Is a cover video considered "Fair Use"

[MattZilla]

Playing a cover version is not "fair use". Playing along to a recorded version is not "fair use". Any performance of a song that isn't clearly educational or parody isn't "fair use"

So, if a “cover” is changed to a different key, has a very obviously different tempo and rhythm, and different instrumentation, and even has a different instrument solo composed such that the only remnants of the original song are the lyrics and the chord progression structure...

...It would still be prudent for an arranger/performer to reach out to the song’s legal owner for permission to distribute (post to YT/FB/Soundcloud/Bandcamp)?

 

[Shepsdad]

I have a youtube channel and got a violation notice when I played bass along to a song from my old band, yes it was my band..a song that I wrote but the label was still claiming copyright ownership of it. I've since cleared it up but from what I researched you will most likely just not be able to monetize your video but there is the possibility of receiving a copyright strike and three of those and your channel is taken down. See Rick Beato's youtube channel for what he's gone through with the whole copyright strike/violation thing.

Same here. I released a song through CDbaby, and just assumed since it was my song and my channel, it would be fine to post it, Nope. I got it straightened out with pretty minimal effort, but at first I was like “what the”?!?!?!

 

[Raman]

There are a couple tracks floating around where I play covers. Never got bothered with them (probably because they’re pretty bad…)
But maybe this other experience, concerning copyrights on a picture, will add to the conversation.

I was active in a non-profit political group for a couple of years. We had a website and a magazine. At some point, one of the members wrote an article concerning schools and picked a random image from Google of some college building to head it. A couple months later, we received a formal legal notice from a California law firm representing Getty Image, saying we had infringed their rights and owed them copyright money.

Now, if you don’t know already, Getty Image specializes in collecting random, non-protected images on the Web – it could be one that you posted of your family barbecue! – and they copyright them. Then, whenever you use one of those images, even if it’s not written on it that it “belongs” to Getty Image, you’re liable to get sued.

We answered in all earnest that the person who had added that image was very unsavvy of computers and the Internet (which was true: He was an old geezer who could barely copy-and-paste). We added that we hadn’t made any money from the image, nor from the article it was associated with on our website. And of course, we promptly took the image off.
They answered back asking that we produce legal proof of our non-profit status, which we did. Then silence and we thought it was over with. But then they hit back. They sent another formal letter asking again that we pay, though now they had changed the due amount without explanation.

All along that ordeal, I was lucky to be in contact with a couple lawyers; one of which is my father. And they gave us pretty sound advice.
-Firstly, they told us that law firm didn’t have much of a case. Sure, technically they were right. They did own that picture, and we did publish it without permission. And that surely scares many people in paying whatever they demand just to get the ordeal off their back. Except most normal judges anywhere will quickly overturn such a case. The good faith of a defendant such as ours, faced against an obviously predatory accuser such as Getty Image, will prevail in court.
-Secondly, our legal counsels reminded us that we are in Canada. And if an American company, represented by an American firm, wants to sue us, they’ll have to do it in a Canadian court, with Canadian lawyers. Right there, the trouble and expanses dwarf the amount that they were trying to extort from us (3000 to 4000$).
-And thirdly, my father had a brilliant idea: «Why don’t you just write them back in French?» He explained that, as a Québec citizen, I’m constitutionally guaranteed due legal process in French (every Canadian citizen is guaranteed legal access in either English or French). Which means I can defend myself and communicate through all legal proceedings in French. And so we did: we just sent them our couple last letters, answering their queries politely, but in French.
They let us alone after that.

So moral of the story is (even though all the Canadian and French stuff may not apply to you):
Yes, technically and legally, they can come after you and probably will. But if you’re really not making any profit from covering stuff, it’s unlikely they’ll prevail in court. They instead count on you panicking from the legal threats and wanting to avoid the hassle, so you pay to get out of it.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

I have a YouTube channel that I use to post bass covers of some of my favourite songs. I also post clips of some of these videos to Instagram. On Instagram I have had some videos removed for copyright infringement and on YouTube I am not able to monitize the song (for very obvious reasons) and they are not viewable in some countries becuase of this copyright.

