Checking Out Uppbeat.io for Royalty Free Music

I think every other week someone asks a question about using commercial or pop music in a podcast of video. There are folk that declare that they have never been caught and don't worry about it. 

There are many more people that are educated and have good sense that talk about not to do this. Not for eight seconds. Not for three. Flat out don't do it.

Me, myself I tend to attach a source to convince those of the cement dome why they should not do use commercial or pop music. I lean toward the academic so I have no problem plunking people toward the Stanford Library Copywrite Principles Primer. 

I like the stuff at web host Blubrry that explains why not to do it.

Or I could point folks to a Nolo.com post about the topic. The answer is from a legal point of view but, nope, don't do it.

Which leads folks into either commissioning someone to their music or making use of the various Royalty Free Music websites. 

This is going to get confusing very quickly.  Hang in there.

Royalty Free music services have a collection of music or sound effects for sale. That music can be used multiple times (per the condition of the license) after purchase. Meaning you don't have to pay each and every time a music track is used in a podcast or video.

Generally there is a fee associated with Royalty Free Music. But not always money.

For example, Purple Planet Music does provide music for attribution. Meaning you can use their songs provided you make sure that their name and/or website is visible in the finished product. 

The payment is by attribution. If you don't want or can't do that they do have a fee for track purchase option.

Which brings us to Uppbeat.io.

Main Page of Uppbeat.io website.

This is a relatively new service that is offering free music for creators. And right on the screen it says no copyright claims.

I am a person of doubt. Before I download anything, I keep reading. 

My first stop is the Help Center:

YouTubers, streamers, podcasters, vloggers, and social media maestros, that means you! If you're a solo creator or part of an organisation with up to 10 employees, you can use our music on any open-distribution platform, so long as your content isn't paid advertising

Ok, so far, so long as you are not using the music to create an advertisement it seems like you are go to go. 

When you create an Uppbeat account, you agree to the music usage policy, which explains what you can and can't do with our music. When you download a track, instead of a complicated license, you simply receive a unique Uppbeat Credit that's linked to your account. For YouTubers, the Uppbeat Credit can be included in your video’s description to proactively clear copyright claims.

Hold on, there is a music usage policy. And if the video is being uploaded to YouTube you have to place a credit in the description to knock out the YouTube music chasing bots. 

Understandable, but I have a feeling there is more. I found the more. The actual service is a company called Music Vine Limited dba Uppbeat.io. 

I am not, nor have I ever been a lawyer. This is my understanding of what is being presented.

1. If you decide to use the service, you have to abide by the rules of the service.
2. They can stop, change or remove the use of the service at any time.
3. You can make limited alterations of a track, suck as using just a section of it, limited sound editing and minor enhancements.
4. You can't "sample" the track or make a derivative work.

Yadda, yadda more legalese until you get to section 9.5

9.5   If you are a consumer user, please note that we only provide the Platform and the Tracks for domestic and private use.  You agree not to use the Platform and the Tracks for any commercial or business purposes, and we have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.

There it is - the gotcha.

Because what constitutes domestic use? This company is located in the UK. I'm not. 

And posting on YouTube or other social media sites is a very public and now days, internationally public activity. Are they saying that yes, if you lock down the video and only show it to friends and relations, that is ok?

But if I use it in a tutorial that may or may not be popular then does that becomes a violation if it does?

And if it does, will Music Vine come back to me and say "hey, you violated the terms of service, either take the video down or pay the commercial rate?"

I'm not feeling comfortable about this. 

You will have to evaluate if this is a safe royalty free site to use. You might like their stuff. 

Maybe just go ahead and pay the Uppbeat Premium monthly rate of $6.99 a month to get whitelisted on the 'Tube.

In my opinion, I don't think this "free" offer is free enough of potential trouble. 

More Reminders About Recording Police

Mercy the joint is jumping. There is a way to record police officers and this is an example of what we can do to counter the lies, official lies and soon to be codified police reports.

This is the full video of the St. Louis Police shooting and killing Kajieme Powell. It is graphic. This is not make believe this is real life.




I am not going to make any judgements about the content or what has happened. There are already people on-line that are spinning fiction out of the facts of this video.

Reminders

If you are on a cell/mobile phone please remember to turn it sideways when recording. A minor point but for citizen journalism mobile videos you might want to consider it.

One thing I want to point out is keeping your distance from the police. No need to get up close and personal. Record what you can and make sure you have a couple of escape paths planned.

You can get caught up in what you see but don't let PD catch you. The above video refutes some of the official statements made by the police spokesperson. It is important to get it seen. After you record what you can get to a safe place at high rate of speed. Copy the video, put that in a safe place and then upload it.

If your phone allows you to upload immediately after recording do it. You can set the video to private and take care of business later.

Copyright Consideration

You retain copyright to your video. You do not have to watermark or put a copyright symbol anymore but there might be good reasons to do so.

I'm sorry to say that broadcast, cable news, and other people will appropriate your video. Appropriate/steal same thing. If you have time, put a watermark on it so that there is no questions this is your video.

If not a watermark then at least a copyright notice in your video. Some TV stations might do the right thing by offering you a license to use your video. Or pay you flat out for it. Don't get ripped off -- take the time to think about it before you sign an agreement.

The YouTube parasites that steal your video and wrap ads around it? Not much you can do. You would think you could slap a DCMA notice on the offenders. You can, but there will be so many people copying the video and posting to their accounts you won't have time.

YouTube isn't that helpful about news content being stolen. 

Let me see, anything else?

Oh yeah. I feel silly for saying this but if you have a pocket camera, smartphone or POV recorder you might be a bit more safe than pointing a traditional consumer barrel camcorder. Ohio police shot a man with a toy gun. They see something that looks like a barrel and I...just don't want to think about it.

