Ok just got in contact with Adrev to confirm. A Youtube channel can indeed be Pre-Whitelisted before release/upload of a video. “In fact most major companies are whitelisted already”
I will be adding a suggestion in my item descriptions to producers of video content for clients that they contact me or use the adrev contact form to pre-whitelist a clients channel before handover of their finished product.I certainly think all authors using Adrev to protect their property should be letting potential buyers know in their descriptions.
+1 Yep, this is excellent news and could be considered another small in step in making things easier for anyone.
You see, we could all argue this subject until the cows come home; but as I’ve mentioned so many times in the past, we’re in the early days of this and things are very transient, especially out on the internet. The most important thing for all of us to do (buyers and libraries included I’m afraid) is to be willing to adapt.
Thanks for airing your concerns on all of this.
Despite the fact you’ve let us know you’ll no longer be purchasing licenses here going forward, it’s important for those of us that do utilise systems such as AdRev (and music libraries alike) to hear customer’s viewpoints to why they’d have a problem with it or otherwise, as this feedback is especially important.
That said, it’s still understandably a very evocative subject and we can clearly see quite a bit of emotion being tossed from both sides, as a result. (Personally, I’m going to refrain here from an in depth reasoning to why I believe digital fingerprinting is so important, as I’ve discussed this to death on other threads).
Digital fingerprinting of copyrighted material is still an early technology in the grand scheme of things and all we’re still getting to grips with it. That includes composers, libraries and ultimately you, the buyers. However, the landscape is changing very quickly in this industry and I’m almost certain that the digital tracking of royalty free music will be completely commonplace in the near future.
It’s only a matter of time until it’s nigh on impossible to utilise any pre fabricated royalty free music that won’t be subjected to automatic commercial use rights validation, in some form or another. And this doesn’t just involve the composers personally having their material fingerprinted. Many publishers and libraries are also choosing to protect their composer pool’s work protected and monetized this way, as theft and redistribution of intellectual property is absolutely rife and majorly problematic online. (I can personally vouch for this, via my own jaw dropping data). Alongside this, a handful of AJ’s direct competing and major music marketplaces (for example, the one with the blue logo and another with the black logo, to name no names) have also openly stated that they have no issue with the practice and are aware of the protocols to have claims easily cleared.
The biggest issue we’re really faced with, is what other’s have mentioned here; communication. Again, this involves all concerned.
It’s up to the authors AND libraries to make this clear from the beginning, and educate the buyer on what they’re actually purchasing and what to do in such an event. It’s pretty clear to me you had absolutely no idea or understanding of this, which just highlights an area authors, libraries and AdRev need to work on, in order to conform to the mechanisms of YouTube.
If you knew from the outset that you could simply pop the video url and copy/paste the contents from your purchased License Certificate into adrev.net/contact-us and any claims were removed within a matter of hours, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be discussing this. You can also contact the composer directly that can do this for you.
Also, speaking of License Certificates, this is exactly what you, as a buyer of royalty free music are actually purchasing here; not just a piece of music. This is a legal document, to demonstrate to any concerned parties that you have been rightly granted permission to use copyrighted material within your own production. The License Certificate is the document where that permission is recorded. I believe libraries now need to make this distinction absolutely clear and stop leading customers into thinking that royalty free music is free from copyright scrutiny (ie. copyright free. In this case, free from YouTube copyright notices). It’s simply not true and never has been.
‘Royalty Free music’ refers to another mechanism within the music licensing industry, relating to the collection and distribution of performance royalties, and absolutely nothing to do with digital fingerprinting and YouTube copyright notices. I think this is where there’s a big crossover in misunderstanding.
In summary, I do think libraries need to open discussions with companies like AdRev and YouTube to see if this can be smoothed out and easily automated for the buyer in some way. Libraries really need to work on making it clear that they are selling music license certificates first and foremost, for using in exactly these situations and not trying to pass it off as a quick and easy iTunes style transaction, whilst brushing the reality of usages ‘out in the wild’, under the carpet.
At the moment, the simplest way to deal with this is if composers make it very clear on their item pages that their music is subject to copyright validation and supply the AdRev claim removal link accordingly. Your postings have drilled home an important point. AJ and other libraries should enforce this, if anything to avoid situations like this from arising in the first place.
I’m curious, has anyone noticed any decreases in overall sales since uploading to AdRev? I’m wondering if some buyers will buy elsewhere when they see AdRev on a profile page. It’s something I’ve been observing and can’t tell for sure if AdRev is causing a sales dip for me. Of course sales seem to be a little lower across the board these past few weeks, so it’s hard to say.
