Well that's the best on this clusterf**k

[woody]

If the video is demonetized it means the money is going to the rights holders, not the video maker.

I think your entire complaint is misinformed at best and borderline slanderous.

OK, I see I have some things to clear up.

First, there is Sync Licensing.

When an audio/visual project producer wants to use a recording in their work, they must contact both the owner of the sound recording (record label of the performer), and the owner of the composition (publishing company of the songwriter).

Negotiations for the licensing fee typically address how the work is being used, the length of the segment, the prominence of the cue (whether used as background music, the title track during the credits, or other uses), and the overall popularity and importance of the song or recording.

So, if Rick Beato wants to use a recording of a song in his videos, the legally appropriate way is to go through sync licensing and pay a licensing fee.
In practice, many labels and publishing companies don't enforce this, so when he "demonetizes" a video, he is exploiting this legally gray area.
His "demonetized" videos rely on the assumption that the artists waived their rights to a licensing fee and just get the Youtube royalties.
Which is kinda shady for someone coming from the music business.

If Beato receives a "copyright strike", then it's because he did not bother to obtain a proper license and the copyright owner insisted on his rights.
In other words: he fought the law and the law won.


Now, Rick Beato is known for his claim of Fair Use.
There's four criteria that can be used to determine fair use under 17 USC §107:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I argued above that Rick Beato's use of music examples surely is not non-commercial.
It has promotional value for his channels and provides reach for his original, monetized content.

The second criterion is a given for commercial music.

I'd argue that in a video called "What makes this song great" the contribution of the song to the whole work is substantial. Head bumping, stankfaces and saying stuff like "now, listen how the drums really lock into the groove" is kinda derivative from the experience of the original work. Saying "playing the single tracks and not the whole mix is just an insubstantial citation" is a cynic argument, if you ask me.

The fourth argument comes down to the sync licensing again. There's a legally proper way to license the rights of a song.


Sync licensing is cumbersome and expensive for the individual.
So people kinda don't bother.
Google and Meta have a legal obligation to enforce right owners claims, which are the dreaded "copyright strikes" that they reluctantly perform.
They have no real interest to legally settle with the big labels and royalty collections societies, because that would potentially mean they would have to pay general licensing fees to rights holders, which would be expensive for the platforms.
So they keep their content creators in legal jeopardy and they further disenfranchise artist from yet another rightful income stream.

Rick Beato knows all this shit.
Now you do, too.

 

[woody]

...and let me add that I find Beato blaming labels for "copyright strikes" slightly infuriating.
They are, in plain English, enforcing their artist's rights. That's what labels are supposed to do.
He should know better.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, this entire episode demonstrates just how silly the entire influencing business has become. Someone finds out something bad or wrong another influencer is doing and *blam* the entire influencing world is stuffed with their own takes on the matter - or, even (way!) worse: reaction videos!
And by now, this has become so much a second nature of the influencing game that even the "good guys" (whomever might qualify for that in your book) are falling for it.
In the end, I hope they're all doing themselves a disservice in the long run, as things are really getting full stop inflationary, so it's really not of interest for the audience anymore.
I mean, someone found out that Turra guy is faking and stealing things. Fine. Guy is a douchebag. Fine. Publish your findings and then maybe take that idiot to court or whatever. But FUCKING STOP to have the YT algorithm going all mad, thinking I need recommendations for all Turra drama episodes! And if you post something, FFS at least post some valuable information alongside (what Neely did) or make me smile (as Bradley Hall). Just don't repeat the same lame shit over and over again!

 

[Funk Soul Brother]

Fwiw, this entire episode demonstrates just how silly the entire influencing business has become. Someone finds out something bad or wrong another influencer is doing and *blam* the entire influencing world is stuffed with their own takes on the matter - or, even (way!) worse: reaction videos!

 

[Chocol8]

the legally appropriate way

I am guessing you are not a lawyer, certainly not one with experience in the area.

 

[DrewJD82]

And if you post something, FFS at least post some valuable information alongside (what Neely did) or make me smile (as Bradley Hall). Just don't repeat the same lame shit over and over again!

I agree with this entirely and that’s why I didn’t have an issue with Beato’s video on the matter and have been pointing out the ridiculousness in the comments with people giving him shit for not repeating all the same shit every other video did. It’s become a “You’re not willing to criticize this person the same way I want you to criticize him and even though you noted the issue and informed people where they can find all the details, I question your motives for not repeating everything ad nauseam. Toe the fucking line, asshole” thing.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I am guessing you are not a lawyer, certainly not one with experience in the area.