In the house, okay. Outside be a little cautious about it. Yes, way better video quality but not worth your life.

Other Posts of Interest

• Copyright and Fair Use Issues
• Documentary and Personal Narrative
• How To
• Journalism
• Legal
• Mobile
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Safely Recording the Police Using POV Glasses

There really might be a good reason to wear your sunglasses at night. For example, there are a number of police cars parked in front of your driveway. With a pair of recording Point of View (POV) glasses you could be assured that what is happening can be confirmed independent of a police report.

Keep your safety in mind at all times. We all can search for ways to safely record police officers but there is no way to stop a bad cop from trying to stop you.

They have guns. Guns kill people. You are people.

POV recording glasses is not a new idea; it has been around for a while but as with many things the technology has improved quite a bit.

The Pros of POV Glasses are:

• What you see is what you record.
• You can take still photos and videos with a touch of a button.
• With minimum tech savvy you can transfer videos to your computer. This means you know how to attach USB cable to the glasses or you know how to remove the microSD card and place the memory card into the computer.

 The Cons of POV Glasses are:

• We don't notice how much we move our heads. You will have to practice on using the glasses to keep a steady and stable recording.
• From a distance recording glasses are not noticeable. Up close they announce their presence.You will need to decide just how close you want to record without potential interference.
• There is a wide variety of video formats using in POV videos like .avi, motion jpg, .mov and mp4. If you use Windows Movie Maker to view and edit videos and your video format isn't compatible (.mov) then you have a minor problem. It can be solved but if you are not a techie you might not want to solve it. You want to get a POV glasses that are compatible with what you use. 
• However if you only use YouTube and the YouTube Editor you are kinda safe from worry.

Like their action camcorder cousins, the Pivothead brand glasses are designed for hands free recording.

You can take still photos or record video with buttons on the right side of the glasses. There is a choice of recording modes from old school 320x240 to 1080p and a bunch recording modes in-between. The POV glasses have a built in microphone. You can swap out the sunglasses for prescription glasses if you really need to see where you are going.

This is a commercial for Pivothead:




At $199 the basic model is fine for most people. However if you have or want the ability to connect to a tablet, smartphone or other devices you will want to check out the available accessories or the new models that are juicy to contemplate.

At $139 is the iVue Classic 720p is kinda sweet, not as discreet as you would like but a good deal at this price. 720p, 8GB storage, 140 degree wide angle lens with a functional one button on/off switch.
Another bonus is that you can change lens. The Classic 720p records in the .avi video format which should be compatible with just about anything.

The main drawback is that there is no memory card, the videos are stored in internal memory. You will need to attached the glasses to the computer to transfer the videos. Of if you glasses get snatched you are S.O.L. (Stone out of Luck)

There is another option with Google Glass which at $1,500 is not affordable for real working people. You might want to keep an eye on the Brickhouse Security site but their stuff is kinda expensive.

I wish there was another affordable brand name competitor. There are a lot of cheap knockoff POV glasses. Most are crap.

The knockoff POV glasses can cost between $25 to $100 but this really is a buyer beware area. You can find a ton of them on eBay and Amazon.

I implore you to read the comments and do research before you buy POV glasses from any store or on-line vendor.

Other Posts of Interest

• Buying Camcorders
• Legal
• Mobile
• Video Advocacy
• VidGeeky
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Safely Recording the Police Using Action Cams

Let's get this straight, you do have the ability and the legal right as U.S. citizens to record police officers. You have the right to record video from your property or on a public street. As we have learned, some police officers have not read the constitution or are inclined to prevent you from countering their mythical view of events.

We need to protect ourselves and our neighborhoods. These are ideas to consider.

There is only one thing I require you to keep in mind. Your personal safety. It it dangerous. It is hunting season and those with a license are taking aim.

Action Camcorders

Action Camcorder are generally used by people doing sporting adventures or events. The most famous of these are the GoPro line of action camcorders. One of the things that makes action camcorders attractive is that the have the ability to a record wide angle view of a mountain, river or police action.

Pro:

• Small, light and can be hidden from view.
• Generally have a wide recording angle so that you have a good expansive view of the area.
• Some models are WiFi enabled; meaning if they are connected to a smarphone, tablet or computer you could potentially upload video quickly to a web hosting service like YouTube.

Cons:

• Most action camcorders do not have a viewfinder or you would have to pay extra to obtain one. Not a deal breaker because of the wide angle recording but you won't know what you have until you look at it later.
• Action camcorders do not like being handheld. They are usually mounted on helmets, braces or tripods. There is no image stabilization so hand held videos can be really shaky.
• You need to be minimally computer savvy to either connect the computer  to the camcorder or remove the memory card and get it to the computer. How savvy? Connect the USB cable to the camcorder to the computer and then transfer the video files.
• Cost; decent action camcorders start about $180 to the $400 range. Knock offs can be found for about $100 on up but quality can be dicey.

So here are some options:

For affordability the basic $199 GoPro Hero3 would be a good choice, good audio, wide angle view and excellent video quality. This is the standard that the others try to meet. I'm thinking this would be good as a porch cam or resting on a window ledge. Again, Hero3 doesn't like to be held by hand, but if you have no choice this can capture a wide view of the situation.

Another contender is the Sony HD Flash Memory Action Camcorder. A bit more pricy than the Hero3 at $250 but it can record up to 4 hours before a charge and can record on Sony Memory Stick Micro or microSD cards to extend your recording time.

Need to be a bit more mobile? I think the Panasonic HX-A100 might be of interest. This is a wearable action camcorder that you could use like a Bluetooth headset. You'd have to purchase the Ear Hook and other accessories. Again, good video quality, fair audio quality and can be secured for on the street recording.

