Who is Sigrid? Exploring the Underrated Music of a Young Norwegian Artist

[BWV]

I assume it is all about advertisement and not so much about copyright.

Right, if it was a copyright issue it would not be on YouTube in the first place - the only copyright possibility would be YouTube can’t determine the locale of the end PF user in order to screen videos that may run afoul of copyright laws in that users country

 

[collinsmark]

Right, if it was a copyright issue it would not be on YouTube in the first place -

That is simply not the case. YouTube is one way that musicians make money. Part of the ad revenue that YouTube makes gets funneled to the owner of the copyright of the music, via licensing organizations.

Advert $\rightarrow$ YouTube $\rightarrow$ Licensing org. $\rightarrow$ Musician.
(and I may have left out a few middlemen here such as the label and publisher who may also have a stake in the copyright.)

Here, for this simple example, the musician holds to copyright to the music. The musician enters into a contract with the licensing organization. The licensing organization enforces that copyright via lawyers, the court system, and whatnot. Many countries might be involved. There may be restrictions on how the YouTube video is played depending on the country. YouTube's algorithms automatically look for musical copyright matches to any and all videos uploaded to it. YouTube works very closely with the licensing organizations.

Part of this was explained in the video in post #873 titled "Music and Copyright," but I also suggest doing a google search on "YouTube Music Copyright" and there will be a lot of information returned.

 

[BWV]

That is simply not the case. YouTube is one way that musicians make money. Part of the ad revenue that YouTube makes gets funneled to the owner of the copyright of the music, via licensing organizations.

Advert $\rightarrow$ YouTube $\rightarrow$ Licensing org. $\rightarrow$ Musician.
(and I may have left out a few middlemen here such as the label and publisher who may also have a stake in the copyright.)

Here, for this simple example, the musician holds to copyright to the music. The musician enters into a contract with the licensing organization. The licensing organization enforces that copyright via lawyers, the court system, and whatnot. Many countries might be involved. There may be restrictions on how the YouTube video is played depending on the country. YouTube's algorithms automatically look for musical copyright matches to any and all videos uploaded to it. YouTube works very closely with the licensing organizations.

Part of this was explained in the video in post #873 titled "Music and Copyright," but I also suggest doing a google search on "YouTube Music Copyright" and there will be a lot of information returned.

And how does any of this make incorrect what I said? Yes, YouTube had procedures for respecting copyrights and videos that violate copyright tend not to last long. Again, the issue with PF would only be if somehow YT could not locate the viewer to determine local copyright regarding - but IMO it’s far more likely the issue relates to an inability of YT’s ad bots to identify the viewer

 

[collinsmark]

And how does any of this make incorrect what I said? Yes, YouTube had procedures for respecting copyrights and videos that violate copyright tend not to last long. Again, the issue with PF would only be if somehow YT could not locate the viewer to determine local copyright regarding - but IMO it’s far more likely the issue relates to an inability of YT’s ad bots to identify the viewer

Perhaps, but the effect of ads likely might originate with policies put forth from the licensing organizations, of which YouTube diligently respects. And that all comes down to copyright licensing and enforcement.

What I'm saying is that copyright isn't just a rare thing that YouTube considers from time-to-time and takes down the rare video that violates copyright, no, copyright is the driving force behind money making, involving anything with even a hint of music on YouTube. Some might argue that posting potential, musically copyrighted material is not discouraged, but rather encouraged. You won't make any money by posting it, but it likely won't be taken down because others (including YouTube, the original artists, and any other copyright stakeholders) might make money on your video, so it's a win-win for them.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. Back to the embedded problems that PF is having. Of all the YouTube links posted on PF, some have problems with embedding. And of those that have problems with embedding, practically all of them, at least all of them as far as I can tell, have, at least a little, copyrighted music in the background (if not completely music).

I don't think that's a coincidence.

Like I've mentioned before, when you post your own video to YouTube, you can elect to disable embedding. That might explain any non-music related videos on PF that have embedding problems (if there are any). Most of them, however, are correlated with copyrighted music, and I'm suspecting that is not coincidental.

 

[Hornbein]

I assume it is all about advertisement and not so much about copyright.

It's random and changes from day to day.

 

[OCR]

Lets try this one. . .

 

[OCR]

This one. . .



.

 

[OCR]

Hmmm. . . ?

.

 

[pinball1970]

This one. . .



.

I can play those ok.

 

[Hornbein]

Lets try this one. . .

Hot jam!

 

[pinball1970]

Hot jam!

Yes I get access to that too.
Ok so what is the formula? Is this Random? It can't be a copyright thing because if Led Zeppelin get blocked on a YT vid they are blocked.
Posting them here should not make a difference.

 

[collinsmark]

Yes I get access to that too.
Ok so what is the formula? Is this Random? It can't be a copyright thing because if Led Zeppelin get blocked on a YT vid they are blocked.
Posting them here should not make a difference.

