Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Is YouTube hunting down on piano cover uploaders?

Just noticed that a pianist whose piano covers I've watched a few times, has been suspended from YouTube. He calls himself Calikokat.

Are the copyright holding companies hunting down on YouTube users posting covers of copyrighted material?

It seems a bit unfair that one's pianist account is suspended, because of copyright infringement, while others posting piano covers of copyrighted material are unharmed.

Actually Calikokat was selling the sheet music of his adapted versions of the songs he was covering and that could have caused his suspension.

While users posting piano covers for educational purposes (tutorials) or for showing how good (or bad) their playing is, can be categorized under the fair use of the copyright laws, selling slightly modified version of copyrighted works hardly can.

That's a real shame about Caliokat. I watched many of his videos and he played really well. I don't blame YouTube for suspending him since trying to sell sheet music of that type of stuff is pretty silly IMHO

I don't think anyone violates any copy right by playing covers. However, selling sheet music of other artists without their permission is another matter.

In many countries you have to pay for public performances of copyrighted material.

I have received two separate warnings from YouTube about my (very) amateur piano vocal covers of classic rock tunes specifically Under the Boardwalk and Happy Together - I immediately pulled them down. I also wrote several e-mails to the publisher asking if it was their intent to stop folks from performing their songs on YouTube but never got a response.

I am not selling anything in connection with these videos.

After uploading a few of my videos I got a notice that said:

Matched third party content. View Copyright Info.

The "copyright info" page says I don't have to do anything, though the copyright owner may put ads on my page. I can live with that, as long as the ads aren't too obnoxious. But if I start to read cases where people are fined, sued, or prosecuted for posting amateur videos of songs they've bought sheet music for, and don't have any intention of profiting from, then I will delete my channel, and probably buy less sheet music.

TTigg, I agree with you, Calikokat has a special style and puts his own touch on the works he covers. So you guys think selling the sheet music was the deciding factor?

There is one guy who has uploaded a lot of tutorial vides of popular songs, mostly Beatles, Elton John and Billy Joel, Pianojohn113. His tutorials are very good. He has said he got a complaint about his tutorial for Candle In The Wind. But it seems it was enough for him to take out his own cover, the teaching part is still up, and his channel is still up.

By the way here is one who is not happy with Calikokat's suspension!

Edit Bluekeys and BillM thanks for your inputs, good to hear the perspective of someone who has this experience.

You're just not supposed to perform a tune or arrangement you didn't write, without paying dues, or getting a go ahead from the music association.
That's just how it is.
When you upload music to youtube, they ask you whether you own all the rights to that tune.

Some labels have been more aggressive than others in having tunes removes, for example, the Gershwin estate. By now, those should be in public domain anyway, but they're not, and that is just a scam.

Anyway, not much you can do about it, except maybe boycott those labels.

I stand corrected. I didn't know the companies are so strict! I'm glad I like to play classical music

This applies to the US - other countries don't have such long limits.

The US has the so-called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" - extensions to the copyright limits. The US constitution says there have to be limits but not for how long. A case got tossed out that said the extensions were unconstitutional because they could keep adding them in perpetuity but the courts found so long as they did put a limit on them they were constitutional.

So where do we stand on the Pianoworld ABF recital? Are we violating copyright by playing on there?

Technically, the answer is probably, yes.
If it is a public performance of a copyright work, permission should be sought from the publisher, or copyright holder.

Not saying I agree with that, as it is probable that recital performances have brought new music to the attention of interested listeners who may well go out and purchase the sheet music, so they can play it themselves.

On the other hand, if I composed a piece of music, and was trying to sell it, and then found someone was selling their own version of my music, I would be (insert ending of your choice here)

>> So where do we stand on the Pianoworld ABF recital? Are we violating copyright by playing on there?
depends what you play. In many cases, yes.
You can perform Bach or Mozart to your heart's content. No problem there.

I've been dinged a couple of times for classical pieces as well!

My understanding is that the record company has included their performers' renditions of these classical pieces into the Auto ID program, and when I upload my version, it's a close enough match (haha, not really) that it flags the video.

So, if I had taken a performance of a classical piece from a CD and created a video with their music, then I'd be a bad guy.

But these are my own performances, so I disputed each claim and haven't heard back from them.