I know these are expensive options. These devices were built to be seen, be mounted in motion for more pleasant purposes. The way I am envisioning there use is that a home owner or renter sees an event from their property. They could use this type of camcorder mounted away from their body to record without notice of law enforcement.

Other Posts of Interest

• Buying Camcorders
• Documentary and Personal Narrative
• Legal
• Mobile
• VidGeeky
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Vine Videos of Ferguson Police Actions and Know Your Rights

People who have read this blog long enough know that I have covered what to do when the police try to stop you from recording a public event. It is tough, it can be dangerous or in some instances potentially lethal.

• Know Your Rights Video from ACLU
• Be Safe When Recording Police Officers

A young man, Michael Brown was killed by a police office. We don't know why at the time of this post why he is dead. There is no dispute that his body was in the street for hours.

There is no dispute that citizens were angry, frustrated and used their profoundly American right to protest. The majority of the those people were peaceful protesters.

There is also no dispute that there were some people that looted and destroyed property.

As time went on the police became an attack force toward citizens, citizen journalists and mainstream media. And despite the intentions of the police in Ferguson there were people that documented the story using social media and mobile devices.




Alderman Antonio French was using Vine to record what he was seeing in his community. Mr. French was arrested and held in jail for a few hours before being released.





Six second tells much; in this clip there are young men and reporters with cameras who are being tear gassed by the police. There was no Marshal law or curfew.




This is more of his videos on the police excessive use of tea gas:




So yeah, it is real. As a reminder:

As U.S. citizens we have the right to record police officers as affirmed by the 1st Amendment. The ACLU has a couple of pages about photography and video recording. this is the one from the Pennsylvania chapter on Know Your Rights.

Read Reason's 7 Rules for Recording Police Officers which would have still gotten you f-up in Ferguson.

I need to update with new sources but also check out Jesse Halfon's post on Cop Block. I gotta go but please, please be safe and be careful.

Changes at Danosong and Fighting DCMA Notices

Coming up from vacation mode with a sad notice of change. One of the two places I visit for podsafe music is Danosongs. It appears that folks can't directly download music anymore for their videos. You still can listen to his music or pay a donation fee for a track.  More on that later.

There are a number of mouth breathers, attorneys and low knuckle dragging beasts that are using the DCMA act to make false claims of copyright infringement; even though Dan O'Conner granted Creative Commons use of his music with attribution.

Yes, there are people out in the wild that for kicks that will put in false DCMA requests.  Reasons:

• Kill or slow down the competition
• Don't like the content and use the DCMA to act as their own personal censor
• ContentID Match Software bots that don't understand about multiple users selecting the same Creative Commons song.
• Slime buckets attorneys and the software that loves them that ain't got nothing better to do than to file false DCMAs.

Dan was getting pelted with people coming back to him because YouTube yanked their videos.  There are only some many hours in the day and no one wants to spend 23 hours trying to convince YouTube that your clients obtained the music legally.

You can check out Dan's FAQ page on what to do if you have downloaded prior versions of his tunes or still want to use some of his new work. 

So, what do you do if you get a false DCMA notice?

Like I have been telling folks; make sure you have a copy of the page of the website where you got your music. You can make a PDF of it or place a paper copy in a binder. You want to be able to prove that you are not in violation.

You will want to go to the EFF page specifically on YouTube take down notices.

This might help but it may not. YouTube has gotten cozy with Universal music so if you song sound remotely like one of their tunes you might have issues. Even if it is clear Fair Use you might have issues.

Also check out FairUse.org article on YouTube Refuses to Honor DCMA Counter Notices

And you'll want to read VideoInk's article from two entertainment attorneys on how to fight a false DCMA notice. 

In the meantime; those of us that need affordable music can make use of YouTube own audio library of tunes. I'd lay a dollar to a donut that this will not stop false flagging but it will be interesting to test it out.

You can also hippy hop over to Vimeo's music service where you can buy an affordable track with no muss or fuss. Again, document your sources and do the best you can in the turbulent times.

 Other Posts of Interest

• Audio and Music Posts
• Copyright Posts
• Legal for Video and Videoblogging Posts
• Home Page for Mobile Users

My Thoughts About Net Neutrality and User Generated Video

Whew! It has been hectic. I had a final project that scraped every brain cell on read alert. It is done. I get a breather for a bit.

A lot of things are going on that will affect user generated content. It is hard to keep up but there are a number of forces that are going to do their best to return things to the prior century mode of communication. Top down. Limited access.

The biggest news is the current handing of Net Neutrality. This the principle that Internet service providers and governments should all data on the Internet should be processed and treated the same.
There should not be companies and businesses that set tolls, extra fees and (it will come) ideological road block to access to content.




This is a video by Vi Hart that will visually explain what the deal is and how we are gonna get screwed. The phone and cable companies are gunning hard to make this happen.

Places like Netflix have already capitulated and paid access improved access fees to Comcast and Verizon. Comcast deliberately slowed down the speeds of Netflix videos to make their point about throttling access.

The hope is that the FCC has a come to Jeebus moment and regulates the Internet as a necessary public utility.

It ain't looking good.

So, what has this got to do with user generated video? Well... the phone and cable based Internet providers are busy capping how much Internet a user can access via their mobile devices and their desktop access.

For example, on my mobile Wi-Fi I pay $35 for unlimited access. If my if my service switches to 4G LTE then I will be required to pay $55 with a cap of 6GB. If I exceed the 6GBs then I have to pay extra.

For the record, I churn about 12-15GB easy. And no, I am not a gamer.

So, some of you say, get cable internet. Right, where I'll pay $60 to start with a 10GB cap.

