A Song (maybe more than one) that I posted on my YouTube Channel is claimed by UMPG Publishing Co. to be violating some sort of copyright. Frankly I have no idea what they are talking about and don't wish to get involved in learning the ins and outs of the issue.  I just did a quick Google Search on UMPG and found many people seem to think this outfit is nothing more than a "bully" whose aim it is to get ownership of music and obtain copyright.   Any words of wisdom would be most welcomed!
 

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.

One more thing..."We Gotta Get Out of this Place" was the first time I'd done a cover, so I wrote to the Harry Fox Agency and asked what kind of license I needed to use it in a YouTube video. They basically said they don't deal with that, but some publishers have arrangements with YouTube that allow posting of videos containing copyrighted content. Of course, if I sold a CD with the same thing, that would be a different story.
 
Their bottom line was "post the video and see if they ask you to take it down." Uh...okay.
 
BTW being in the publishing biz and having done multiple albums over the years I know a hell of a lot about fair use. There are four main criteria for determining fair use. You can search for details (and this site is particularly good), but the main tests are:
 
1. Not used for commercial purposes
2. Transformative (i.e., adds value and creates something new vs. verbatim reproduction)
3. The amount of the work that's used
4. Whether it diminishes the work's value or deprives the owner of income
 
If you post a song that's not yours and add a video, you won't pass test (3) and a court would likely reject (2) because you have not done anything transformative with the work itself, merely overlaid a separate video.
 
The places where you can almost always get by with fair use is excerpts for commentary or review, parodies, and dissemination of small amounts of educational material. 

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!! 
 
      

In nightclubs, they get a blanket license from one or more performing rights groups (e.g., ASCAP).

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...
 

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. There are literally hundreds of similar cases being reported of music that is original content, clearly in the public domain or licensed by the composer that are being flagged. The YouTube system that is in place allows robots (automated content ID system) to search their content, and if sufficient similarity is found between something on YouTube and something claimed by one of their "partners" the partner can notify YouTube. YouTube will then place ads on the page to generate revenue that will be shared with the partner that claims infringement. This is completely distinct from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take down notice, that requires certification that infringement has actually occurred, and provides a statutory appeals process. Reports have included musicians who have received such notices for recording the work of composers who have been dead for centuries, apparently because they obviously closely match copyrighted performances by other musicians, NASA video (obtained from NASA and not coyrightable because the product of US government) because it was broadcast on a TV network which claimed copyright and even for incidentally captured bird songs in the background of non-musical videos. The DMCA immunizes YouTube, but does not make any money for anyone when work is simply removed. Money is to be made when it is left in place but ads are attached.
 
Note that this right to monetize your submission by posting ads is not negated by the fact that you have paid a license for the cover. YouTube considers this monetization to be part of the agreement you make with them when you post copyrighted work, regardless of whether you have a license to record or synchronize that work. It is a fee you agree to pay for posting copyrighted material to YouTube.
 
For the most part YouTube provides a free service to posters, and it is difficult to see how posters would be able to recover much monetary damage as the result of this error or "abuse." They have much more to fear from the companies that use their automated content system, and presumably save money by not having to deal with the cost of DMCA errors. I do not know if they actually make any money from the system either by charging their associates for access to the automated system or by sharing the ad revenue with them.

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.

My point about the errors is that even when what is posted does NOT contain copyrighted material, the "publisher" will still get a cut of the advertising revenue.
 
From my reading of various articles on the subject and reading between the lines of the services being offered by the "partners" who make claims of infringement to YouTube, there seems to be a nascent business model that calls for offering your services to sub-license the original content either created or licensed from the creator, then to aggressively and not very carefully submit a large catalog of this sub-licensed content to YouTube since you then qualify to use their automated content ID system, which incidentally is not available to those who only want to protect a limited number of their own original works. Then when the robot hits on anything that resembles something in the catalog, automatically claiming a right to install advertising and benefit from the proceeds. It would not take too careful a review of the results of the robot ID results to know that someone playing a piece by Bach was not infringing a license to a recording of a performance of another musician doing the same piece, or that a person posting a video of his day at the beach was not infringing your client's seagull squawking from the intro to a song on his sea shanty album. If the poster does not object, then the "partner" collects free money, which if his catalog is large or he is running out the clock on appeals by the poster may represent a significant income. Since this income is probably small per ad, the model only works if it can be done by a robot as well, so diligence in correcting mistakes is discouraged.
 
It is easy to see how money can be made from these "errors." My question about how YouTube makes money was regarding how YouTube itself might share in this illegitimate revenue. If they are getting a piece of the ad revenue, they have little incentive to aggressively police the practice. 

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?