Is a cover video considered "Fair Use"

[BarfanyShart]

There are two types of copyright, the copyright in the songwriting and the copyright in the recording. When you cover a song, record it, and sell it, you don't need to get permission from the songwriter so long as the songwriter's half of the royalty gets paid every time the recording is sold/broadcasted. Youtube basically tries to do the same thing, if the copyright holder claims your video, then there is a revenue sharing scheme that the parties can participate in to deal with the respective rights of the songwriter and the performer.

Short answer, you can make money on cover songs, on Youtube or anywhere else, so long as the songwriter gets half. That is the law. Youtube tries to abide by this law through its internal mechanisms, but Youtube is generally pretty bad at managing copyright claims, so YMMV with monetizing your particular cover song videos.

Monetizing eligible cover videos - YouTube Help

 

[mikecd1]

A synch license allows you to "synchronize" a copyrighted piece of music with some sort of visual media like you playing bass along with someone else's song on a youtube video. The mechanical license allows you to make copies like cd's, dvd's and sell a copyrighted song and a performance rights license (like ascap, bmi) to allow you to perform a piece of copyrighted music on the radio or tv and on many streaming platforms. There are holes in the streaming as some countries don't adhere or belong to those performing rights organizations so other outfits like CDBaby claim to be able to collect those royalties in some other geographic areas "better" than ascap or bmi in those areas. Not sure where the truth lies on that, but statutory licensing would help fill a gap for things like satellite radio and music heard through webcasts or through cable tv service programming where the government sets those rates for those uses as they don't really fit anywhere else so they are covered by statutory licensing. Not claiming monetary has gone a long way for me on youtube for covers and the biggest notices I've gotten are from some publishing company in south america for whenever I do a Beatles song. On my last video release of one of my own songs on youtube CDBaby claimed the rights so fast on behalf of the copyright holder (which was me) that I had to send Youtube info that we were the same person and that was a bit strange, but an eye opener how fast this stuff is processed.

 

[swarfrat]

FB flagged a 30 second phone cam video of my kid dancing at a wedding. Definitely no on FB

 

[BarfanyShart]

"Play along" videos are also not exactly "covers" because you are just playing along to the original recording, you are not performing and recording a new version of the songwriter's work. With a play along you (and Youtube) are just broadcasting the original recording, and the copyright holders (songwriter/performer) are entitled to the entire royalty. If you were a radio station, you would just pay BMI a negotiated flat rate for every time you broadcast the recording, but Youtube just demonetizes you video and gives all the money to the party claiming copyright. If Youtube wanted to, it could theoretically negotiate rates for the BMI/ASCAP publishing catalogues take the appropriate royalty out of each "Play along" video (or any other video that uses music) and then let the Youtube creator keep the rest of the money - but Youtube doesn't seem to want to be in that business.

Fair Use is interesting, because most of these play along videos have educational value. Arguably, somebody making an instructional video with copyrighted work should be able to make money on their instructional video, they will probably just pay the royalties at the end of the day, and the product may or may not be profitable after that. Again, Youtube doesn't want to be in this business, so they just demonetize and pay all the ad revenue to the copyright holder, or sometimes take down the video complete.

This guy makes some good points as to why Rick Beato's whining about copyright strikes his educational material is a little disingenuous:

 

[5andFretless]

Facebook deleted the audio of me and my daughter's first dance at her wedding. Considering it was professionally recorded I guess that makes sense.

On the other hand, I have been in several bands where we posted covers of us performing at bars, festivals, etc., and nothing has ever happened. As far as I know they are still up. I guess if your performance and/or recording is bad enough no one cards.

 

[Wilmingtonian]

This guy makes some good points as to why Rick Beato's whining about copyright strikes his educational material is a little disingenuous:

I like Beato enough but his "blocker" rants are annoying rants. He expects other people to act in a manner that benefits him because he says he is benefitting them. That's not how life works.

 

[Tom Gallo]

When it comes to YT, it all comes down to whether someone makes a DMCA takedown against someone. I've seen short clips be
given a takedown notice and entire songs or sets of covers that have never been issued one. Rick Beato has a couple of good videos
on the subject.

 

[Tom Gallo]

I like Beato enough but his "blocker" rants are annoying rants. He expects other people to act in a manner that benefits him because he says he is benefitting them. That's not how life works.

I don't find them annoying at all. He's generally on point with his criticism.

 

[LBS-bass]

Hmm... looking at one of my cover videos right now. I did a quick and dirty cover of "Don't Take Me Alive" and it looks like YouTube added licensing and ownership info for the song; I'm assuming in order to correctly pay royalties from the... let's see... 167 views it received.