So if you create web videos and up load them to Vimeo and YouTube that will count against your allotted usage. That is just at the consumer ISP level. What if the phone and cable companies start smiling at Vimeo and YouTube?

If you watched Vi's video you know that they will put the touch on both of those two companies and charge them fees for "taking up too much pipe."

The word I'm looking for is, um ....extortion.

YouTube might decide that it no longer wants to host cat videos or other types of non-income generating content.

Vimeo, who do not have as deep pockets like YouTube might decide to snuggle up to independent commercial content creators who put out a consistent product and churn cash.

So what to do?

You can read the official FCC Open Internet page to get their understanding on the issue. I have to say what is on that page and what was proposed by the FCC in early April 2014 seems a world apart.

You can check out Save the Internet to learn more about it or see if they have some ideas to fight it.

Common Cause has more information and a link to a form letter that can be sent to your federal representatives. 

Whoa. I actually fighting for the right to access cat videos. Strange days indeed.

P.S. Nothing against cat and/or dog videos.

Magix Music Maker - The EULA License Game

Just want to follow up on the entry level/basic version of Magix Music Maker Sountrack Edition. To recap, I purchased the software in order to create my own intros, video tunes and avoid the threat of DCMA and assorted attorneys trolling for dollars.

The software was on sale and it seem to be designed for novice users who wanted to craft their own tunes with the provided music tracks. As is my habit, I do read the End Users License Agreement (EULA) before installing software. That is when I had a WTF moment.

Yes, I could use the provided music tracks in videos. Provided those videos are non-commercial or the music is not used in a commercial (business, money generating) atmosphere.

Hold On - It Says You Can Use For Social Media Use

Yes, you can use the music in videos that appear on YouTube or an audio service like Soundcloud; so long as it is non-commercial. I understand that. But it is up to Magix to determine the use and the context of usage. If they feel you have violated the terms then you will have to deal with them or the attorneys. In Germany.

Technically, Magix did provide links on the web site, teeny tiny links, that spell out the End Users License Agreement.  And there are good people in the Magix multimedia community that are answering this question over and over.

I wish that Magix would put a link or some kind of notice on the sales page to alert potential users about the non-commercial use of this software.

If You Have Not Activated the Software:

Suppose you read the EULA and you decide that you want no part of the software. Stop, uninstall it and contact them within 14 days of purchase to get a refund.

Installation Caution:

If you are about to install the software, be careful. There is an installation window for a product called SimpleCheck

and Ask.com Toolbar.

I can’t tell you want to do but if you ask me what I did I’d tell you I unchecked those suckers quick, fast and in a hurry.

If You Have Activated the Software:

If you activated (register) the software then you are out of luck on that refund action. All is not lost and you have options.

Magix will want you to register to become a member of the Magix community. This is the only way to get into the Knowledge Base and community assistance to find out what the heck is going on. Or you can keep reading this post.

After Installation Using the Software Only:

There are music loops which are snippets of notes or beats. There are full tracks called soundpools and these are the music elements that is provided with the software.

For a moment, think of the software as if it was a word processing program. You can enter your own music that you compose. You will have no problem so long as you do not use any musical elements provided by Magix.

You can import Creative Commons or Public Domain music (and you are 101% sure it is in the public domain) and use the software to remix and compose tunes. Again, if you don't use any of the provided music you will be fine.

Using the Provided Loops and Soundpools

Here is the thing. Music is rarely free when it comes in contact with a vendor or software provider. Magix has another site called Catooh; it is a music repository where people can buy music, sound effects and soundtracks. There is an artist community that sell their music creations.

Catooh/Magix provides a variety of music licenses depending on the users need. For entry level users that can abide by the non-commercial license you do not have to pay extra.

But if you have a commercial need for music then you can purchase a single track or an all inclusive license. So let's say that you buy an Audio Pro track for 79 cents. You would be good for 3 million web impressions per month or 1 million public presentations. Which is a heck of a lot of conferences or 1 million video viewers.

With the 99 cent track it is unlimited non-commercial use. And no, I see no reason to purchase an entire catalog of music.

So Is It Worth It?

Well, that depends. If you want to have a unique theme or you are creating a special video or series of videos then yes, plunking down 99 cents for an single tune that has an unlimited music license is not a bad deal.

I would not do it for sound effects but for a composition you want to touch up, why not.

That said, there is one more thing. You purchased the license for the music. You can do anything you want except anything that Catooh/Magix deems unlawful, illicit or is used to establish a business identity.

Other Options

You can download a software program like Audacity and then purchase tunes from Magix, Sony or dozens of other music repositories.

You also have the option of diving into the Internet Archive to find music placed in the public domain by musicians. It is a slog but it can be done.

Other Posts of Interest

• Magix Music Maker Soundtrack Edition and EULA Terms of Service
• Audio Library - YouTube Music for Web Video
• A Look At Sony Sound Production Music
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Magix Music Maker and EULA Terms of Service

Doing the right thing can be irritating especially when you pay cash money to do the right thing and then find out you might not be able to do the thing at all. I'm not just jumping in and out of vague linguistically hoops.

I want music in my videos.

I don't want to be bothered by the freaking DCMA copyright boogie being. I believe in right livelihood and fair compensation. It happens that I got an e-mail from a software vendor, Magix, stating that I can purchase at a reduce price Video Sound Cleaning Lab 2014 and Music Maker Soundtrack Edition.

I am not a musician but this would give me an opportunity to play with a consumer level music program. My intention would be to mix and match installed soundtracks or public domain tracks into something transformative.

So why have I got my panties in a bunch? This section of the Terms of Service:

The music, video and photo files included with MAGIX products may only be used within the scope of producing personally created works to be used for non-commercial purposes. This also applies to music, video or photo data acquired through or by means of MAGIX products. Commercial use constitutes receipt of financial benefits through direct or indirect use of the files (through sale, licensing, ad banners, etc.)