Are you sure it wouldn't make a difference? Different music has different licenses. The way YouTube handles a particular video with copyrighted music in it might depend on the particulars set forth by the particular licensing organization that enforces the copyright and copyright related revenue stream of that particular piece of music. I mean, why wouldn't it?

Suppose you're a musician.

You write a piece of original music. Maybe you record the song in your basement, perhaps even make a video, or maybe not. Whatever the case, the important part is you register and work with a licensing organization to enforce the copyright of your original music. For this example, suppose you use BMI for your license. I'm using BMI just as an example; it might be another licensing organization and the details of the license might depend on the country the music is being played and other factors. The important thing is you have a licensing organization that enforces your copyright, and there may be variables in the terms to the license.

Now, if the system works correctly, ever time your song is played on an electronic jukebox in a bar/pub, or on a streaming service like Pandora, a video format like what's played on YouTube, or even somebody performing a live cover of your music in a small venue*, the licensing organization will take a cut, and a portion of that will get filtered down to you.

*(Yes, theoretically, even live performances in small venues. That's why one of the expenses the bar/pub owner has to pay is a PRO [performing rights organization] music license. Of course it's not logistically feasible to have the bar owner keep track of each and every song played live; rather the idea is that the PRO license "divvies up" the revenue and distributes a portion to each of the copyright license holders.)

Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you don't use copyrighted music in a particular upload.

If your collection of videos haven't gotten enough views, and if you don't have enough subscribers, such that YouTube has not offered you a monetization account, then you don't get paid for your video.

If you have made a name for yourself enough that you do have a YouTube monetization account, YouTube might pay you for your video. How much you get paid depends on many factors, but as a rule of thumb, I'm told it's ballparked at something like $1 per 1000 views.

When you upload your video you have many options regarding how that video is displayed. You can enable or disable embedding for example. You can make it regional, restricting its play to certain countries. You can enable or disable comments. There are other options not mentioned here.

The important part here is that there are only two entities involved in this scenario: You (along with your preferences) and YouTube. That's it. 'Just the two of you. There may or may not be money involved. But if there is, it's just between you and YouTube.

Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you do use copyrighted music in a particular upload.

You might not realize it, but each and every video uploaded to YouTube is scanned and checked for copyrighted music.

Your upload is now "demonetized." That means that even if you have a monetization account, you won't get any money for that video. Remember that ballparked figure of around $1 per 1000 views? That doesn't go to you anymore, it goes to the licensing organization (BMI in this example), who takes a cut and the rest get filtered down to the original copyright stakeholders.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing for you. That is, if your goal wasn't to make money in the first place.

• You: No, you don't get money, but you do possibly get notoriety, and the number of views and subscriptions to your channel can work in your favor, particularly if you are trying to work toward gaining a monetization account with YouTube. So this still can be considered a partial win. 'Maybe a complete win if you're just looking for fame and/or higher view/subscription count.
• YouTube: YouTube makes ad revenue for your video, so it's a win for them.
• Copyright holders of music: They also make a cut of the ad revenue, and they didn't even have to do anything. Heck it might even boost their publicity too, so this can be a win-win for them.

So for the most part, everybody wins.

However, note that the original copyright holders could complain to YouTube and issue a copyright strike against you. They usually won't though because it's not in their financial interests. But they could. It's very, very rare that they do, but it could happen. So it is something to keep in mind.

But an important part, relevant to this thread, is look at the number of parties involved. It's not just you and YouTube anymore. It's you, YouTube, and now the licensing organization such as BMI.

Remember those preferences that you got to choose when you uploaded that video? Some of these preferences might conflict with the licensing agreement by BMI. And I can almost guarantee that YouTube is going to prefer the licensing preferences/restrictions over yours. (By that I'm guessing YouTube will choose the most restrictive options between the two.) And those licensing preferences/restrictions are likely different for different pieces of music. Some of these licenses (for say, Led Zeppelin for example) had their original incarnations before YouTube even existed.

So you can expect that the way YouTube ultimately handles the particular video might vary substantially compared to other videos with different copyrighted music. Different particulars in music licenses means YouTube handles things differently.

Conclusions:

Videos containing copyrighted music are much more complicated in the way that YouTube handles them, primarily due to copyright licensing and the corresponding way that ad revenue streams are handled.

Somebody a few posts ago suggested that the reason that PF is having a problem with embedding certain videos might have something to do with ads. Yes, that sounds reasonable. But my point is that I'm guessing there probably wouldn't be any problems had the particular video not contained copyrighted music. Again, copyrighted music in the video makes things more complicated.

Different videos might be handled differently due to different licenses.

