Posts by AlumoAudio

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Oh and whilst I’m here, I should say thanks so much to Envato for what I literally just received! Really appreciated guys! :bashful:

\\

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Thanks for the thanks guys! :bashful:

We’re all in the same boat here and it potentially affects all of us, so I don’t mind being the dude up the mast, with a pair of binoculars, keeping lookout! :sunglasses:


However I don’t really understand the ‘non exclusive royalty free music’ statement. You say that it refers to the exclusivity of rights, ie the ownership of rights. But if that’s what it is, isn’t it a bit oddly phrased? What has ‘royalty-free’ got to do with it? To me ‘non exclusive royalty free music’ sounds exactly like what we do here, ie sell royalty-free music to multiple users. I do hope I am overthinking this and that Adrev has correctly understood Youtube’s request and newly enforced policies.

Yes, I agree it’s a little confusing, especially as in our side of the industry we use phrases such as ‘non exclusive royalty free music’ regularly. But it does look like AdRev were referring to YouTube’s ContentID policy on exclusivity of rights on royalty free music. I’m expecting an email soon from AdRev’s VP of Rights Management soon to clear this up anyway, so I’ll confirm if this is or isn’t the case once I’ve spoken with him.


After reading what Matt said, I think it might be wise not to offer our songs as Free file of the month or in events like the Gift of Giving Advent Calendar. I already had my doubts, because users don’t have license, but after this I clearly not going to risk.

Interestingly, I just downloaded Victor’s ‘Walking with a Pet’ free file, and it downloaded immediately, without a License, a link to a corresponding License Certificate, and doesn’t appear in our ‘downloads’ tab in our accounts.

Envato will need to take a look into this, as this indeed could cause issues with YouTube. A license should still be made available from this free download.

Edit: Got there before me Raquel!

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Right, quick update.

After speaking with AdRev last night, I’ve now got a much clearer understanding of the situation. It seems YouTube are now cracking down on music that has been registered with AdRev (and other digital fingerprinting platforms) and has been made available for free to users by it’s registered composers.

More importantly, this also includes music that has been made available under Creative Commons licenses, as these license types suggest that the user can do whatever they wish with the music. Basically, ‘free’ music and Creative Commons music cannot be digitally fingerprinted via AdRev or platforms that utilise YouTube’s ContentID system, with the aim to monetize. As it stands, the only music we can upload and fingerprint via AdRev is music that’s available with a supporting license or via an aggregator (ie. ReverbNation, iTunes, etc).

It’s pretty evident that YouTube has most likely been receiving many, many complaints by it’s users that have used ‘free’ or CC music on their videos, in the belief they wouldn’t receive a copyright notice, only then to receive one once it’s been picked up by ContentID. As a result, YouTube see this is problematic and reserve the right to request that such artists are removed from these platforms, as it contravenes their ContentID policy.

It’s worth noting here that companies like AdRev, Audiam, etc are YouTube Partners and don’t call the shots on these things, and basically have to abide by the rules YouTube sets them.

It’s pretty frustrating however, that we can’t get all our creations fingerprinted, regardless of whether they are paid, licensed or free, as in my eyes that was the whole point of fingerprinting and ‘protecting’ our music in the first place. But these are the rules YouTube are laying down right now, and we have to run with it. (As I’ve always maintained, things change very quickly out in Internetland).

Next is the statement regarding ‘non exclusive royalty free music’. This was referring to the exclusivity of rights (ie. ownership of copyright) and not related to whether we are non exclusive authors, etc, so nothing to worry about there. (that’s the problem with music business terminology, as there’s inevitably quite a bit of crossover in meaning).

TL;DR:

Before uploading to AdRev (or equivalent), make sure you own the copyrights to the music, and make sure you are not providing it for free or providing free usage licenses to users (either via Creative Commons, your own site, etc) and leading the users into thinking they won’t receive a YouTube copyright notice.

If you follow that, you should be fine. I’ll update if anything else crops up.

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says



Just received this message from AdRev:

We’ve been informed by the YouTube Content ID Administration Team that we, unfortunately, need to remove your songs from the system and terminate your account. This is due to a YouTube policy that doesn’t allow certain types of music, including creative commons, non-exclusive royalty free music, music sold for license, etc. Monetization of content on YouTube is a forever changing landscape, and from what we understood, your music was totally acceptable for Content ID, but as it turns out, YouTube doesn’t believe this is true. I truly apologize, but since we are a YouTube partner, what they say goes, so there’s not much we can do.

As it turns out here, music that is licensed without exclusivity, i.e. to multiple licensees, does not qualify for content ID.

I’ve just emailed AdRev directly and awaiting a response. Needless to say, I’m feeling a bit sick to my stomach right now, as it’s my main source of income.

I’ll update here when I hear back from them.
Omg,this is terrible news for non exclusive authors.. :( I hope it is not true

Via the ContentID link, when they say ‘exclusive’ they mean exclusive rights. NOT ‘exclusive’ authors! Let’s not get confused about this now.

I’m in the middle of communications with AdRev so will give an update on things once I’m fully in the picture, especially regarding that statement about non-exclusive RF music. So far, isn’t as bad as it looks, so hold tight!

