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
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.
But I guess if it hasn’t been a problem like you said Matt then maybe the pros out weigh the one con. I know I would be annoyed though. What if I made a video and purchased sfx/music files from 5 different locations and now right when I uploaded the video I have to fill out 5 forms? It would be a pain in @$$.
This is the thing Jeff. Firstly, if it had proved to be troublesome, I would never have opted to be an evangelist on the matter. I gave it a good year or so before I spoke openly about it, simply because I wanted to test the waters first. I was in a good position, as I already had a good number of licensed tracks out in the wild and on YouTube to begin with. With that, I haven’t had any headaches with retroactive claims.
Also, when a claim comes through on a users video, it gives the user the exact composer and track name. All they’ll need to do is use their corresponding License Certificate to clear it, either directly on the YouTube dispute form or via adrev.net/contact-us. And if they contact you directly, you can simply do it yourself for them in a jiffy, via your dashboard. This is why License Certificates are so important and crucial to the buyer. It really isn’t just a pretty bit of arbitrary text.
Also, you have to note that YouTube now reserve the right to see License Certificates and/or permission notes for so called ‘commercial use rights’ on user’s monetized videos anyway, (you may want to check this official YouTube video) regardless if it’s been fingerprinted or not. They’re becoming very strict with this themselves and therefore YouTube users are already being primed with the prospect of having to show they’re legitimately using third party content in their YouTube videos.
Sure, it could be seen as a pain in the @$$ right now, but that’s merely a result of years of people not having to show anything. I personally see it as a loop hole that’s been now finally being filled.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Guido. I’ve just found a bunch of my own stuff on that site too. As you’re an exclusive AJ author, you’ll have to raise a support ticket with Envato to let them know too, so that they’re aware of the site and take measures.Also, it’s also worth filing a copyright infringement case with Google directly here: https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en-GB
By doing this, Google will check the site themselves and remove any links or search results to the site. This is something I routinely do, as many of these illegal distribution sites can have a pretty serious effect on the SEO and Goolge search side of things, especially if people manually search for your portfolio directly via Google. I’m currently in the process of trying to get another illegal site distributing my music removed, which is now appearing in third place on Google search when searching for my music.
Also, if you’re a Google/gmail user, you can set up realtime Google Alerts, so when your composer or track names are detected on the web, you’re instantly notified via email.
I love your music Matt, but on this specific issue I have to disagree.
I’m surprised Audiojungle has not said anything on the topic. Its just unprofessional to ask a client/customer to fill out a form and prove that they aren’t a freeloader days/weeks/months after they purchased it. You are frustrating and annoying a whole lot of your regular, paying clients.In a perfect world I agree there should be something in place that minimized theft and freeloading, but I don’t think this is it.
Thanks for airing your thoughts on this Jeff. Firstly, whilst I agree it’s not the perfect solution to preventing illegitimate uses of our property on the internet, I’m afraid it comes back to just that: it’s our property, not the buyer’s and not Envato’s. Ours.
You state that I’m frustrating and annoying my regular and paying clients, but I’m yet to see any real repeated evidence of this myself, so I’m afraid I have to take that statement with a pinch of salt. I’ve been using AdRev for nearly 3 years now and if anything, I’ve built good connections, relationships and much repeated business from customers through this, than if I weren’t involved in the tracking of my property online.
Sure, it’s early days and a relatively new concept. Of course, there are parties that still have to get on board with all of this. That includes buyers, libraries and composers alike. But this aversion always exists when a new idea emerges, simply because it’s human nature to resist change. As time progresses and people adjust to a new way of doing things however, only then it becomes accepted. That includes the acceptance from our buyers to present the License they had purchased when using our property on YouTube.
Right now, we’re in the midst of big changes within the music industry, especially in the online world and it really is becoming a case of adapt or die. This is one reason why I’m so open and passionate about this and encourage composers and libraries to take a second look at the situation. As Taco has mentioned, this is standard practice in the area of software and music library licensing for example, and should be no different in our industry. Why should it be? I honestly cannot think of one good reason why not.
With that in mind, the notion of ‘buyers having to prove they are not a freeloader’ really is an upside down way to look at it, and rather should be viewed as ‘buyers proving they are a genuine, paying License Certificate holder’. That’s the whole point of a License Certificate. Remember, we’re not selling music. We’re selling Licenses to our music. A very, very significant difference.
Regarding Envato’s stance; I certainly wouldn’t be speaking so candidly on the subject if I believed they had a problem with it. I have spoken personally with them on numerous occasions and enlightened them on the whole process to make sure everyone is on the same page and reassure that digital fingerprinting truly has a potential benefit to all concerned.
AlumoAudio saidBut why would Google suggest “cell” instead of “sell”? I wonder…
Google translate is miraculous at inducing migraines at the reader’s end.
True. And other typos evident too. Maybe this is how our friend genuinely speaks English?! Hats of for trying though. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with Russian.
Haha, cut him some slack folks! I can almost sense he’s got an interesting point to get across. Although that being said, Google translate is miraculous at inducing migraines at the reader’s end.
Now I usually include a readme file where, among other informations, I explain the AdRev thing.
Personally, I don’t encourage this, simply because if AdRev decide to change the link or method to clearing claims at any stage, you’ll have to manually update every single readme file on your AJ items to include new instructions/links and wait for it to be approved. This is fine if you have smaller portfolios like we have, but imagine you had over 400 items, all with an outdated readme file..That’s a lot of work to deal with right there!
So I’d stick to just placing the instructions on your item pages for now.
One question. Can I copy and paste your ‘advice’ on my items’ pages? Or is it copirighted ? I ask this because my english is not very good and you explain it in a very clear and simple way..
