One of the videos I uploaded to YouTube recently was identified as using copyrighted music. I’d used a song from the 50s, thinking that after 60 years, no one would give a hoot whether that song was being used as a track in a YouTube video. Still, it was identified by YouTube’s content ID program and pointed out to me.
Leaving aside the discussion of music copyrights in the US, which is absolutely insane, given that even 70-year old songs still aren’t public domain, I’d like to propose a model for revenue sharing among YouTube users and music publishers. It’s quite simple, and allows for easy licensing and monetization of music tracks. If implemented, I dare say it would also increase the revenues of music publishers quite a bit.
Here’s how it would work:
- Music publishers use YouTube’s content ID program to identify potential matches between their catalogs and YouTube videos, same as they’re already doing.
- Potential copyright issues will continue to be identified, same as they are right now.
- Videos won’t be restricted, as they are now, but will continue to play in all geographical locations, for every YouTube user, accumulating views.
- If the videos are successful and accumulate over 10,000 views, they will be invited into YouTube’s revenue sharing program.
- Once they start making money through that program, a portion of that money will go to the music publishers who own the licensing rights for that particular song or piece of music. I wouldn’t mind paying up to 25% of the profits from a video to a music publisher if I chose a particular song I loved for my video, and my video was successful. Besides, I wouldn’t have to actually “pay” myself. YouTube would automatically distribute the revenues accordingly.
The best part of this is that the process is fair, doesn’t punish anyone, and benefits all involved. If a video is successful, then it pays, and if it only gets a few hundred views, who cares if uses a song that should be licensed? If a tree falls in the forest and no one’s around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Does it matter?
Prosecuting individuals in this day and age, when the practice of adding songs to videos is so widespread, is terribly inefficient, and fosters ill-will. Why not use existing technology and platforms to add value, make money and foster goodwill?
The two areas where I see some tweaking will be needed are in the correct identification of music tracks, where the dispute/review process will need to be made easier and faster, and in the use of a sliding scale to calculate the percentage due to the publishers for the user of their songs, based on the song’s popularity and relevance. But those are minor things given the immense potential of this model to revolutionize the way we look at music copyright disputes on YouTube.
4 thoughts on “YouTube and music publishers: a model for revenue sharing”
Good ideas. I have no objections to put an ad on any videos which use copyrighted music. I am glad to help music artists by promoting their music in my not for profit videos.
I made a video after a good friend passed away and shared it with all our friends and family. He really liked Johnny Cash, Rockabilly music, etc. You tube silenced the audio about a week after it was put up and just ruined it.
I think your idea is a good one, and record execs need to understand in the digital age, this is just the way it is.
You’re right. It’s madness. I’ve had background tracks pulled for copyright, and I’ve had tracks remain, but with an ad popup to purchase the song on YouTube.
Think the second approach is much smarter, as is your suggestion.
My daughter has had songs pulled from music videos she put together, but reinstated after she claimed fair use. Go figure.
Comments are closed.