Jump to content

Guns N' Roses-Saskatoon,Canada 03/26/1993 *NEW THREAD*


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FRANSAD said:

Hey guys just quick reaction from me cause I'm @work. This fella never took my Saskatoon video's down i put them on private so yesterday I made an Saskatoon DTJ video where I exposed his name because i wanted him to strike me. On all my videos i have monetizing from universal / geffen etc. In exchange they let me post their videos. Now I don't wanna brag about it but this is quite some cash I'm gegenerating for them. Even this exposure video I did was allready claimed by them...... To be continued in my next lunch break 

 

Did you make an actual deal with them or is this just what you think? YT works simple. You upload something, if it gets detected by the bots (or the owner) they are able to monitize the video (and not the uploader). If the owner doesnt want it on YT he takes it down (even after months of making money out of it). Also lots of your videos are bootlegs so i'm not sure why all your videos are monitized (its the frans n roses channel, right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AFDRR said:

Did you make an actual deal with them or is this just what you think? YT works simple. You upload something, if it gets detected by the bots (or the owner) they are able to monitize the video (and not the uploader). If the owner doesnt want it on YT he takes it down (even after months of making money out of it). Also lots of your videos are bootlegs so i'm not sure why all your videos are monitized (its the frans n roses channel, right?)

Lot of my videos where claimed manually, bootlegs as in fan filmed? True but the music in this footage is still owned by GN'R / universal. I also learned they renewed the contract because there was enough to be earned of the old songs on YT and other places 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, FRANSAD said:

Lot of my videos where claimed manually, bootlegs as in fan filmed? True but the music in this footage is still owned by GN'R / universal. I also learned they renewed the contract because there was enough to be earned of the old songs on YT and other places 

Bootlegs as in never released material - no matter if some demo that found its way out of some basement, audience recorded footage or pro like the Saskatoon gig. All of it (whatever is live) is considered as bootlegs. Yes of course the music played or recorded is owned by someone (not necessarily the band) but most bands really don't care about it as long as it's not planned to be released. Some make money out of it in releasing the gigs themselves (which is a good thing) but at the end only hardcore fans care about it anyway. Don't get me wrong I didn't want to say you make money out of it, I just never saw an audience recording being claimed by a band or record company on YT but I guess your channel is big enough so they are happy you make them a bit of money with your videos (which obviously is fine).

Btw is the DTJ video private too I can't find it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if YouTube receives enough notices regarding the legitimacy of these claims, they will further investigate them. Their policy states that instigating a claim for removal is starting a legal process. From YouTube's copyright policy:

Do not make false claims. Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, FRANSAD said:

I absolutely never made a single dime on my videos and you never seen me asking for subscribers, patreon or anything else.  The DTJ video was a bait video to get the strike from him and he did bite so it got pulled exactly as i wanted 

Posting music that is copyrighted is often not seen as a violation.  The artist places adds on your video and they profit from it.  If they don’t want it up there or the copyright won’t allow it, then it is usually blocked worldwide, but it is still NOT a copyright strike. If a person flags videos purposely and does not own the content that is a violation and there can be legal issues associated with that according to you tube.  I think a lot of people think people who post videos earn all this cash,  I laugh at this!  That is for original content only,  if you know anything about You Tube, most people will never get rich or earn a dime from anything. We do this or at least I do to give back promote the band we love,  and contribute and say Thank  you!  I was  very careful on what I monetized and what I didn’t. Posting concert videos is for fans sharing and most casual fans could care less about bootlegs.  It is a win for the artists because bands never made anything off bootlegs in the past now they can at least monetize and make money off them so for the artists it is an improvement so most times it is not the artist who is behind the takedowns..  As guns would say get in the ring… whoever started this may have regrets once the karma catches up.  Go get em Frans...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, metalms said:

That is for original content only,  if you know anything about You Tube, most people will never get rich or earn a dime from anything. We do this or at least I do to give back promote the band we love,  and contribute and say Thank  you!  I was  very careful on what I monetized and what I didn’t. Posting concert videos is for fans sharing and most casual fans could care less about bootlegs. 

Original content is material you upload but that you created yourself, right?

If I go to a show and record with my camera/phone the show and I upload it, is it considered original content? Or does it belong to the band because it is their show I am filming?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Original content is material you upload but that you created yourself, right?

If I go to a show and record with my camera/phone the show and I upload it, is it considered original content? Or does it belong to the band because it is their show I am filming?

Technically it belongs to the artist. Your content would need a synch license to match their song rights with your video. There are also stipulations and rights you forfeit when you buy your ticket/enter a private business/arena. However, most artists let that go these days as it does more good than bad. 

Edited by guitarpatch
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Original content is material you upload but that you created yourself, right?