Just curious if there are any bassist out there who have cover or lesson videos on YouTube or other media sites that have navigated the "fair use" policy? I'm kinda coming from an educational perspective on this as it is showcasing a skill... but I'm not exactly sure how to navigate this grey area. I properly cite all of the music that I play in the comment section (MLA).

I do not have many followers or subscribers and these videos are largely cathartic so it's not as though my side hussle is being revoked lol.

Anyway, just curious what you all do?

You might get flagged. But, most likely not. You have to attract people to attract attention.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

I have a YouTube channel that I use to post bass covers of some of my favourite songs. I also post clips of some of these videos to Instagram. On Instagram I have had some videos removed for copyright infringement and on YouTube I am not able to monitize the song (for very obvious reasons) and they are not viewable in some countries becuase of this copyright.

Just curious if there are any bassist out there who have cover or lesson videos on YouTube or other media sites that have navigated the "fair use" policy? I'm kinda coming from an educational perspective on this as it is showcasing a skill... but I'm not exactly sure how to navigate this grey area. I properly cite all of the music that I play in the comment section (MLA).

I do not have many followers or subscribers and these videos are largely cathartic so it's not as though my side hussle is being revoked lol.

Anyway, just curious what you all do?

A whole lot of my videos are posted unlisted. So that I can keep them, share them here, share them with my band mates, and get no attention at all. Un finished works, covers, ideas, misc, etc.

 

[jtrom]

Wow!! You're playing an early Gibson Grabber! That means you can do no wrong, in my book.

haha thanks! It's my absolute favorite bass in the whole wide world

 

[jtrom]

"Fair Use" applies to a reasonable sample size used for education or editorial purposes. IMHO, what you're doing is too big of a sample to count as Fair Use. However, there should be no impact to you because what YouTube will likely do is flag it with a copyright claim (if their algorithm recognizes it) and then they take away your ability to monetize it and they give it to the copyright holder instead (this is all automated, no one is actually checking on your video for this). So if you weren't planning to monetize it anyway, then there's nothing lost. So post away and let YouTube do their thing.

That's what I've been doing but I

There are a couple tracks floating around where I play covers. Never got bothered with them (probably because they’re pretty bad…)
But maybe this other experience, concerning copyrights on a picture, will add to the conversation.

I was active in a non-profit political group for a couple of years. We had a website and a magazine. At some point, one of the members wrote an article concerning schools and picked a random image from Google of some college building to head it. A couple months later, we received a formal legal notice from a California law firm representing Getty Image, saying we had infringed their rights and owed them copyright money.

Now, if you don’t know already, Getty Image specializes in collecting random, non-protected images on the Web – it could be one that you posted of your family barbecue! – and they copyright them. Then, whenever you use one of those images, even if it’s not written on it that it “belongs” to Getty Image, you’re liable to get sued.

We answered in all earnest that the person who had added that image was very unsavvy of computers and the Internet (which was true: He was an old geezer who could barely copy-and-paste). We added that we hadn’t made any money from the image, nor from the article it was associated with on our website. And of course, we promptly took the image off.
They answered back asking that we produce legal proof of our non-profit status, which we did. Then silence and we thought it was over with. But then they hit back. They sent another formal letter asking again that we pay, though now they had changed the due amount without explanation.

All along that ordeal, I was lucky to be in contact with a couple lawyers; one of which is my father. And they gave us pretty sound advice.
-Firstly, they told us that law firm didn’t have much of a case. Sure, technically they were right. They did own that picture, and we did publish it without permission. And that surely scares many people in paying whatever they demand just to get the ordeal off their back. Except most normal judges anywhere will quickly overturn such a case. The good faith of a defendant such as ours, faced against an obviously predatory accuser such as Getty Image, will prevail in court.
-Secondly, our legal counsels reminded us that we are in Canada. And if an American company, represented by an American firm, wants to sue us, they’ll have to do it in a Canadian court, with Canadian lawyers. Right there, the trouble and expanses dwarf the amount that they were trying to extort from us (3000 to 4000$).
-And thirdly, my father had a brilliant idea: «Why don’t you just write them back in French?» He explained that, as a Québec citizen, I’m constitutionally guaranteed due legal process in French (every Canadian citizen is guaranteed legal access in either English or French). Which means I can defend myself and communicate through all legal proceedings in French. And so we did: we just sent them our couple last letters, answering their queries politely, but in French.
They let us alone after that.