Had to smile, simply because I remember when I first became an AdRev artist and RF sales dipped, I thought the same thing! But it’s most likely a simple case of confirmation bias.
Sales are down across the board and not only on AJ. The last month or so has been pretty terrible if I’m honest, yet this is 2 years after openly being on AdRev, where I’ve previously enjoyed good sales.
I personally think you’re just experiencing the great December dip that most of us experience in RF world around this time, but this is especially noticeable if you’ve just come out of a good few months of sales.
StudioMonkey saidbtw, i just checked out that jbridge thing (i hadn’t heard of it before) and it seems to only be for vst. if that’s the case, it won’t work for AU-only logic.
i can’t speak to the yosemite issue – i’m still partial to 9 though i’m trying to force myself to get used to X. re: the 32bit problem, this program is awesome:
it creates a “64bit” version (at least logic x recognizes it as 64bit) that you can then use seamlessly in the program.
Ahh yes, very good point. I’ve only used it in conjunction with Ableton myself, so if you’re reading this Matt, don’t bother with it and stick with the SoundRadix product StudioMonkey just linked to. (Thanks for that btw!).
Pfff, still getting used to this AU only concept here!
I recently made the jump over to Logic Pro X, after many years of being on Ableton Live. Also upgraded to Yosemite whilst I was at it.
So far, so good. Haven’t witnessed any CPU spikes or anything of that nature; and that’s whilst running various large, CPU hungry Kontakt libs on my 2.9GHz iMac. (In fact, I’d say it runs perfectly and is a welcome relief from the awful CPU nightmare mess Ableton Live has become, that’s for sure). However, had to go through the arduous task of converting all my VSTs to AUs, as in true noob fashion, didn’t realise it only ran AU plugins.
But one thing I see you may have trouble with is running older 32bit plugins, such as Sylenth. Logic Pro X only runs 64bit plugins. You may want to consider using jBridgeM to overcome this, but mine has become very temperamental since the Yosemite upgrade, so bear this in mind before making the switch.
Ok guys, an update to the update.
As it stands, it seems YouTube’s real focus is on music that is being given away for free by composers, under a Creative Commons License or being distributed with a bespoke license suggesting to the user they can do whatever they want with the music (ie. use it on monetized videos).
One of the benefits of CC music or ‘free’ music is that it shouldn’t generate a copyright notice, so it’s easy to see why YouTube are cracking down.
So to amend my last update, you can still upload your ‘freely available’ music to AdRev to be fingerprinted (such as music available for download via SoundCloud, your websites) but it shouldn’t fall under a CC license. And I would assume this also means that it shouldn’t be promoted in such a way that suggests to the YouTube user that it can be used for commercial use on their videos (such as providing a license saying it can used in anyway they wish).
So, as I understand it, any other arbitrary uses, such as YouTube users using watermarked music on their videos, music downloaded from iTunes and re-uploaded, etc, will just be tracked and claimed in the normal way, and YouTube shouldn’t have issue with this. Basically, the user won’t be complaining to them, saying “but we have a license!”.
If users wish to remove claims on videos that contain our tracked music, they will have to purchase a proper license, and present that in the normal fashion.
Hope that explains things for now.
Matt, once again, thank you so much for all the work you’re doing.
It’s so much appreciated, dude!! I’d have had a cold sleepless night over that message yesterday, but thanks to you it was still ‘Positive Warmth’ and that is what I’m gonna buy from you now to buy you a beer
Congrats on your new badge! It’s long overdue!!
Go on guys, buy that man a beer, you’ve no idea what he’s doing behind the scenes for ALL of us!
Cheers man and thank you again!!!
btw: Love that song of yours!!
Hahahaha thank you dude! Most, most appreciated! Man I’ve been spoiled today! All because I was up until 4am chatting to Jesse from AdRev in a full on panic! LOL
I hadn’t seen your post, and when I just got the rating email I was just like “Wait, what’s this…a sale of a track that hasn’t sold once in over 6 months?....A positive review, and wtf… a 5…yes FIVE star rating??“
Ahhhhhh! Then the penny dropped.
Cheers so much man! That’s going towards my Friday night fund!
Congrats, Matt, and thank you!:) So, as i understand, if i have a not exclusive tracks, which can be licensed under CC, i need to close this possibility immediately, right?
Yes, as Taco has just said, if you have any music uploaded and tracked by AdRev that you also have available for free, such as under Creative Commons Licenses, then I would recommend removing these from CC, as it goes against YouTube’s ContentID policy.