If I go to a show and record with my camera/phone the show and I upload it, is it considered original content? Or does it belong to the band because it is their show I am filming?

Original content would be like for example I create a video discussing the band, but I am not using there copyrighted content. Or I have a band with original content my own music. etc. Because the music you record on your phone is not owned by you it is the intellectual property of the band then no it would not be owned by you.  There is such a thing as "fair use" but that can be a legal grey area.  The visual might be legally yours because likeness in of itself is not copyrighted, but the music is.  That is why sometimes you can click on a video and it has no sound.  The owner may have chosen to remove it, and they have a right to do so.  Most concert videos are flagged by bots but most of the time are allowed to stay up so that the artists can make money off them but the uploader gets nothing.  The amount you earn is also super small unless  you have millions of views.  You tube recently made it even harder for original content to earn money with "adpocolypse"  so it gets harder and harder for the little guys to earn anything.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with metalms. When you go to a show, the purchase of your ticket is a contract. There's verbiage on the ticket that any pictures, recordings audio or video are intellectual property of the band. Pictures are much more difficult to claim as intellectual property so pictures normally are a non issue. To further complicate what is happening here, these videos of past concerts somehow got by the YT bots and have existed on YT. The actual owner has taken no action to have them removed so one could argue implied consent. That can get very grey but can be argued in this scenario as what is apparently happening is someone who is not the owner is flagging only certain accounts for YT. I say fight them, I want to confinue to see the videos on my YT app on my 65 in TV. It's like Axl in my living room 😊

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, metalms said:

Original content would be like for example I create a video discussing the band, but I am not using there copyrighted content. Or I have a band with original content my own music. etc. Because the music you record on your phone is not owned by you it is the intellectual property of the band then no it would not be owned by you.  There is such a thing as "fair use" but that can be a legal grey area.  The visual might be legally yours because likeness in of itself is not copyrighted, but the music is.  That is why sometimes you can click on a video and it has no sound.  The owner may have chosen to remove it, and they have a right to do so.  Most concert videos are flagged by bots but most of the time are allowed to stay up so that the artists can make money off them but the uploader gets nothing.  The amount you earn is also super small unless  you have millions of views.  You tube recently made it even harder for original content to earn money with "adpocolypse"  so it gets harder and harder for the little guys to earn anything.

Thanks for explaining so well :)

So if I create a video discussing the band, I cannot add any inserts of their music, their videos, a few seconds of my own videos recorded at the show, none of that?
What about old interviews from sources like MTV? :question:

This is too complicated... how do the Youtuber gamers do then? I've seen them showing themselves playing games that surely are copyrigthed to their owners :blink:

Do you know of any good book(s) (or other sources) where I can read about the whole YouTube saga?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

This is too complicated... how do the Youtuber gamers do then? I've seen them showing themselves playing games that surely are copyrigthed to their owners :blink:

Why would a game creator have any objection to a YT gamer advertising their game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Why would the band have any objection to a YT gunner advertising their show? :lol:

Seriously.. They don't release anything.. I have gotten more pleasure from this show than out of anything the band has released since Live Era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Thanks for explaining so well :)

So if I create a video discussing the band, I cannot add any inserts of their music, their videos, a few seconds of my own videos recorded at the show, none of that?
What about old interviews from sources like MTV? :question:

This is too complicated... how do the Youtuber gamers do then? I've seen them showing themselves playing games that surely are copyrigthed to their owners :blink:

Do you know of any good book(s) (or other sources) where I can read about the whole YouTube saga?

Of course! : )  I am still learning too.  You have to be a lawyer to understand some of it.  Again it goes back to "fair use"  You Tube exists in the form it does because of many of these grey areas.  It is free advertisement for a product also and is looked at that way by many of the artists/creators, and I  (the fan) do all the work essentially, but the artists profit from it so one hand washes the other.   At the end of the day it is the owner of the intellectual property doesn't want it up they will request a take down or block it.

Certain bands that are anti You Tube will go after you---Living Color is a good example.  Some artists want strict control on their content.  GNR has never been one to go after bootleggers unless they see fit.  GNR are pretty awesome actually think of all that is out on you tube.  They have the power to take it all down if they wanted......

As far as interviews, the owner could technically come after you too if they wanted... MTV is owned I think by Viacom.  A lot of mine are 25-30 years old, and most won't bother, but there is a risk involved that your channel could be shut down, but it is free promotion also.  A slippery slope indeed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Why would the band have any objection to a YT gunner advertising their show? :lol:

Don't try to find reason in how GNR operates. And is it confirmed the band is behind the takedown of UT videos? Still, some bands might be opposed to unauthorised concert videos for various reasons including conflicts with their own plans for future releases of live footage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

Seriously.. They don't release anything.. I have gotten more pleasure from this show than out of anything the band has released since Live Era.