So moral of the story is (even though all the Canadian and French stuff may not apply to you):
Yes, technically and legally, they can come after you and probably will. But if you’re really not making any profit from covering stuff, it’s unlikely they’ll prevail in court. They instead count on you panicking from the legal threats and wanting to avoid the hassle, so you pay to get out of it.

This story is amazing... and I happen to live in BC so maybe I'll just write to YouTube in French! However, I'm not sure if my grade 7 French class skills will make the legal cut

 

[logdrum]

If you include amazon, itunes etc link to buy the song, usually it does not get taken down. Someone stole my son's music claiming it was their copyright. He made that song using garage band when he was 8 years old. We contested if they have the original Garage Band project. It was for a Beyblades video he made

 

[InstantEctobass]

The said algorithm can detect the licks, riffs, chords and so on. You can play as loud as you want, you will get your music detected. If the original owners allow their music on YouTube they will get monetized. In any case, you can't get monetize on copyrighted content.

 

[Resonance129]

I usually add a disclaimer to my videos as well. It's probably useless, but it does make clear that my intention is not to profit, but to practice. I don't have tons of videos up, but to this date I've had only one video removed from the platform for copyright infringement. It was Supertramp's "Blood Well Right", and at the time, I had no idea that certain bands/songs will immediately get you flagged without some type of licensure. Lesson learned. Now, if ever I plan to cover a song, I'll do a quick search to see if anyone else has covers of the same artist posted before I post my own. Still not fail-safe, but so far, I've been in the clear.

 

[hrodbert696]

There are a couple tracks floating around where I play covers. Never got bothered with them (probably because they’re pretty bad…)
But maybe this other experience, concerning copyrights on a picture, will add to the conversation.

I was active in a non-profit political group for a couple of years. We had a website and a magazine. At some point, one of the members wrote an article concerning schools and picked a random image from Google of some college building to head it. A couple months later, we received a formal legal notice from a California law firm representing Getty Image, saying we had infringed their rights and owed them copyright money.

Now, if you don’t know already, Getty Image specializes in collecting random, non-protected images on the Web – it could be one that you posted of your family barbecue! – and they copyright them. Then, whenever you use one of those images, even if it’s not written on it that it “belongs” to Getty Image, you’re liable to get sued.

We answered in all earnest that the person who had added that image was very unsavvy of computers and the Internet (which was true: He was an old geezer who could barely copy-and-paste). We added that we hadn’t made any money from the image, nor from the article it was associated with on our website. And of course, we promptly took the image off.
They answered back asking that we produce legal proof of our non-profit status, which we did. Then silence and we thought it was over with. But then they hit back. They sent another formal letter asking again that we pay, though now they had changed the due amount without explanation.

All along that ordeal, I was lucky to be in contact with a couple lawyers; one of which is my father. And they gave us pretty sound advice.
-Firstly, they told us that law firm didn’t have much of a case. Sure, technically they were right. They did own that picture, and we did publish it without permission. And that surely scares many people in paying whatever they demand just to get the ordeal off their back. Except most normal judges anywhere will quickly overturn such a case. The good faith of a defendant such as ours, faced against an obviously predatory accuser such as Getty Image, will prevail in court.
-Secondly, our legal counsels reminded us that we are in Canada. And if an American company, represented by an American firm, wants to sue us, they’ll have to do it in a Canadian court, with Canadian lawyers. Right there, the trouble and expanses dwarf the amount that they were trying to extort from us (3000 to 4000$).
-And thirdly, my father had a brilliant idea: «Why don’t you just write them back in French?» He explained that, as a Québec citizen, I’m constitutionally guaranteed due legal process in French (every Canadian citizen is guaranteed legal access in either English or French). Which means I can defend myself and communicate through all legal proceedings in French. And so we did: we just sent them our couple last letters, answering their queries politely, but in French.
They let us alone after that.