Yet he ain’t wrong…

 

[woody]

I am guessing you are not a lawyer, certainly not one with experience in the area.

Don't throw shade on me.
Correct me, if I'm wrong!

 

[woody]

From an actual attorney:

 

[DrewJD82]

OK, I see I have some things to clear up.

First, there is Sync Licensing.



So, if Rick Beato wants to use a recording of a song in his videos, the legally appropriate way is to go through sync licensing and pay a licensing fee.
In practice, many labels and publishing companies don't enforce this, so when he "demonetizes" a video, he is exploiting this legally gray area.
His "demonetized" videos rely on the assumption that the artists waived their rights to a licensing fee and just get the Youtube royalties.
Which is kinda shady for someone coming from the music business.

If Beato receives a "copyright strike", then it's because he did not bother to obtain a proper license and the copyright owner insisted on his rights.
In other words: he fought the law and the law won.


Now, Rick Beato is known for his claim of Fair Use.
There's four criteria that can be used to determine fair use under 17 USC §107:


I argued above that Rick Beato's use of music examples surely is not non-commercial.
It has promotional value for his channels and provides reach for his original, monetized content.

The second criterion is a given for commercial music.

I'd argue that in a video called "What makes this song great" the contribution of the song to the whole work is substantial. Head bumping, stankfaces and saying stuff like "now, listen how the drums really lock into the groove" is kinda derivative from the experience of the original work. Saying "playing the single tracks and not the whole mix is just an insubstantial citation" is a cynic argument, if you ask me.

The fourth argument comes down to the sync licensing again. There's a legally proper way to license the rights of a song.


Sync licensing is cumbersome and expensive for the individual.
So people kinda don't bother.
Google and Meta have a legal obligation to enforce right owners claims, which are the dreaded "copyright strikes" that they reluctantly perform.
They have no real interest to legally settle with the big labels and royalty collections societies, because that would potentially mean they would have to pay general licensing fees to rights holders, which would be expensive for the platforms.
So they keep their content creators in legal jeopardy and they further disenfranchise artist from yet another rightful income stream.

Rick Beato knows all this shit.
Now you do, too.

I’m a bit confused…..Beato is doing the wrong thing by making content, when the content host itself is the one who holds the cards for resolving payment issues with labels?

Does any evidence exist of a single artist being angry about how they were or were not paid as a result of a Beato video? Seems to me, every time he interviews a musician they end up thanking him for his content. Namely Vai, who is very protective of his IP and publishing. Seems if they actually had an issue they’d tell him to stop playing their music while sitting right in front of him during the interview? Maybe they’re secretly texting their lawyers after, but something tells me that’s not happening. I know Yngwie goes after YouTube content all the time, he didn’t seem to have an issue sitting 2’ from Beato while he played his music.

This just seems like “I really don’t like Beato, so here’s my legal interpretation of why he’s wrong for putting out content even though he has no barter power with the labels and the content host itself holds all the cards for negotiating proper payout to ensure the labels and Google get all their money before they pay the artist out their $0.004 per 1,000,000 views”

What’s next? Taking money out of street buskers hats to send to labels because they aren’t covered by ASCAP licenses?

I’m more than happy to cede my POV if any artists/bands/musicians have actually come out and stated how Beato’s videos are a disservice to them or taking money out of their hands in any way whatsoever.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I’m a bit confused…..Beato is doing the wrong thing by making content, when the content host itself is the one who holds the cards for resolving payment issues with labels?

Does any evidence exist of a single artist being angry about how they were or were not paid as a result of a Beato video? Seems to me, every time he interviews a musician they end up thanking him for his content. Namely Vai, who is very protective of his IP and publishing. Seems if they actually had an issue they’d tell him to stop playing their music while sitting right in front of him during the interview? Maybe they’re secretly texting their lawyers after, but something tells me that’s not happening. I know Yngwie goes after YouTube content all the time, he didn’t seem to have an issue sitting 2’ from Beato while he played his music.

This just seems like “I really don’t like Beato, so here’s my legal interpretation of why he’s wrong for putting out content even though he has no barter power with the labels and the content host itself holds all the cards for negotiating proper payout to ensure the labels and Google get all their money before they pay the artist out their $0.004 per 1,000,000 views”

I’m more than happy to cede my POV if any artists/bands/musicians have actually come out and stated how Beato’s videos are a disservice to them or taking money out of their hands in any way whatsoever.