No, no...what? The name of the program is Music Maker Soundtrack Edition. There is an implication that the music would be used in some kind of audio/video environment.

There is also this thing called social media. There are ads all around most of the social media services that I do not benefit from. (I wish I could make them go away but I do have an understanding that they support the service.)

I don't directly receive financial benefits. But I do benefit by using the services. So, after I stop hyperventilating I need to do some investigating.

License of Property

It should go without saying that I fully understand that I cannot take the tracks from the software program and sell them as my own. There are people in the world that do not understand that they cannot do that. That is wrong. That is theft of product and services. Moving on.

Social Media Use

In the End Users License Agreement it has a specific term about about the the use of the works. Non-commercial. So I can envision that traditional teachers, educators, video hobbyists that have never heard of the Internet can use the music tracks in projects.

Non-commercial YouTubers/Vimeo users can also use the tracks. In the product brochure it states that you can upload to Soundcloud, Facebook and YouTube.

Problem Solved? No.

Because I, someday, might want to create a commercial video. I am not one to turn down flowing cash money.

For example, I post a video about Mookie dancing in the street. I know not to use copyrighted music so I conjure up a tune using the installed musics tracks. I mix, match, slice and dice until I get my song just right.  The world goes crazy about Mookie and I flip the switch and make some profit.


Ah, there is a clause for that:

7. Claim for damages: MAGIX is entitled to proprietary and copyright protection for the licensed software as well as the music and video files. Anyone responsible for any violations against such rights may be sued by MAGIX.

Oh, by the way, The headquarters of this company is in Germany. So who's copyright law would I be subject to?

I have options:

1. Investigate further to see if there is a additional statements about the use of the music in videos that could be leaning toward commercial use.
2. Do not install the software and see if I can get my money back.
3. Use the software but find other music sources to use instead of the ones supplied by Magix

 I'll let you know what I find out.

Other Posts of Interest:

• Audio Library Music for YouTube Videos
• Clocking the Words in Time
• Extract Audio from Video using MPEG Streamclip
• Home Page for Mobile Users

YouTube Warning Video About Buying Viewers

If you recall back in December 2012 a whole bunch of videos and well known companies got booted off of YouTube for juicing their viewer numbers by unethical means.





Apparently this has not stopped others from not only following in their footsteps but adding the old bait and switch. I have gotten similar emails offering to boost my viewership. No thank you. Like James Brown said, "I'll get it myself."

I think the above video is too simplistic but it gets the message across. Don't do it.

Not only will you stand the chance of getting caught and booted off the Tube but your name and reputation will be less than mud.

Do you really want to get Twitter flamed? Because trash will be talked about your low life attempt to keep me and others from my Whovian fix.

And you know how many Whovians are on the planet?

Not worth the risk.

Other Posts of Interest

• Protect Yourself - Make a Resource Binder
• Quick Look at Nokia 1020 Camera Phone for Video
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Trying to Find the Truth About YouTube Paid Subcriptions

I have got all kinds of places saying is it and it isn't or it is gonna be but not right now. So much for reporters making things clear. Here is the deal; YouTube (and others with a vested interest) are looking for ways to increase the cash extraction process from viewers.

When you have a billion viewers a month and climbing you want to be open to all possibilities.

The Pre-rolls ads are one way to do it. Traditional media companies are creating content specific for YouTube audiences. Outside players are buying and financially supporting some of the upper level content providers.

I like HipHughes History and education video bloggers in general. I would seriously think about supporting the content that I like. There would be no cat videos but plenty of what I consider to be good stuff. If the bulk of the subscription money goes to the content providers and a chunk to YouTube for administrative and service costs I'm okay with that.

Except I can't get it confirmed. What has got some folks itchy is that (without confirmation from Google is a rumor that content creators will be able to have paid subscribers view there content.

Mashable says that the Financial Times says that it there are Beta subscription trails. I can't view the Financial Times site because they have a pay wall and you have to subscribe to have access to limited content.

Erf.

The Huffington Post story is actually from Reuters the video subscriptions but cites no sources; just

Slashdot say yeah, there gonna do it starting citing a post from IT World who cites the Financial Times.

Which is behind a pay way.

There is not, as of this date and time of this post, an official statement from Google or YouTube blogs. It is doesn't mean that it isn't true or there is a valid reason to question having subcriptions.

But where is the beef in the news stores about the topic?

Cuz I have questions? Like it it gonna be like cable? Of which I do not have or want? Can I pay one time per espisode or is it a monthly subscription? Do I have to buy a set number of channels not to have advertising. How about a better job of allowing me to discover videos that I want to know about.?

Is is going to be reconstituted crap from broadcast channels? What about the corporate content providers? Will they get to set their own price?

Questions without answers at this time.

Other Posts of Interest

• Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video - Part 1 
• Quick Look at Lumify Filmmaking App
• Creation Tools for Video Watermarks
• Home Link for Mobile and Tablet Users

Right To Record Police Officers Re-visited

There is an on-going punchline about the Internet. It goes something like "It must be true, it is on the Internet." Ah, no. Not everything you see and hear on the Internet is true

I'd be a little queasy to have law enforcement cite it as a reason you can't do something. I did not get the memo that Smartphones are now weapons of destruction.





I saw this video on Boing Boing about the San Diego cops that smashed the phone and then the person using the phone to record his ticket.

People, let's go over the rules of the road.

In California there is an expectation of privacy; meaning that you have to have permission of both parties to record. However police officers are exempt and you do have the right to record video of their public behaviors.

On the Federal level we have the right to record police officers. It is indeed a 1st Amendment right. Both the Department of Justice and the U.S. Court of Appeals have repeatedly smacked down attempts by police departments to stop recording their activities.