Videos with copyrighted music represent a significant fraction of YouTube's overall revenue. They take it seriously. I would even guess that most videos containing copyrighted music were not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That doesn't necesarily make it a problem though. But to imply that videos containing copyright "issues" are mostly taken down is simply not true. There are oodles and oodles of videos on YouTube that were not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That's a significant fraction of revenue for YouTube, the license organizations, and the original copyright stakeholders. Copyrighted music is a huge revenue source, even if the uploaders don't own the copyrights. That doesn't necessarily make it a problem, it just makes it more complicated.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[pinball1970]

Are you sure it wouldn't make a difference? Different music has different licenses. The way YouTube handles a particular video with copyrighted music in it might depend on the particulars set forth by the particular licensing organization that enforces the copyright and copyright related revenue stream of that particular piece of music. I mean, why wouldn't it?

Suppose you're a musician.

You write a piece of original music. Maybe you record the song in your basement, perhaps even make a video, or maybe not. Whatever the case, the important part is you register and work with a licensing organization to enforce the copyright of your original music. For this example, suppose you use BMI for your license. I'm using BMI just as an example; it might be another licensing organization and the details of the license might depend on the country the music is being played and other factors. The important thing is you have a licensing organization that enforces your copyright, and there may be variables in the terms to the license.

Now, if the system works correctly, ever time your song is played on an electronic jukebox in a bar/pub, or on a streaming service like Pandora, a video format like what's played on YouTube, or even somebody performing a live cover of your music in a small venue*, the licensing organization will take a cut, and a portion of that will get filtered down to you.

*(Yes, theoretically, even live performances in small venues. That's why one of the expenses the bar/pub owner has to pay is a PRO [performing rights organization] music license. Of course it's not logistically feasible to have the bar owner keep track of each and every song played live; rather the idea is that the PRO license "divvies up" the revenue and distributes a portion to each of the copyright license holders.)

Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you don't use copyrighted music in a particular upload.

If your collection of videos haven't gotten enough views, and if you don't have enough subscribers, such that YouTube has not offered you a monetization account, then you don't get paid for your video.

If you have made a name for yourself enough that you do have a YouTube monetization account, YouTube might pay you for your video. How much you get paid depends on many factors, but as a rule of thumb, I'm told it's ballparked at something like $1 per 1000 views.

When you upload your video you have many options regarding how that video is displayed. You can enable or disable embedding for example. You can make it regional, restricting its play to certain countries. You can enable or disable comments. There are other options not mentioned here.

The important part here is that there are only two entities involved in this scenario: You (along with your preferences) and YouTube. That's it. 'Just the two of you. There may or may not be money involved. But if there is, it's just between you and YouTube.

Suppose you're a YouTuber, and you do use copyrighted music in a particular upload.

You might not realize it, but each and every video uploaded to YouTube is scanned and checked for copyrighted music.

Your upload is now "demonetized." That means that even if you have a monetization account, you won't get any money for that video. Remember that ballparked figure of around $1 per 1000 views? That doesn't go to you anymore, it goes to the licensing organization (BMI in this example), who takes a cut and the rest get filtered down to the original copyright stakeholders.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing for you. That is, if your goal wasn't to make money in the first place.

• You: No, you don't get money, but you do possibly get notoriety, and the number of views and subscriptions to your channel can work in your favor, particularly if you are trying to work toward gaining a monetization account with YouTube. So this still can be considered a partial win. 'Maybe a complete win if you're just looking for fame and/or higher view/subscription count.
• YouTube: YouTube makes ad revenue for your video, so it's a win for them.
• Copyright holders of music: They also make a cut of the ad revenue, and they didn't even have to do anything. Heck it might even boost their publicity too, so this can be a win-win for them.

So for the most part, everybody wins.

However, note that the original copyright holders could complain to YouTube and issue a copyright strike against you. They usually won't though because it's not in their financial interests. But they could. It's very, very rare that they do, but it could happen. So it is something to keep in mind.

But an important part, relevant to this thread, is look at the number of parties involved. It's not just you and YouTube anymore. It's you, YouTube, and now the licensing organization such as BMI.

Remember those preferences that you got to choose when you uploaded that video? Some of these preferences might conflict with the licensing agreement by BMI. And I can almost guarantee that YouTube is going to prefer the licensing preferences/restrictions over yours. (By that I'm guessing YouTube will choose the most restrictive options between the two.) And those licensing preferences/restrictions are likely different for different pieces of music. Some of these licenses (for say, Led Zeppelin for example) had their original incarnations before YouTube even existed.

So you can expect that the way YouTube ultimately handles the particular video might vary substantially compared to other videos with different copyrighted music. Different particulars in music licenses means YouTube handles things differently.

Conclusions:

Videos containing copyrighted music are much more complicated in the way that YouTube handles them, primarily due to copyright licensing and the corresponding way that ad revenue streams are handled.