So moral of the story is (even though all the Canadian and French stuff may not apply to you):
Yes, technically and legally, they can come after you and probably will. But if you’re really not making any profit from covering stuff, it’s unlikely they’ll prevail in court. They instead count on you panicking from the legal threats and wanting to avoid the hassle, so you pay to get out of it.

I love this story, and it's relevant for legal challenges. In the OP's case, though, it's a matter of his videos getting taken down by the platform. That's probably a matter of the platform having a policy to limit THEIR legal exposure, but no one's taking the OP to court or demanding money.

 

[charlie monroe]

A lot of people have the mistaken belief that Usain Bolt is the fastest human alive. False.

It is actually the copyright attorney for the Eagles.

 

[rtslinger]

Pretty strict on some of the covers you will do any of the larger ones like Warner and Sony disclaimers mean nothing will block you in all countries others only in select country your okay on you tube if you don't get any strikes against your channel this I have found with my play along videos. If it is a band situation not so much, I say that because I have had Ozzy play along crushed and when my band covers the song it doesn't even get a look? Not sure why that is AC/DC same thing.
I have even had a band claim against one of my original copy written songs that I recorded for Warner bros back in 1983
The people in the claim were in their 20's last year I had their song blocked in every country
So best to put in a copy write disclaimer include the fact you make no monetary compensation on the song posted and set your channel to education instead of entertainment. Tags also help stating the original owners of the song, Cover, bass and play along. I found this also helps it along. And with all of this you are at the luck of the Content ID Algorithm

 

[chazolson]

The real reason copyright law concerning music is so confusing is that the “fair use” doctrine was developed for text. It protected the writer who wanted to use a brief quote or section of someone else’s textual work. Well, what is a “quote” in music? If I use the first four bars of Stairway to Heaven, am I OK? 16 bars? The intro and first verse? There still is no clearly defined standard for music. Which is why you can often get away with stealing somebody’s melody and pairing it with new lyrics and bam, you have a new song. Jazzers did this all the time in the 50s. How many songs have the title “Dream” or “Dreams”?

 

[MCS4]

Last I heard that wasn't necessarily true. The length of the material included has nothing to do with either infringement or fair use claims.

One of the legal factors in evaluating fair use is the "Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." This is discussed in detail in the link that was posted shortly after your post:

check this "four factors" site out: More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

 

[SteveCS]

...
...
How many songs have the title “Dream” or “Dreams”?

I think it is pretty well established in law that song, album or single book titles can't be protected by copyright.

 

[Muttleybass]

Over all the years I've posted videos for marketing my cover band, and we're talking since YouTube was invented, I have had exactly ONE video removed. Of course, I have never tried to monetize them, so maybe that's the difference.

 

[Koshchei]

I have a YouTube channel that I use to post bass covers of some of my favourite songs. I also post clips of some of these videos to Instagram. On Instagram I have had some videos removed for copyright infringement and on YouTube I am not able to monitize the song (for very obvious reasons) and they are not viewable in some countries becuase of this copyright.

Just curious if there are any bassist out there who have cover or lesson videos on YouTube or other media sites that have navigated the "fair use" policy? I'm kinda coming from an educational perspective on this as it is showcasing a skill... but I'm not exactly sure how to navigate this grey area. I properly cite all of the music that I play in the comment section (MLA).

I do not have many followers or subscribers and these videos are largely cathartic so it's not as though my side hussle is being revoked lol.

Anyway, just curious what you all do?

Playing the original recording in the background is not a cover, it's a performance of the original recording.

A cover would be a recreation of the whole piece.

 

[DwaynieAD]

So, if a “cover” is changed to a different key, has a very obviously different tempo and rhythm, and different instrumentation, and even has a different instrument solo composed such that the only remnants of the original song are the lyrics and the chord progression structure...

...It would still be prudent for an arranger/performer to reach out to the song’s legal owner for permission to distribute (post to YT/FB/Soundcloud/Bandcamp)?

Well copyright is melody and lyrics as defined by courts so... No...

But it's so nebulous

 

[Kevorargh]

I put a series of videos where I was playing along to songs. YouTube flagged a large chunk of them but only twice has it completely blocked my videos. You don't have much choice if they flag you.