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Just received this message from AdRev:

We’ve been informed by the YouTube Content ID Administration Team that we, unfortunately, need to remove your songs from the system and terminate your account. This is due to a YouTube policy that doesn’t allow certain types of music, including creative commons, non-exclusive royalty free music, music sold for license, etc. Monetization of content on YouTube is a forever changing landscape, and from what we understood, your music was totally acceptable for Content ID, but as it turns out, YouTube doesn’t believe this is true. I truly apologize, but since we are a YouTube partner, what they say goes, so there’s not much we can do.

As it turns out here, music that is licensed without exclusivity, i.e. to multiple licensees, does not qualify for content ID.

I’ve just emailed AdRev directly and awaiting a response. Needless to say, I’m feeling a bit sick to my stomach right now, as it’s my main source of income.

I’ll update here when I hear back from them.

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

No surprises here at all.

Just as I think we’re finally moving forward with all of this, something always comes up to push it back.

Personally, I’m very surprised this is the (copy/pasted) response being issued by Envato on the matter, considering I have personally had long discussions with senior members of the team on the matter and offered explanations to various members of the support team too.

Seems like either someone didn’t get the memo, a ‘brush under carpet and hope the problem goes away’ response, or Envato has genuinely decided not to be fully supportive of authors protecting/monetizing our work across YouTube. I really hope it isn’t the latter.

On top of that, instructions on dealing with YouTube claims are already outlined to the buyer here and here on Envato Market and many of us AdRev registered authors are choosing to put the information on our own item pages and within the item itself.

In my eyes. it’s up to the buyer to be fully aware of what they’re investing in before they hand over their cash. Envato need to get on board with this and use opportunities like this to explain to the buyer that they’re purchasing a License Certificate for this very purpose and explain the simple procedure to have them cleared (which I have now explained a thousand times on these forums!)

To penalise the composer, via an irrelevant, overly simplified rating system, because the buyer didn’t know what they were doing is just plain wrong and backwards.

Envato need to rub their eyes and follow this closely. Because, trust me, this is where our industry is heading right now.

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Good work and congrats Leon! Totally deserved dude! :)

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Hi I need a staff reply on this. It was told to me that it might no longer be possible to transfer files from an exclusive account to a non-exclusive anymore. Is this true? I just opened a non exclusive account which I wanted to put a few existing tracks from my exclusive account to but now I’m not sure if this is possible.


As a side question to this topic can you remove items from your exclusive account, create a non exclusive account and reupload them? I’m considering pulling some low selling items to put them in other catalogs but I’d still like them to be on AJ but I’m not sure how I can do that.
Yep, you can do that. Get a ticket ID and confirmation from support for the items’ you’d like to transfer. Then, when you upload them to the new account, state that you are transferring items from other account with the ticket ID noted. That prevents any confusion or additional delay in the review processing. The thing you cannot do, however, is repeat this process regularly for the same items, i.e. it wouldn’t be allowed to regularly transfer them back and forth every few weeks or months, for example. We can all use some common sense here. :)

Yes, I’d like to hear a straight answer from Staff (rather than support) about this too, as this was suggested to me recently by support. I also noticed Joel (jhunger) mentioned the same thing over on this thread too.

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Just saw the sats for YouTube and I am astonished with the amount of content on there. Adrev really is a must! :)

And just to put things further into perspective, when compared to other video streaming platforms…(Hmm, now where’s Vimeo?)

\\

1175 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Provided great contribution to our forums
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

I think services like AdRev will lead to a big growth in this business. You need control to apply the rules/laws. Without control, people steal. If everybody was on AdRev, people would think twice before not licensing the music they use. And soon, it will all be general education and way more people will buy licenses. So thanks Alumno & all the others for pioneering & sharing (and risking bad ratings), in my opinion it does something good for everybody here. That’s long term thinking. :)

+1. Thanks lokohighman. This is exactly the mindset us composers need to have. We need to start looking at things on a long term basis rather than the present, and living in constant state fear that we might rattle the cages of a small minority of difficult or misinformed buyers.


Either that, or worse – people will steer away from Youtube and put their videos in less controlled environments. You can’t really force people into paying these days. You can’t even force ads, more and more people are using adblock software. New, free and/or ad free services will appear overnight. When facebook started monetizing, people started to leave. I’m guessing the same will eventually happen with Youtube, Soundcloud, in fact all web services going into a mature commercial stage still compete with free and/or ad free alternatives.

The ones who pay for licenses are almost never ‘forced’ they do it because it’s the right thing. People who think otherwise are usually ignorant, immoral or plain evil.

That been said, a little more control is always nice to have ;)

And education ;)

Sure, they’ll always be a skimming of people that move from YouTube to other platforms, but their numbers will pale in comparison to those that don’t and remain on it. YouTube is absolutely colossal (see for yourself here) and I suspect will always be the de facto video streaming platform, mostly because it’s owned by Google.

Interestingly, and speaking of people wanting to get away from advertising, I’ve recently heard from AdRev that all AdRev registered composers will have an opportunity to be included in YouTube’s newly rolled out YouTube Music Key, a subscription based, ad free, music video streaming service. I’m not sure of all the details of this yet, but seems we’ll be able to upload ‘albums’ of work via AdRev, and presumably we’ll get remunerated for streams of our material on the platform.

It does appear that Google are trying something different from their usual ‘hit them with ads’ strategy here. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

by
by
by
by
by
by