It does not stop certain officers from trying to stop you from recording. Or saying making ridiculous proclamations or more to the point physical threats to get you to stop.

Safety First!

If you are at a distance from the action and you are in no way interfering with police operations or investigations you are good to go. Be subtle and keep it on the down low until you can upload your content.

If you are in the middle of the action and you notice that the police are a bit revved up you need to record what you can and then leave. Yes, you have the right to record. That will not stop some cop from trying to get your phone or recording media. Even if they have to bust your head to get it.

This is where SocialCam for Android or YouTube Capture App can be handy. Click and upload so that if the police do a grab and smash the content is protected.

Others disagree by saying that you should passcode your phone and not upload content until you leave the situation or your retrieve your device from the cops. 

For more info on recording police officers safely I would suggest reading 7 Rules for Recording Police Officers at Reason.com

You also want to make time to hang out at Photography is Not A Crime, where you can see what police offers and some ding-a-ling judges around the country are doing with folks that record their activities.


Other Posts of Interest

• Two Guys from Texas and Recording on Private Property
• Reminder of Photography and the Law
• Mobile Posts of Interest

Musings on Crowdsource Crime Fighting

I have been hesitant to comment on the serious and evolving Boston Marathon Bombing suspect hunt. There has been a lot of misinformation created by mainstream media; specifically the New York Post as well as some users of social media via Twitter.

The content requests from the Boston Police Department and the FBI is just an extension of the old fashion wanted poster.  Except that the community provides the photo or video.

This isn't the first time that law enforcement has asked for photos and videos of a crime scene. But I think we have to just take a moment to understand that not only was the FBI asking for content but folks on their own via other social networks are conducting their own independent investigations.

This is a different space we find ourselves in.

There might be questions we are going to have to ask ourselves. I am thinking about this from a U.S. perspective.

1. What are my rights and responsibilities to provide that information?
2. Will I be compelled to testify at the trial to verify that I did indeed take the photo and video?
3. Can I retain my copyright and insist that I be fairly compensated for non-law enforcement use? This means having broadcast and cable news programs pay for the use of my content. I don't mean to be callous; not everything is for profit and there are instances where you need to show what you got. But if law enforcement turns over that info to broadcast media then that media company, as a business, should compensate the creator of the work. Is that going to happen?
4. What will we do when it is found out that somebody fudged the photo or /video evidence? Not in malice; maybe the person edited a portion out that they felt was not important.

That is just on the law enforcement side.

What about independent cyber investigations? Or crowdsourced vigilante crime fighting?

I'm thinking of recent incidents where people have been attacked on-line that slipped into off-line behaviors.

What if they have the wrong person?

Yeah. This is going to get increasingly messy.

There is a lot to think about.


Other Posts of Interest

• You Should Read the Contract, Seriously
• The Copyright Bots are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make a Resource Binder

You Should Read the Contract, Seriously

Reading is fundamental, especially if you have intentions of creating web video for profit. Please read the L.A. Weekly story by Tessa Stuart called in print Rage Against the Machinima and on-line as YouTube Stars Strike Back.

It is a tale of gamer video creators signing odious contracts that can claim the rights to their work for life and beyond, no matter the delivery method now or here after devised.

Hell, no.

See, this is why you need history. This is the same stuff that was done to American rural music performers, street kids singing on the corner and film actors under contract with the major movie studios from the 1900s to the early 1960s.

With the amount of money that is starting to flow into web video you'd kind of have to expect this sooner or later. The venturn capitalists are trying to hold hands to the future and those acting as middle people are damn determined to make bank by whatever means necessary.

The sharks are in the water looking for blood. Don't let it be yours.

Other Posts of Interest:

• YouTube Enforces Viewer Count Takedowns
• The Copyright Bots Are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make A Resource Binder

YouTube Enforces Viewer Count Takedowns

Over the 2012 holidays hundreds of YouTube users found that their videos have been deleted, their accounts terminated or their viewership hacked to bits or removed.

The most notable is Universal Music Group with a loss of 2 billion viewers and Sony Music/BMG with 850 million views vaporized.

Gone.

I keep telling people, read and understand the Terms of Service. In this case, you want to work your way to Section 4H:

You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation, "robots," "spiders," or "offline readers," that accesses the Service in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a conventional on-line web browser.

There is more. Also read Section 4J: the service can be terminated at any time.

The Social Blade Bottom 500 as it appeared on January 2, 2013

Dig some of those names on the right side of the list. What is in question is the viewership numbers.  Allegedly, the numbers were inflated using software bots to artificially increase the number of viewers.

I would also factor in paid for clicks from human instigators as well.

The Daily Dot has the full story.  It has been confirmed by YouTube that this is happened and not just to the big boys but rank and file YouTube users as well.

It is the buying and selling of imaginary viewers. It is the dark side of pumping up viewers to ensure that there is the appearance of success and cash money.

You would think that major corporations would know better. The attorneys for those corporations would know better.

Then there is that right and wrong thing. Many people have conceptual problems with the concept. At some of the forums I have read a constant refrain of "...it is not against the law so what is the problem?"

Let me add another element that this is now a multinational problem. If one script teen in another country can gin up the viewers and make far more money than his family makes in 20 years it is going to be hard to stop that kid.

Or the hundreds of others like him or her that will follow. Or the adults that enable that behavior buy purchasing the viewers or providing the forum to allow them to sell their services.

What If You Are Innocent?

I have no doubt that many folks snagged by YouTube have performed behaviors that warranted attention. I've been P.O.when I click a video for a specific breaking topic video and find out it is some tired C-cup dame trying to respond to a news story to increase her viewer numbers.