Somebody a few posts ago suggested that the reason that PF is having a problem with embedding certain videos might have something to do with ads. Yes, that sounds reasonable. But my point is that I'm guessing there probably wouldn't be any problems had the particular video not contained copyrighted music. Again, copyrighted music in the video makes things more complicated.

Different videos might be handled differently due to different licenses.

Videos with copyrighted music represent a significant fraction of YouTube's overall revenue. They take it seriously. I would even guess that most videos containing copyrighted music were not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That doesn't necesarily make it a problem though. But to imply that videos containing copyright "issues" are mostly taken down is simply not true. There are oodles and oodles of videos on YouTube that were not uploaded by the original copyright holders. That's a significant fraction of revenue for YouTube, the license organizations, and the original copyright stakeholders. Copyrighted music is a huge revenue source, even if the uploaders don't own the copyrights. That doesn't necessarily make it a problem, it just makes it more complicated.

That is way more complicated than I thought it was. I have been on you tube 15 years and making a few drum videos for about 6. That was just so friends could watch. All the monetization/copyright thing I have never looked into.
I joined YT in the first place to watch Buddy Rich who I had seen only a few times up till then so yt was an opportunity to find stuff you don't see on TV.
I just assumed bigger bands get blocked.
Thanks for the details.

 

[DennisN]

Two very famous songs along with two good videos about the history of them:

Paul McCartney - Live and Let Die


...and a good video about the story of the song (e.g. according to it McCartney wrote it very quickly ):

Critics BERATED This Solo Beatle's FIERCE 70s Rock Song...Became His Biggest Hit (Professor of Rock)


Survivor - Eye Of The Tiger


...and a great interview with one of the composers who tells some fun stories about the song:

Survivor - Eye of the Tiger - Professor of Rock’s The Story Of

 

[Hornbein]

Music by the Mystery Artist. You will never guess who it is.

 

[morrobay]

 

[morrobay]

 

[pinball1970]

My sister watched this as a kid in the school holidays, I was not keen but I adored the theme music. I always thought it was French but it's German? @fresh_42 You remember this? Jackie Lee is the singer, lovely voice and beautiful hippie track.

 

[fresh_42]

My sister watched this as a kid in the school holidays, I was not keen but I adored the theme music. I always thought it was French but it's German? @fresh_42 You remember this? Jackie Lee is the singer, lovely voice and beautiful hippie track.

No, I have never seen this before. The title was German, but the song was English which would have been very unlikely at the time. Also, the environment looks American. I assume it was an American series and the clip was from its German version.

 

[fresh_42]

Seems I was wrong:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315006/reference/

 

[pinball1970]

Seems I was wrong:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315006/reference/

We in UK were given lots of European series TV in the summer holidays as kids. This was just one. I have no idea what the strategy was by TV companies.
This was the first time we became aware of subtitles and dubbing.

This was a great track and the words resonated with all the kids even though we were 8 or 9. "It right to fight for what you want, for all that you believe...health and love and happiness, are well worth finding for."

Any kid 50 plus knows this track

 

[pinball1970]

Last one. The orchestration on this is fantastic but it is easy when you have such a beautiful tune.
Again this was subtitles but how perfectly does the music fit his situation? Complete isolation? From your fellow?

 

[fresh_42]

This is the only theme I remember from those days.

Spoiler: Caution, not really good.

 

[pinball1970]

I forgot this. This is not a TV theme it is a piece of very cool music.

 

[pinball1970]

This is the only theme I remember from those days.

Spoiler: Caution, not really good.

They sold the good stuff to the BBC

 

[fresh_42]

They sold the good stuff to the BBC

And you gave us
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066722/reference/
and
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10590066/reference/

 

[pinball1970]

And you gave us
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066722/reference/
and
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10590066/reference/

Jean Marsh was very creative. She was Rose in UD but directed? Not sure

I amazed to see her when I went from twilight Zone to UD stairs.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734656/

 

[fresh_42]

Jean Marsh was very creative. She was Rose in UD but directed? Not sure

I amazed to see her when I went from twilight Zone to UD stairs.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734656/

I was more of a Diana Rigg fan!

 

[morrobay]

 

[morrobay]

These two are kind of Doo Wop style music .Probably never made it to Europe and did not make it past the British invasion: Alot of singers in this style looking for work then.This style still carries on in certain "cult" groups in the U.S. as in the lowriders scene And I sure like it.

 

[morrobay]

 

[pinball1970]

These two are kind of Doo Wop style music .Probably never made it to Europe and did not make it past the British invasion: Alot of singers in this style looking for work then.This style still carries on in certain "cult" groups in the U.S. as in the lowriders scene And I sure like it.

It won't play.

 

[morrobay]

It won't play.

I just played it on your reply.

 

[pinball1970]

I just played it on your reply.

That played ok. You tube blocks sometimes