Yes. But what I mean is that many, many, lotssss of people, nowadays decide their purchase based on YouTube videos (or blog posts, or IG photos).

How many of you have decided to buy a ticket to a show, spectacle, concert, whatever.... after watching someone else uploading a video of it?

I know I have!!

A couple of months ago I bought a printer, solely based on little research I did online for the specs of the printer and after watching some guy on YouTube unboxing the thing, showing every piece of it and showing how it worked, etc. etc. and I am happy with my choice! Printer works awesome!

It is great advertisement, so why would anyone be not cool with that?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't try to find reason in how GNR operates. And is it confirmed the band is behind the takedown of UT videos? Still, some bands might be opposed to unauthorised concert videos for various reasons including conflicts with their own plans for future releases of live footage. 

No it appears to be a disgruntled fan behind the take downs...  Which is a violation in of itself.  I cannot claim copyright simply because "I am butthurt"  lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Thanks for explaining so well :)

So if I create a video discussing the band, I cannot add any inserts of their music, their videos, a few seconds of my own videos recorded at the show, none of that?
What about old interviews from sources like MTV? :question:

This is too complicated... how do the Youtuber gamers do then? I've seen them showing themselves playing games that surely are copyrigthed to their owners :blink:

Do you know of any good book(s) (or other sources) where I can read about the whole YouTube saga?

Let's say you make an own GNR documentary and put in clips of their videos, interviews, whatever (not the full videos but parts) and upload it on YT. This would be the so called fair use. They would still be able to monitize your video but won't take it down even if it you use a numerous of videos by different copyright owners. Saw this with some videos, uploading the full video gets you a block or even a takedown (=strike) but using parts of it was fine (still there was a copyright claim but no take down or block).

This discussion is way OT though :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, metalms said:

Certain bands that are anti You Tube will go after you---Living Color is a good example.  Some artists want strict control on their content.  GNR has never been one to go after bootleggers unless they see fit.  GNR are pretty awesome actually think of all that is out on you tube.  They have the power to take it all down if they wanted......

I understand.... :unsure:

There was never a GN'R persecution before and I don't think it is them now either. It is just that fuckin' idiot we all known for years and years. There's got to be a way to stop that kind of people. Social media is evolving too, its not the same as when it started, I think some companies now understand how important people are, their audiences, their users, and that they must be listened to.

Yesterday, I read that Twitter will implement a new form of stopping trolls and spammers. They will be detected via AI and silenced automatically when the AI learns their behavior. Hopefully, this idiot will only be a bad dream for us sooner than later, when all the force of the law falls over him. I once had a troll giving me hell  years ago. It looked like nothing could be done against them but with the evolution of digital laws regarding cyber stalking, cyber harassment, they were defeated in court and then begged to not have their lives ruined by the sentence. Too late for regrets. Served their right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AFDRR said:

Let's say you make an own GNR documentary and put in clips of their videos, interviews, whatever (not the full videos but parts) and upload it on YT. This would be the so called fair use. They would still be able to monitize your video but won't take it down even if it you use a numerous of videos by different copyright owners. Saw this with some videos, uploading the full video gets you a block or even a takedown (=strike) but using parts of it was fine (still there was a copyright claim but no take down or block).

This discussion is way OT though :D

Oh, I understand now! Thanks :)

Lol, it is not much OT when we have the video in question being blocked, deleted and users given strikes, having their channels shut down. We need to inform ourselves and spread such information, the more people know the unjustices of the system, the more will support our causes and help us with the ones who just want to do wrong ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

I understand.... :unsure:

There was never a GN'R persecution before and I don't think it is them now either. It is just that fuckin' idiot we all known for years and years. There's got to be a way to stop that kind of people. Social media is evolving too, its not the same as when it started, I think some companies now understand how important people are, their audiences, their users, and that they must be listened to.

Yesterday, I read that Twitter will implement a new form of stopping trolls and spammers. They will be detected via AI and silenced automatically when the AI learns their behavior. Hopefully, this idiot will only be a bad dream for us sooner than later, when all the force of the law falls over him. I once had a troll giving me hell  years ago. It looked like nothing could be done against them but with the evolution of digital laws regarding cyber stalking, cyber harassment, they were defeated in court and then begged to not have their lives ruined by the sentence. Too late for regrets. Served their right.

Exactly.  It really is sad to me.  Hopefully that will help with Twitter,  but often times they make changes and the spammers and con artists are already figuring out ways to beat the new system in place.  You Tube in particular has a lot of work to do.  They make it too easy.  You should have to show documentation of copyright before they are allowed to place a strike on you. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...