Anybody Know if UMPG Publishing is Legitimate

If the song is yours, alert YouTube to this. If UMG (Universal Music Group, not to be confused with UPMG) is abusing the system YouTube has in place for dealing with copyright violations, they will NOT be pleased. On the other hand if the material is copyrighted, or contains material that is copyrighted, you need to take it down ASAP.
 
Note that some copyrighted content is allowed because of agreements publishers have with YouTube. For example I have a cover version of "Poison" and another of "We Gotta Get Out of this Place" on my YouTube channel. I have not been asked to remove them. Before posting them I checked if other versions were on YouTube, and there are a zillion of each one...so I figured an arrangement had been reached, since the others were not taken down.

Thanks Craig. By the way it is UPMG not UMG  that is taking issue with my tune  The Wonder of You being on YouTube. I've just learned that UPMG is the second largest music publisher in the world  after Sony's having purchased EMI.  So I guess I've answered my own question as to their legitimacy. That might tell you how little I am into the real music scene.  
 
To get permission from copyright owners around the world appears to be an enormous undertaking. Everything published after 1923 must be copyrighted ... right? From a most simplistic viewpoint, I think that leaves me with either doing my own music or doing nothing and give up on my project to produce and  post 200  50's and 60's Hits.  I wonder how entertainers manage to sing, in a night club, a song like Let it Go (which is driving me up a wall) without suffering legal consequences.  I guess ignorance is no defense but learning copyright law is something that is farthest of anything that could attract my interest.
 
I just read your follow-up and again ... I thank you!! 
 
      

After reading a lot about the topic, my conclusion is the following:

• all these laws do not protect the authors, just people which make money from music.
• everyone can be accused in violation of some copyright. Unlike trademarks for example, that violation is the purpose independent, so "fair use" concept works only partially.
• the list of owners is UNKNOWN. You can not simply check if something is copyrighted / who is the owner / etc.
• copyrighted is the whole "money making chain". Let say you was on concert, you have bought some CD and then you have bought the score for the same song. In case you play the song at work for colleagues (some corporate party), you most probably violate (till clarified on per song basis):
  • copyright of the original song, you are not allowed to reproduce it, even in "self singing" form
  • the CD license, in case you decide to play CD there
  • copyright of the score, you are not allowed to reproduce the score as well!
• for scores in general: even in case the music is in public domain, some recently printed version of it is not. In case you have played some "redactor choice" (without even noticing that!) variation, you already violate copyright (of the score producer, the author can be dead since 1000 years...).

How it works for entertainers, disco, etc. ?
Simple! There are "friendly" companies (different in each country). For "small fee" (number of listeners, paid/free, etc. are taken into account) they solve all media ownership questions for your, just give them the list of performed works. It works the same way (throw the same companies) for radio, TV or Internet publishing.
 
And now "the hammer": if someone has written some good song, everyone can start to hope he/she dies soon! Only in that case after 70 years people have a chance to sign the song free, without worries to be accused in CP violation. But even that is not always help, "Happy bi--ay to you!" is still copyrighted...
 

slartabartfast

Anderton
If the song is yours, alert YouTube to this. If UMG (Universal Music Group, not to be confused with UPMG) is abusing the system YouTube has in place for dealing with copyright violations, they will NOT be pleased. 

I expect YouTube will experience very little displeasure if their system is being abused--they may possibly be benefitting financially from it, at least to the extent of minimizing their costs of compliance with copyright law. 

Agreed, I made my comment based on the assumption that cpkoch was posting his own music. YouTube doesn't want to discourage participation from people posting original content.
 
As to ad revenue, I think (not sure, it was hard getting answers) the agreement with publishers is that if they see copyrighted work being used but they're okay with that, then the ad goes up and the publisher gets a cut.

Hi Guys.
I just want to thank you all for the discussion concerning Copyright issues.  Frankly I am very green when it comes to the subject.  For example, I feel as long as one isn't infringing on the life, the liberty and the welfare of others there is little that can occur which can be construed as one's doing something that is immoral or illegal at its core.  Things may be illegal inasmuch as special interests see to it that laws are passed to serve their bottom line profit objectives; but,  I believe as with the case of many copyright claims, they do not infringe on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those claimants. .  
 
In my case I simply download or buy backing tracks that are for sale and ostensibly in the public domain.  I record my vocals, produce and store the results. Lyrics are typed and brought together with the results in a somewhat flexible sort of audio video presentation and posted as a "video" on my YouTube Channel.  I seek no remuneration.  I simply like creating tunes and enjoy receiving encouragement, comments and criticisms as to the many aspects of the process.  I do this primarily to hone  and improve the limited skills learned as a result of my having taken a MOOC ... "Introduction to Music Production"   from Berklee College of Music through the auspices of Coursera. The effort represents a project with  goals I can feel good about achieving.  If others get benefit from listening to the tunes,  all the better! 
 
To think that one could very well get into a legal pi$$ing contest over the project is beyond the reasonable tests of logic. If I were ripping off money from  those claiming copyright violations, that logic would need to be re-thought-out.  On the other hand, those claimants and their partnering relationship with YouTube appear to be interested more in securing revenues.  They want  to get the 55% of whatever it is advertisers pay to YouTube by ensuring that advertising is attached to "videos" (that's what they are called) that I create.  That seems to be, at best, inappropriate. Isn't there an opportunity cost is involved in the scenario your folks discuss?  In my case aren't claimants apt to profit as a result of labor I exert?
 