Of course you can I’ve explained it in pretty much ‘plain English’ to make it understandable to most English speaking buyers. But remember, this isn’t an official Envato disclaimer, so it’s important to remember this, if it ever comes up in discussion with your buyers.
Thanks for the reply Matt.
My main concern really is how it affects the genuine user as of course, none of us want to annoy our clients.So how does it work for them? Do they just have ads appear on their video? Ads that they can choose to either ignore or dispute using their licenses for proof? I’d hate to think that their videos get blocked in some way. I’d imagine that if its just a case of banner ads appearing, most users might just think that was YuoTube/AdRev and totally separate to AudioJungle. I’m interested to know the process for legit users. Also, can I ask you, do you wait for the clients to stop the ads or e-mail you or do you put a stop on the ads yourself? It’s so tempting to just leave them to generate money and then wait for a response as really we don’t know who is legit and who isn’t really do we?
Ok, so as soon as your (AdRev tracked) music is uploaded by someone to YouTube, they’ll receive a ‘matched third party content’ notice on their video. This is regardless if they purchased a license or stole it, or whatever. The only way their videos can get blocked is if YOU, the copyright holder, action a video takedown on their video with YouTube. So nothing to worry about there. Ads will automatically run on their videos and the only way these can be removed is if the user submits a dispute, armed with their License Certificate.
They do this by visiting adrev.net/contact-us, enter their video link and copy/paste in their License Certificate into the message box. Done. Claim cleared and continue as normal. (I suppose it’s a similar process to when we purchase music libraries/software and enter a license code).
Btw, referring back to an earlier post I made, we can let them know about this beforehand via our item pages, as seen in my example below. Then, if anyone should kick up a fuss, it could always be mentioned to them that this information was presented to them when they purchased the track in the first place. Remember, it’s the buyer’s responsibility to know exactly what they’re buying (as in life I guess!).
And to answer your last question, I always let the buyer make the initial attempt to clear claims.
Only if they contact me, I’ll send them a link to the AdRev claim clearance page and explain to them to copy/paste in their license. If they’re really having difficulty for whatever reason, I’ll get their video link and do it by hand in my dashboard. But very important for you to let them do it first, as they will see how mind bogglingly simple it is to clear a claim. As a result, they always come back for more!
Also to go slightly off track, but on a psychological level, it gives the buyer a sense of satisfaction that their purchased License Certificate actually has a proper purpose, with a genuine outcome. It also shows that there’s more value to that little text file they can download, than meets the eye. Buyers also need to realise that purchasing royalty free music doesn’t mean it’s free from copyright scrutiny, out in the wild..and the whole point of Licenses is for this very reason!
do anybody know why Adrev need 4 month to find a videos. ? i make a test – upload a video with track that was submitted to adrev. and after 5 minutes, copyright notification is come, and say about 3rd Party content matching in video. So, video was found immediately, why this process take 4 month?
Once AdRev has fingerprinted your uploaded music, it will start tracking them almost immediately, which is why you saw the ‘matched third party content’ notice.
However, AdRev has around a 4 month delay to show the results in your dashboard as they need to collate all the video views and claim data which has to be sent to them from YouTube. Google/YouTube presumably send over all this information to them every few months, hence the delay.
OK, so after 4 months of waiting, finally AdRev found some of my tracks. It was great (and surprising) to see where my music was being used.
Now, up till this point, my philosophy with AdRev had always been “if the music doesn’t have the watermark on it then I must assume it is genuine”. With that thought in mind, I submitted all the videos into the “do not use ads on this video” option.
Overnight though, I had an epiphany. Don’t worry…I’m seeing a doctor soon! I remembered that one of the videos was playing my music, complete and in full quality, sans any dialogue or sound effects in their video. Of course, any Tom, Dick or Harriet (got to be PC :)) can now rip/record this track in full quality and use it somewhere else! From now on I’ll let AdRev do its thing and risk the wrath of some clients.So, what’s the answer to protect our music from piracy or is it just one of those impossible tasks?
Hi Gae, I’m glad this has come back up and your epiphany was actually the main reason why AdRev is so, so important to us!
Firstly, I think there may have been a little misunderstanding of how AdRev works (despite my many attempts on the forum to explain over the months!). AdRev does not determine the original source of the music. All it does is ‘hear’ it (watermarked or otherwise) and adds a claim to it, until the buyer uses their License Certificate to clear that claim and show that they are a genuine license holder. That’s basically how it works.
The moment our music goes live on the internet (in this case, purchasable on AudioJungle), our music is vulnerable to being copied, redistributed, reuploaded without consent, etc, etc. There is simply no way to get around this and unfortunately it happens more than we’d like to think.
I see YouTube users routinely ‘rip’ and reupload my music from other user’s videos, especially those that don’t contain any voiceovers, effects and so on. And low and behold, that user has just got themselves a nice, free, albeit illegally obtained, copy of my song on their video. And it goes on and on and on like that (snowball effect).
Now, the user will get a ‘matched third party content’ notice on their video, which has the name of the track and the composer. Genuine users, or those that didn’t realise they were being naughty, can use that information to track down the music on the internet to purchase a license from you to clear the claim if they so wish.
Other users (mostly those that hold the belief that all music in the world should be completely and utterly free :/) won’t bat an eyelid. Of course, you’ll then be remunerated for that usage. Sometimes they’re silly cat videos, shot with a shaky phone camera with about 5 views (they would never purchase an $18 license anyway) or they’re massively viral videos with 20 million views, yet the uploader still refuses to purchase an $18 license, thinking music should be free. You get paid for that illegitimate use, which works out as much, much more than $9 over time, believe me!
It all boils down to the fact that we simply can’t prevent unlicensed uses of our music on YouTube. Not a chance. But we can certainly use it to our advantage and still get paid for our hard work. AdRev is a wonderful tool in that equation.