Legality of posting videos performing cover songs @ YouTube?

[Nigel Keay]

I've been following this topic even if at times I struggle to understand aspects of US (copyright) law, the USA not being my country. I stumbled across an interview given by the President of SACEM on the topic of SACEM's agreement with YouTube, from last year, so watched that through to see what I could pick up about how it applies in France.

Here's the link: http://www.sacem.fr/cms/home/la-sacem/d ... m-you-tube it's the video at the bottom of the page. It's only the first couple of minutes of the interview that discusses YouTube, so is somewhat soundbytish to cover the essential points. He's saying that YouTube wished to develop the publicity on its works while not necessarily verifying (an unimaginable task) the 24 hours of new music that are added to YouTube every minute. He goes on to say that any professional group or amateur artist with a guitar in his bathroom can upload protected music, and that the musical work (as distinct from the performance) will be protected, remunerated and disseminated legally.

So it's an agreement by which SACEM gives YouTube the authorization to use protected works (SACEM repertoire, and worldwide originating protected works under its jurisdiction - ASCAP etc.) for the French territory. He goes on to say that it's not in SACEM's interest to block the use of its repertoire but rather to negotiate remuneration for them.

I take it from the context that the "amateur recording in his bathroom" is probably recording someone else's song, although that's not stated explicitly. Seems that the PRO at least is not concerned with who is doing the performance.

James - I did see a clip of yours on one of the French TV music channels probably a couple of years ago now, one morning very early when I couldn't sleep, I'm not really a regular watcher of those channels but did manage to catch it that one time.

[Oliveber]

The ISPs are shielded as long as they remove content immediately on notification from the rights holders. Not being a lawyer, I am not going to quote and interpret the law.

[mikehalloran]

I'm not sure where some of the thread participants are getting their information. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

Under copyright law, distribution is clearly a right of the copyright holder. YouTube posting without a license is unauthorized distribution.

Maybe but until Congress and the courts do something about it, the matter is in dispute.

It is incorrect to say the uploader is not legally responsible and that the ISP is. They are both liable.

You need to read the read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

You may think what you want, but I defy anyone who believes this to post a definitive section of the copyright law that provides for that. You won't find it.

I have already told you exactly where to find it.

Believe what you will and take your chances. I've brought enough infringement cases to know a few things.

1 - Properly registered works are fully protected.

True... Improperly registered works are not protected.

2 - Publication of the work does not give others the right to perform, arrange, or distribute the work...

If it is a musical work, they absolutely have the right to do all of the above once it is published in the US. This is not true in Europe.

They have this right because Title 17 outlines a fee schedule for distribution. Court cases and Consent Decrees have legitimized the PROs.

There is a catch: Without a correct Copyright certificate on a published work, nobody owes you a dime for performance or distribution.

In the US, they do not have the right to incorporate it into another work. That is why the PROs cannot grant a dramatic or sync license. Neither do you have the right to re-publish another's work. Uploading is re-publishing, BTW.

3- All parties involved in the illegal distribution are liable. Even if the ISP adds a disclaimer, they can still be named as a defendant or codefendant. If the Court decides the work was infringed, the Court assigns the fine and the award.

Again, Congress disagrees with you. Read the DMCA.

I'm not a lawyer,

Neither am I ... but I do this for a living.

The bottom line is that U.S. courts have a wide amount of latitude in deciding cases and laws are continually being tested, appealed, and rewritten.

Once again, read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. If not, have your attorney explain it to you. This part:

The ISPs are shielded as long as they remove content immediately on notification from the rights holders. Not being a lawyer, I am not going to quote and interpret the law.

Oh... You're really not going to like what the DMCA says about that. I don't either. I am hoping that, once you read it, you'll stop arguing the point.

Take your best shot at fame and fortune, but if you are depending on a forum like this for your legal advice, you are a fool of a client and that shirt on your back might be exchanged for one with a series of numbers - in the Big House!

I couldn't agree more! Legal opinions should only be given by attorneys.