IIRC that’s why Fleetwood Mac, Radiohead etc had take down notices sent.
I’m sure google can shed light on it.

 

[Rock Chalk]

Speaking of Fleetwood Mac, I bet Christine McVie is rolling over in her grave with that idiot Will Farrell singing her music in those stupid PayPal commercials.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Don't throw shade on me.
Correct me, if I'm wrong!

You still have to come up with any examples of where he exactly was legally wrong, especially in terms of using multitracks.

 

[Devin]

"He couldn't play well enough to be on my channel"

He should put the video out anyway tbh

 

[DrewJD82]

IIRC that’s why Fleetwood Mac, Radiohead etc had take down notices sent.
I’m sure google can shed light on it.

4 pages deep into Google and I can’t find a detailed breakdown of it, just his videos getting reposted elsewhere.

I did find one about Queens of The Stoneage blocking a video, with the video being blocked by WMG and UMG and that’s what I’m getting at; are there actual artists who are taking issue with it, or is it record labels?

“Fleetwood Mac blocks Rick Beato video” can mean two different things; everyone working for/with Fleetwood Mac blocked the video, or actual band members of Fleetwood Mac blocked the video.

I want to hear band member’s themselves speak on it.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

“Fleetwood Mac blocks Rick Beato video” can mean two different things; everyone working for/with Fleetwood Mac blocked the video, or actual band members of Fleetwood Mac blocked the video.

I want to hear band member’s themselves speak on it.

That Pedal Show recorded a video with Noel Gallagher and spent ages trying to get permission from Noel's publishing company to post the video containing Oasis music even though Noel had already approved it and he was the one playing the songs on the video.

 

[Sascha Franck]

are there actual artists who are taking issue with it, or is it record labels?

From all I know, it's the labels. Often possibly because they don't exactly know much better, without asking the actual artists first.
Goes sorta like: YT detects copyrighted material, sends a strike from labels generally blocking all of their artists' content in case they can. Alternatively, the labels detect the videos themselves and routinely just inform YT, which, in return, will block (or at least demonetize) the video.

Sure, there might be the occasional artist not wanting their material to be put under a scope (or maybe they just don't like Beato or any music-fluencers at all), but my bet would be that this is the exception, because, well, any publicity is good publicity - and in the majority of cases, Beato is positive (especially in the "what makes this song great?" series, so that's an extra bonus.

Also, I have never seen anything from Beato that was getting a strike because he made use of illegally aquired multitracks.

So, for a large part, I call BS regarding the artists themselves being responsible for the strikes.

 

[Sascha Franck]

That Pedal Show recorded a video with Noel Gallagher and spent ages trying to get permission from Noel's publishing company to post the video containing Oasis music even though Noel had already approved it and he was the one playing the songs on the video.

So there. This is precisely how I have heard things to work like. Getting permission from a big ass label is incredibly tough even if the artists are just fine with it.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

From all I know, it's the labels. Often possibly because they don't exactly know much better, without asking the actual artists first.
Goes sorta like: YT detects copyrighted material, sends a strike from labels generally blocking all of their artists' content in case they can. Alternatively, the labels detect the videos themselves and routinely just inform YT, which, in return, will block (or at least demonetize) the video.

Sure, there might be the occasional artist not wanting their material to be put under a scope (or maybe they just don't like Beato or any music-fluencers at all), but my bet would be that this is the exception, because, well, any publicity is good publicity - and in the majority of cases, Beato is positive (especially in the "what makes this song great?" series, so that's an extra bonus.

Also, I have never seen anything from Beato that was getting a strike because he made use of illegally aquired multitracks.

So, for a large part, I call BS regarding the artists themselves being responsible for the strikes.

Except the artist really doesn’t have say, the writer/composer’s publisher owns the mechanical rights. And it’s simple enough to get a license for that.

The rights to the sound recordings is owned by the artist’s label.

Beato’s is trying to circumvent it with the fir use argument that it’s for educational purposes.
That’s really all there is to it.

As in… even if I could load a friend my girl friends xyz it’s not mine to loan out, and simply here decision.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

So there. This is precisely how I have heard things to work like. Getting permission from a big ass label is incredibly tough even if the artists are just fine with it.

You only need permission from the label for the rights to the sound recordings. The original master.

Using someone’s song as in recording it, all it needs is a mechanical license. Which has nothing to do with the label but either the publisher.