So I'm going with Barfany Shart on this. I do think these videos are educational in the sense that we tend to look them up to see how other players are doing something we're learning, even if they are not outright specified as "for educational use." I recorded mine as video auditions, mainly, but some of the verbiage talks about how much time I would spend learning the song note-for-note if it were a tribute band versus a dinky bar band, etc. So maybe that pushes it more toward educational territory, as well.

Anyway, I'm happy that someone's getting their little piece of a penny for their own work; no harm to me that they do.

 

[Holdsg]

I frankly am astonished that some of my play thru videos have garnered as many views as they have (most have a few hundred, but one has 8K....what?).
Evidently, every bass player alive wants to know how to play "Black Velvet".

 

[LBS-bass]

I frankly am astonished that some of my play thru videos have garnered as many views as they have (one has 8K....what?).
Evidently, every bass player alive wants to know how to play "Black Velvet".

Every bass player who plays it eventually figures out that it wasn't played on a bass guitar and then they want to find the ways to make it less awkward.

 

[Darkhorse1962]

People saying they are posting videos of their cover band or play alongs but are not "monetizing" it aren't actually correct.

If your band gets paid to play and the video of that song was either recorded at a paying gig or being used to possibly solicite future gigs, then you are monetizing. Royalties must be paid.

As stated correctly in an earlier post, copyrights are held by the original band as well as the publisher/songwriter. Play a recording by a band, they both get paid. Your band does a cover version, the publisher gets paid.

We're talking pennies here. And while there are legal legs to stand on, the fight is rarely worth the victory in many cases.

Bottom line... you're probably not going to get harassed much on YouTube, but you will on Facebook and Instagram

 

[SteveCS]

...
...want to find the ways to make it less awkward.

Is it awkward?

 

[Darkhorse1962]

Let's flip the script here. You write a great song and record a video of you playing it for the world. Lady Gaga sees it and decides to record a video of her playing it...you want to get paid for that, right?

Lady Gaga writes a great song and you decide to record a video of you playing it. She wants to get paid for it.

No difference

 

[fishdude101101]

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?

Education falls under fair use but private companies don't have to honor it.

 

[LBS-bass]

Is it awkward?

It is for me in certain places because the fingerings/note choices in all the little runs are not as intuitive as something that probably would have been chosen had it been played on a bass guitar. It's also in Eb, with emphasis on the low Eb, which means tune down or play a five string, and I have a whole other thread here about that. So it's got two strikes against it for an average player like myself.

 

[LBS-bass]

Let's flip the script here. You write a great song and record a video of you playing it for the world. Lady Gaga sees it and decides to record a video of her playing it...you want to get paid for that, right?

Lady Gaga writes a great song and you decide to record a video of you playing it. She wants to get paid for it.

No difference

There is no difference. I am happy that YouTube saw fit to monetize my little playalong for the copyright holders. That's how it should work. Not sure why other organizations can't also do that but I guess there's a lot of organizational stuff that would need to be addressed in order to do that.

 

[SteveCS]

It is for me in certain places because the fingerings/note choices in all the little runs are not as intuitive as something that probably would have been chosen had it been played on a bass guitar. It's also in Eb, with emphasis on the low Eb, which means tune down or play a five string, and I have a whole other thread here about that. So it's got two strikes against it for an average player like myself.

The Eb thing is a bit of a nuisance, but the Xtender takes care of that. But it's funny how many people I've played it with just call it in E.

I am following your 5-string thread, but have nothing to add, other than to say I'm with you on the unsolicited advice thing. Funny thing is I tried to start a discussion on latency and timing last week where I said explicitly I was not looking for technique advice, and there has been just one response. Thanks @JRA you're a star!

 

[LBS-bass]

The Eb thing is a bit of a nuisance, but the Xtender takes care of that. But it's funny how many people I've played it with just call it in E.

I am following your 5-string thread, but have nothing to add, other than to say I'm with you on the unsolicited advice thing. Funny thing is I tried to start a discussion on latency and timing last week where I said explicitly I was not looking for technique advice, and there has been just one response. Thanks @JRA you're a star!

Strangely enough, in all these years I've never been asked to play it until now, and this singer likes it in the original key. I thought about bringing a small keyboard to play it but that complicates my setup a little more than bringing a second bass.

And yes, @JRA is a star. His reading comprehension is also stellar

 

[yodedude2]

playing that tune (in eb) on a d-g-c-f- 4 stringer (personal standard) was a bit of a challenge, but that just made it more fun