I say yank her chain and show here the door.

But there are other people who really did the work and earned legit viewers. Like the tribulation of working your way through a DCMA notice; you almost don't have a way to petition a re-evaluation.

And while you are trying to resolve the situation you may not have a YouTube account. Or your most popular video is trashed. What do you do?

It is not at all clear what is the process of clearing your name and reputation. Or perhaps that you have been a victim of a targeted assault by friends of said script teen.

In the meantime, make sure that your house is in order:

• Have copies of your videos; which you shouldn't have to tell people but yeah you do.
• Make a Resource Binder with proof of the content and assets used in your production.
• Have a blog or web site independent of your web host.
• Monitor your statistics for unusual activity or growth.
• Have a back-up video hosting service, although don't assume that you will be automatically welcomed at Vimeo or Blip.tv.

 
Other Posts of Interest

• The Copybots Are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make A Resource Binder
• Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video - Part 1

Education Videos, CPG Grey and His Take on Copyright

In the early days of broadcast American television there was a serious attempt at educational programing. There were TV shows for those trying to get their GED, learn a language and even classical music appreciation.

These programs were stuff into the early morning hours during the week or on Sunday mornings. From what I remember, most were talking heads with a blackboard or lectures with maps.

The intent was sincere but often they were dull as a butter knife. I don't want to disrespect that programing. It was hi-tech at the time. It was an attempt to honor the desire to use television to open education to all people.

That intent lives on; there is a growing wonderful class of Pro/Am Science and History Vloggers and people that creatively use web video to educate. John Green on History, Veritasium on atoms and the stars, Hank Green on Science, Vi Hart on Math, and the subject of this post, CPG Grey.

First, let us have a taste of what CPG Grey does with a concept or historical topic. This is his take on the origin of U.S. copyright and the long distance consequences extending the protection period.





The bashful Mr. Grey (he does not appear or wished to be seen in public) uses stick drawings, public domain images, graphics and text to convey historical information about the UK and the U.S.

I wasn't going to pass up a good explanation of  the beginnings of U.S. copyright law but last night I fell into his blog and started watching his videos.

How does he do this? Did he get the fact right? Is there a good balance of information and presentation? For the most part, heck yeah.

Because 15 hours later I still remember a convoluted process how to get elected the mayor of the City of London which is not the same as London, UK.

That is the thing. Will your audience remember what you were trying to convey long after they watched the video?

Much to do, so very much to do.

Other Posts of Interest

• My Experience Using SnagIt to Record Video
• What Can I Learn from Pomegranate Video?
• Problem Solving On My ALA Advocacy Video

Japan and Copyright Math with Rob Reid via TED

Japan has just put into law the most restrictive law concerning copyright and downloading from the Internet. Two years in prison and a $25,000+ fine. Uploading is even worse and it might be a Japanese ISPs are also getting the squeeze or shakedown.

Now it has been said that some of the lawyers and known agents of myopic copyright thinking were buzzing into the Japanese legislators air space. They told of the number of monies lost and the people who would not be employed.

The lobbyists and attorneys got to talking. Money and contributions changed hands. And this is how you get a draconian law that goes way beyond what is necessary.

What could constituent downloading? Watching certain YouTube videos? The act of even watching YouTube? If a copyright holder objects and they trace it back to the Japanese viewer well...

Anyway, if you think this has nothing to do with you I invite you to watch this humorous video from Rob Reid.  The video pokes a hole in the allege monetary suffering the poor old RIAA and MPAA have kinda, sorta experienced from all of this free expression, recycled viewing of old media  and re-use of content.



For the record, I do support right livelihood and the right to protect your property. That is a given. Using amped up laws that will result in some granny going to prison because their grandchild watched a Gangam video on their computer or tablet? It is gonna be ugly.

Y'all need to think about the long distance implications.

Related Posts of Interest 

• The Copyright Bots Are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make a Resource Binder
• Placing a Copyright Notice In Your Video Part 1

El Monte Fires 14 Lifeguards for Gangnam Parody Video

Talk about you buzz kill and not understanding the long view. A group of El Monte Lifeguards did a parody video of a popular song. They got fired. This video is the reason why they are unemployed:



Here is the background story from their Facebook page:

All footage was recorded off the clock during breaks and free time. The city manager OFFICIALLY fired us for using the facility for private use and wearing uniforms in public while off-duty. Afterwards we were UNOFFICIALLY told that our music video was both "disgusting" and an "embarrassment to the city of El Monte."

Now, granted. your local city government made up of a percentage of crusted up fuddy duddies are not going to like scenes that involve pelvic thrusting. In city swimsuits. On city property.

I think the dude in the elevator must have had someone in HR fanning themselves in horror or something.

The city could have seen it as a group of folks promoting the city of El Monte. Or that their employees had organized and produced a video that the public enjoyed and other folks in El Monte might have wanted to watch too. A citizen experience. I don't know if the city knows this but some people like looking at lifeguards in red swim suites.

Why there was even a television show about just that same thing.

Look, I understand the city has an issue with it. There are city lawyers that could have said something to help put the 14 on the road to other employment options.

But basically the lifeguards were just dancing and having fun. It was not "obscene." It was a group of folks sharing in the Gagnam Style. Cite them. Warn them not to do it again but I do think the firing was a bit extreme.

The problem, the lifeguards were under "At Will" employment. That means that the city can fire you for any reason and not have to think twice about it.

So if you create a parody video on your companies equipment, clothing or property you might want to think twice about. If you are in the city of El Monte, CA where folks go some place else to have fun then be on the look out for buzz kill force.

The Takeway:

Be very aware of where you are recording your video. Know your rights and responsibilities. And if on the job, clearly understand the potential risks.


