Should video creators get % for publishing audio ?

[Klen]

In music industry, if you make a cover of a song, you will need to pay around 50% of royalty income to author of original song.
But if you make a video by using currently most popular video platform, which is youtube, income always goes 100% to audio creator.
Shouldn't video creators get some percentage too?
As audio is only 50% of created work.
I'v seen many times where a good video raised a popularity of some song, therefore i think video creators deserve some percentage.
Plus, this would also allow creation of job of "music festival reporter" , which at the moment does not have any way to monetize it unless you work for magazine.

[celandina]

Anything you produce ( video, audio or mix of both) you need to have " work for hire" contract with the artist(s). That makes you a publisher and you keep 100 % of the revenue.
The only exception seems to be SAG Rule One. I am not sure if it also applies to a USA music artist on video.

[~Evilin~]

Originally Posted by Klen

goes 100% to audio creator..

I consider this rule too strict.
if the reward was 50%, license holders would earn a lot on this
for this reason, I stopped creating videos on YouTube - I hate their free collection

but everything will change soon!
Due to the increasing popularity of tiktok, the YouTube will soon go on a favor

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Klen

In music industry, if you make a cover of a song, you will need to pay around 50% of royalty income to author of original song.
But if you make a video by using currently most popular video platform, which is youtube, income always goes 100% to audio creator.
Shouldn't video creators get some percentage too?
As audio is only 50% of created work.
I'v seen many times where a good video raised a popularity of some song, therefore i think video creators deserve some percentage.
Plus, this would also allow creation of job of "music festival reporter" , which at the moment does not have any way to monetize it unless you work for magazine.

Songs carry 200% royalties, 100% for writing and 100% for publishing.

Video are published on a video channel at YouTube. one outlet. Not on 400 radio stations. The vid creators are paid for youtube views, i.e. publication. Not for writing.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Klen

In music industry, if you make a cover of a song, you will need to pay around 50% of royalty income to author of original song.
But if you make a video by using currently most popular video platform, which is youtube, income always goes 100% to audio creator.
Shouldn't video creators get some percentage too?
As audio is only 50% of created work.
I'v seen many times where a good video raised a popularity of some song, therefore i think video creators deserve some percentage.
Plus, this would also allow creation of job of "music festival reporter" , which at the moment does not have any way to monetize it unless you work for magazine.

As the original song writer, that can be like paying someone to do a bad job of fucking your wife.
Why pay people to do shitty renditions of your music on youtube?

[blackmonsters]

Sponsors should pay me a royalty to upload their videos to my website.
I make their videos more popular.



OH Wait!
That already happened with the tube sites that crushed them.

[Klen]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

As the original song writer, that can be like paying someone to do a bad job of fucking your wife.
Why pay people to do shitty renditions of your music on youtube?

I referring to quality renditions, which improve whole experience and bring song to more people .

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Klen

I referring to quality renditions, which improve whole experience and bring song to more people .

Copyright your material. If you find some one using your product you can recover damages.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Klen

I referring to quality renditions, which improve whole experience and bring song to more people .

And who determines "quality renditions"?

Hmmmm, everything that you like will be a "quality rendition".

[Klen]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

And who determines "quality renditions"?

Hmmmm, everything that you like will be a "quality rendition".

Does it matter? By that logic, anyone who do song cover would not get anything.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Klen

Does it matter? By that logic, anyone who do song cover would not get anything.

They don't deserve anything.
They are just bottom feeding off people who had to fight their way to the top.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

bottom feeding...

Mmmmm Bottom Feeding

[TaiGhost]

No.
Learn about copyright laws vs affiliate programs.

[DerGen]

Originally Posted by Klen

I'v seen many times where a good video raised a popularity of some song, therefore i think video creators deserve some percentage.
Plus, this would also allow creation of job of "music festival reporter" , which at the moment does not have any way to monetize it unless you work for magazine.

I personally believe that the music industry has was too much pull when it comes to Copywriten material. You could have the tune of a song for 10 seconds in your video, and that recording company gets 100% of your earnings. I thought about making a music review show on YouTube and don't even want to bother if I can't at least play a clip of what I am talking about. I can make a movie review and give complete spoilers and use every bit of the trailer (as long as I don't play it uncut all at once) and not have any demonization; on the other hand, you better not have a video of Dr. Phill and have any part of the music playing while they are interviewing the guests before they get on stage or you didn't make anything on your hard work. I understand they deserve some money, but 5% is fine and dandy to me.