to here is a completely different model to what I’ve been speaking about. I’m referring to us composers directly uploading our music to AdRev to be fingerprinted, with the control firmly in our hands.
Unfortunately, some libraries are taking advantage of fingerprinting, and uploading the music on their composer’s behalf (sometimes without even telling them first) and reaping the ad revenue, which personally I don’t agree with at all. It can also cause major issues when customers attempt to clear claims, with some libraries and distributors re-applying the claims once they’ve been cleared. I strongly advise to research a library before submitting to them, to avoid this situation from happening.
Here is my concern Alumno. It is tempting to up-load my catalog, but below is a video where P&G paid $1200 to license this track. (Notice the fee paid Envato). If I were to ADrev/ Content ID out this music, P&G would get quite annoyed if they were to get a take down notice or copyright infringement notice from YOUTUBE after they just paid $1200 for this track. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6E5uiHbpU0&index=4&list=UUobrVwwjzyMIId5OoYh-UsQ Any thoughts on that issue…?
In situations like this, communication is key. From the outset, when a deal like this is made, explain that your music is fingerprinted for YouTube copyright purposes and ask the client to send over any links to their YouTube videos that feature your AdRev fingerprinted music.
It’s then just a case of you sending a quick email over to AdRev support to have any claims from appearing/removed on these videos. It’s only a couple of minutes of extra work for you and is always promptly completed. I’ve been doing this for over 2 years now, and have never had a single problem with it.
Content id is owned by Youtube/Google https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
Actually no. ContentID was developed and launched by AudioMicro Inc. The technology they developed is presumably licensed out to YouTube and other digital fingerprinting agencies. In fact, try visiting contentID.com and look what happens
where did you see that Audiomicro own Adrev ?
Potentially contravening forum rules by posting the following image, but in the interest of setting the record straight so everyone is on the same page, here’s a grab from AudioMicro Inc’s website:
It must be the interest of youtube to get all the quality and license cleared content to sell the advertising aren’t they.
I just think that Google/YT want to minimise any opportunities that their advertising can be removed. And this would include linking off to promote RF sites. They absolutely thrive on unlicensed music being uploaded to YouTube.
Users can remove that advertising, whether they’re monetizing their videos or not, with a license certificate. Imagine videos with massive views did this. Google/YT surely lose out.
As testament to this, Google/YT have now even rolled out their own (free!) music library in an attempt to undercut the RF libraries. Luckily right now the music on it is bloody awful, but that could always change!