Related Posts

• New Media Rights Interview with Shaun Spaulding
• Two Guys from Texas and Recording on Private Property
• Know Your Rights from ACLU

The Copyright Bots are Here

For those that do not know, software programs called a "bot" are designed to seek and remove what they believe to be unauthorized use of copyrighted material. You don't even get the courtesy of a DCMA notice. The video is removed.

Copyright bots are spreading across all of the video web hosting sites and streaming channels.  That flipping YouTube ContentID is in full effect. There are other companies creating equally noxious programs.

The past few weeks have focused attention on some of the more public goofs of the bots. 

• On YouTube the blocking of Michelle Obama speech on the official Barack Obama YT channel.  This meant that those missed it or watch it after the fact couldn't.  
• Wired magazine has a write up about the the Hugo Awards the speech of Neil Gaiman was removed when pre-cleared, permission content from the BBC's Doctor Who appeared on the screen. The copyright bot did not care, off it went and the stream could not be re-started. At all. The Slate also has the details.
• NASA is a government agency. Photos and videos produced by said agency for the benefit of the American people are instantly in the public domain.  If you wanted to see the Control Room video after the event you could not because Scripps Local News Service had a copyright claim on the video. You can read more of that story at Mashable.com

For those of you resistant to reading, this is a video from Mashable's Lauren Gores about what happened.


If you go into the comments of that Mashable story you are going to see one from a woman that represents singer James Taylor and other performers/clients. That man is getting flagged for performing his own work.

What has this got to do with you and me?

Plenty!

Lets say you record an up and coming band at a public concert. So do 100 other people. The band doesn't mind, it gives them exposure to new audiences for free. Everybody is cool and copacetic with the synergy.

Except the copyright bots.

You are creating commentary on a social topic. You use an example from a current news or television show. 25 seconds tops to make your point. You can prove straight up that your work clearly comes in as intended under Fair Use.

Not to the copyright bots.

The copyright bots could not distinguish the difference between a NASA event and a television news re-use of that same video. Commercial interests were allowed to take priority over the legal creators of the content.

Doesn't anybody have a problem with this? I do. Scripps Local News Service are not the rightful owners.

Now here is the chilling effect. You never know when those suckers are going to hit. When they do you have to actively prove that you are the legal copyright holder.

You have to prove that you have the right to use your own content.  Or that you are justified in using copyrighted content in certain situation.

I've seen videos where teachers have assigned To Kill A Mockingbird to students and asked them to come up with a video critique of an aspect of the movie.

It will not mean a damn thing to the copyright bots.

The shady folks that the copyright bots where intended to stop? They have already figured out a way around them.

My point is don't allow the copyright bots to stop what you are doing; especially if you are doing social commentary or documentary work.  Be aware that it might become an issue.  The road of free speech and expression just got a little rougher.

I was reading some of the comments at Slashdot about the NASA video. They have some words about it. I don't think removing lawyers from the planet is a good solution. Not even if they are from the RIAA/MPAA.

We as a people are giving up way too much control to non-human entities. I read science fiction. It is never a good thing.

Related Posts

• Protect Yourself Make a Resource Binder
• Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video - Part 1
• Checking Out Everything Is A Remix

Protect Yourself - Make A Resource Binder

There is a good post by Roni Loren on BlogHer about the dangers of using copyrighted materials. Ignorance is no excuse under the law. Roni's post is about photography in blogs but it applied to video folks as well. 

It isn’t even that you intentionally did something wrong. With the new software algorithms that are now being used by YouTube and other video web hosting sites, you might be flagged as having music that appears in multiple videos.

Being able to quickly prove that you have the right to use the music or video in question can help to get your video restored a bit faster. If you use another person’s work without their permission you can be in lawyer involved trouble. 

For this post, I wanted to find a public domain image of a binder. What appears is royalty free stock photos and trademarked images that require permission. I can’t use a photo of the cover if there is a design element on it.

It is trademarked protected. Think of the Nike Swish which cannot be used without permission of Nike. Same concept.

Bummer.

Example of A Terms of Service page at Texture King

One way to avoid those problems is to make sure you can document where you obtained the photo, video or music used in your project.

What You Will Need
 
It doesn’t matter if it is an old school 3 ring notebook or a file on your system. You will want to have some method of demonstrating where you obtained the content and the Terms of Service (TOS).

Here is what you need:

A copy of the web page where you obtained the content with the date you accessed it.
A copy of the site's Terms of Service page that specifically gives you permission to use the material for

• Attribution
• Creative Commons Attribution
• Non-Commercial Use
• Commercial Use
• Public Domain

A note page where you list all of the sources of content that appear in your video. 

If your can't find the TOS or license of the content I would not download or use that material. Be aware that there are users that steal other people's content, modify it and claim public domain. It doesn't work that way.

I also would be cautious of sites that have URL/web addresses that have public domain music or public domain photo multiple times in different domains. There could be skeezy activities in that neck of the Internet.

Protect Yourself

If you are creating business videos you have to do this. It might be far safer for business vloggers to purchased content at quality royalty-free sites.

If you are doing news/documentary you have to be aware of your surroundings and what is being heard in the background.

Demo and resource vloggers also need to be conscious of materials used but you might have more of a Fair Use leeway if you are reviewing or evaluating a product or service. 

Goofing around with the camcorder and you make your own music, you are free to do as you please.

If you are unclear about Copyright, Creative Commons, Fair Use and Public Domain you are putting yourself at risk. I wish it were easier. We in the U.S. have had corporations influence and muck up the traditional terms of copyright.

Until things are sorted out we have to abide by the current rules.

Related Posts

• Duke University's Bound By Law Primer on Fair Use
• A Few Thoughts on YouTube's Content ID
• What Is Creative Commons License?