I think Calikokat actually has other youtube channels if you miss him too much lol. He should've gave his sheet music away for free not sell it if he didn't have copyrights

"So where do we stand on the Pianoworld ABF recital? Are we violating copyright by playing on there?"

Copyright law is beyond complicated. The country that you are in makes a big difference as many countries have different rules. In the UK or USA I think it might be life of the composer + 70 years, or maybe 95 years or 120 years from publication depending on what year that was. You are pretty safe with anything written or published before 1923 as long as it hasn't had it's copyright renewed. But honestly how would you even know and who cares anyway as long as you are not making any money which should go by rights to someone else.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length

>> But honestly how would you even know and who cares anyway as long as you are not making any money which should go by rights to someone else.

Dave,
you're right, but that's just not how the law works. One doesn't get to pick what is acceptable and what isn't.
It says everywhere on music you purchase that you may not reproduce in any form. Whether you think it's correct or no isn't relevant.
It's like playing a DVD at your local club, just for fun. No money. That's illegal too.
In fact, money is totally irrelevant.

What's more relevant is that certain labels would just choose to say: "Who cares if someone plays 'I got rhythm', it doesn't cost me anything, so let it slide".
But it's up to the copyright owner. And that's just how it is.

Think of it this way. If you wrote a tune with a very specific feel, and someone covered it, but totally changed it. Butchered it. Maybe you wouldn't care, maybe you would.

Bottom line, if someone flags your youtube video and youtube tells you to take it down, comply...

With regard to U.S.-based copyrights,

"Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship."

Source

Of course, a YouTube poster wouldn't have a clue if these exceptions apply without first doing research on said copyrighted material to determine if the Fair Use exception applies (i.e. copyright is U.S.-based). In all probability, the legal burden falls upon YouTube to be responsible about hosting potentially copyrighted materials, since the real identity of Calikokat (and every other YouTube user) is not known and, of course, YouTube has far deeper pockets. Its probably on a graded system where the first infraction results in the removal of claimed copyrighted materials (giving the benefit of the doubt to the poster), with subsequent infractions leading to the suspension of one's account. Not sure, but that seems logical.

There are 3 kinds of licenses - here's the "nutshell" post I made in the "cocktail piano" thread in the non-classical forum. Robin Meloy Goldsby - the author of Piano Girl - wrote a much more detailed post immediately after that provides real insight into what a professional musician does on the "back end" of their gigs. Yeah, the youtube stuff is largely in violation of performing rights. It hasn't got to do with whether or not one intends to make money. As far as I can tell I'm in violation every time I play a senior gig - I've never asked if they have an ASCAP or BMI license, but I'd guess they don't.

The post:

The venue which presents the live music usually, and should have, has a contract with ASCAP or another performance/royalty-collecting entity. It's not a "copyright", it's a "performance" right. Generally it's not the pianist that pays the performance fees

If you were going to record a piece for a cd you'd need a "mechanical license."

If you're copying the sheet music you need permission from the copyright holder.

At least that's my understanding, in a nutshell.

From what I've read on the topic, and heard from professional musicians, it can be a bit of a muddle. There are lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing, and agents, etc.

I don't worry about it when I play for a senior center, but I'm sure the performing rights organizations could have a fit if they wanted to, and be legally in the right. One of them went after a folkdance venue here in NM, and it now pays a yearly fee - and I can bet my bottom dollar that very few Bulgarian folk musicians ever see a dime in royalties from them anyway :\ Radio stations turn in their playlists so the fees can be divvied up. I'd guess people like Robin would appreciate it if people were fairly scrupulous about fees for her music, and rightly so.

So, it's not strictly a copyright issue, AFIK. But the professional performers here will know a lot more than me, and have a lot more accurate information

And a link to Robin's fuller post:

Piano Girl RMG performance rights post

Cathy

I think jotur is correct. The issues with YT (and the PW recitals) are neither copyrights nor performance rights, but mechanical rights (the right to make and distribute a recording). It's also true that violations of copyright and performance or mechanical rights have little to do with whether the offending use is commercial, educational, or avocational. Fair use does provide some limited exceptions for copyright, but it would seldom cover the use of an entire piece in most contexts.

I am certainly not one who argues that IP should be "free", but at the same time, the US copyright system is seriously broken.