 
 
 

au****es really means "aus  pisses"
 

Sort of makes you laugh about the filtering when you can use the words wanker and bastard.

CakeAlexS
Sort of makes you laugh about the filtering when you can use the words wanker and bastard.

LOL... yeah... especially when there are letters on each end (which is often another word). Embarrassed doesn't come as embarr***ed either. Perhaps the person who scripted the filter has a chip on their shoulder.
 
Anyway, back to the OP... a lot of this also comes down to "money" as well. If you haven't made a nickel from something, you aren't a "prime target" to be sued anyway. There is so much material posted in high quality on YouTube (original works published NOT by the creator), that this almost makes me laugh.
 
As an even sadder aside... I talked to the US Patent office on a similar topic and simply asked "How many patent infringements do you have filed against China?" The response was "More than I could ever count!" If laws are not enforceable, stealing is "fair game," yet many companies actually produce patented property there not realizing the engineers who oversee this production simply walk to other factories to "share their knowledge" after work. Music and movies are both made available to everyone in China shortly after being released. Very sad, actually. (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

mettelus
 (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

Would you agree there is no such thing as "Intellectual" property as all intellect is received from all prior intellect.  

cpkoch

mettelus
 (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

Would you agree there is no such thing as "Intellectual" property as all intellect is received from all prior intellect.  

1000% no.  Just because people are inspired by other people's creations that in no way devalues the time effort and money that they put into their own creations, or mean they shouldn't have a right to whatever proceeds might be earned from that effort.
 
While I certainly wouldn't argue that our current system is perfect, the basic idea of copyright is sound.  Would a movie studio invest hundreds of millions of dollars to make something without a hope of a return?  
 
And of course the MUCH smaller amount that I have invested in my own efforts is all in the probably vain hope that someday I will get some small return.  Some people might not want to ever earn anything, and that's their right.  But that doesn't mean they get to decide what's right for me.  When you take away intelletual property rights, you are stealing all the time and effort and money someone has put in to it.  IMHO, if's really no different than mugging somebody on the way home from cashing their weekly paycheck.  You are taking money out of their pocket.
 
Same of course applies to patents,  I do investing in bio-technology, billions are invested every year trying to cure this or that diseases, all that is made possible by intellectual property.
 
Sorry for the rant, but as a "musician" and also an economist, intellectual property is also something I feel very strongly about. 

The problem I have with the current copyright laws is the influence of 'Mickey Mouse' on the whole system. Copyright as it is now designed is not there to help anyone except those who have an interest in controlling information, for whatever the reason. Copyright goes back to the 1500s and the introduction of the printing press. It was a desire by the church and government to control the information that was being published. Nothing has really changed since then.
 
In the United States, the Copyright Act of 1790 limited the term of copyright to 14 years. The author could apply to extend the copyright by 14 years. In 1831 it was amended to have a period of 28 years with an option for a 14-year renewal, and in 1909 it was amended again to 28 and the option for a 28 year renewal. Major changes occurred in 1976, thanks to Mickey Mouse and Disney. Mickey was getting ready to go into the Public Domain, and as a major money maker for Disney, they lobbied hard for changes in the copyright statute. This resulted in the largest change to copyright laws in the United States.

• extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years
• extended federal copyright to unpublished works
• preempted state copyright laws

Now you no longer needed to apply for a copyright on your work, it was automatic as soon as the work was created.
 
Further changes in the copyright laws also had a major impacts. In 1992 the requirement for renewal was removed. 1998 saw the terms of copyright extended to the life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. The reality of this is that most works created in 1923 will not enter the public domain until 2019. Lastly, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) of 1998 criminalized some forms of copyright infringement (prior to this, copyright infringement cases were always handled in civil courts).
 
So we have gone from 14 years to 120 years (or more, depending on the particular case). Further, we have switched from an active registration requirement, to no registration requirement. And you can be thrown in jail. Today, nothing is going into the public domain unless it is actively placed there by the author (as our good friend on this board Anderton has done).
 
In my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far. The current laws on copyright do not protect the authors, but instead provide immense power to the media conglomerates (of which there are only about 6 that control the overwhelming majority of all information in the United States) and further it allows them to use the powers of the government and law enforcement to 'enforce' copyright law. There is no 'common sense' in copyright law when it can be used to bring 'criminal' charges (and waste law enforcement resources).
 
Yes, the media companies can look the other way, when it is convenient, or not. They can demand that law enforcement investigate and prosecute. To me that is a bit over the top. They can choose to ruin you in court if they so choose.
 
I am not against copyright, and as Kroneborge stated, he should have a right to use his works as he sees fit. But there needs to be a balance, and as I said at the start, to me that balance is no longer there.

It's perhaps worth commenting that copyright law in the UK has never required registration of copyright. Put simply, copyright automatically belongs to the author of the work (or their employer if created during employment or otherwise assigned) and there has therefore never been a requirement to renew copyright after 14 or any other number of years.

Not requiring registration of copyright gives authors far more protection than requiring registration, and the old US requirement to register has provided music industry lawyers with quite a nice little earner from UK songwriters who didn't initially register their works in the US.

Don't even get me started on the requirements regarding trade-mark protection in the US, we're already far enough off-topic as it is :-)