Vimeos new Copyright Match

Vimeo has two distinct users. Those who use it to broadcast and those who use it to share rough edits with clients. The 2nd group will need to find a new service as who can afford to license temp tracks before client approval. The client sure won't pay for music they didn't approve and you can't send rough cuts without temp tracks. I'm in the 2nd group and on the look out for new services which won't break the bank $$.

Any suggestions?
 
Yeah I can see this being a bit of a problem for client work rough cuts, but hopefully the software will differentiate between preview clips from audio jungle (which keep saying audio jungle over the music) and full songs. If it's able to do that, then I personally don't have a big problem with it.
 
I'm using vimeo for my Portfolio, as well as to share drafts of my films/videos with my clients. Sucks that they will take down the audio of a "not yet" licensed PRIVATE Video. I will NOT license a Soundtrack before i have the "GO" from my client, i think this is a pretty stupid concept. How many of us are sharing their unreleased work with their clients? It can't be possible that vimeo doesn't care about that/isn't aware of that fact? Dropbox previews suck unfortunately, quality wise.
 
Videvo said:
Yeah I can see this being a bit of a problem for client work rough cuts, but hopefully the software will differentiate between preview clips from audio jungle (which keep saying audio jungle over the music) and full songs. If it's able to do that, then I personally don't have a big problem with it.
Click to expand...

The big issue even with licensed music is the presumed guilt. You have to prove you have it licensed which like any grieving process will take time. Can you afford to have that downtime or an edit pulled before the client sees it? I am on the look out for other services but Vimeo was so handy as all clients were able to view nice quality previews and not worry about codecs and formats just the content.

I always thought vimeo had it right that private work wasn't subjected to copywrite the same as published work. Seems they have decided to go with the users who use it as a broadcast medium. I know I won't be renewing my Vimeo pro account. No point to it anymore for my purposes.

I would love to hear alternatives but for me I have always found google drive, drop box etc to be a hassle with clients. The easier to view on client end the better.
 
Is that confirmed that private, password protected videos are also subject to Copyright Match? If so, then the temp track problem is real and will require a work around. Hmmm... yep, that's a problem. Perhaps Vimeo could provide a "sandbox" for videos that don't conform but are not meant to, as works in progress. Maybe limit the number of viewers, or explicitly name them. Good question. They have to know that we pro users use Vimeo this way.
 
hscully said:
Is that confirmed that private, password protected videos are also subject to Copyright Match? If so, then the temp track problem is real and will require a work around. Hmmm... yep, that's a problem. Perhaps Vimeo could provide a "sandbox" for videos that don't conform but are not meant to, as works in progress. Maybe limit the number of viewers, or explicitly name them. Good question. They have to know that we pro users use Vimeo this way.
Click to expand...

What what I have read all uploads will be subjected to the filter. Its an automated thing now. I have a feeling Vimeo won't do anything to help users who use for private client review unless there are real financial consequences and mass amounts of users leave.
 
... or contact them, maybe and discuss it. It could provide another tier of service for them to make more money with. It's hard to predict the complexities on their end, application-wise or regarding their legal exposure. It could be a non-starter for them.

85% of what I post on Vimeo is private - works in progress for clients. It's a big hit for me. I'm sensitive to copyright but I lose a lot of utility this way
 
Last edited:
Thats a good idea. I might fire off an email essentially asking if I there is any point in maintaining a Vimeo pro account for what I do and I assume a lot of users do. I don't think I've ever posted a public video on Vimeo and have no plans to.
 
I guess it had to be done. As YouTube has the same and people now start uploading movies that won't play on YouTube to vimeo. I do a lot of work for burlesque performers. They usually use songs in their performances that once uploaded to YouTube get caught and won't play. And they then use vimeo to upload. Guess it's the copyright holders that demand this of vimeo.
In many ways I think it's good.

There are however other situations, like if I'm doing the official video for a band and I then can't use it even if I have the bands permission to put it on my channel. That's annoying.
 
I can totally understand why it had to be done, and part of me is glad that it has been - but the only reason I pay an annual fee to Vimeo is because the platform was the best out there for sharing private draft edits with clients, and without that capacity (which this new copyright protection will destroy), the service is now useless to me and I'll have to spend the money elsewhere (which is a shame because I liked supporting a system as effective as Vimeo has been for me).
 
These experiences with YouTube are completely different than my experience. I have been flagged several times for possible copyright issues, but my videos have never been removed or even muted. They are shown with a dialog box stating that I might have a copyright issue. In all cases, I immediately submitted the licensing information that I had previously obtained, and the dialog box was removed. I am assuming that the video (or audio) would have eventually been blocked after a few days if I hadn't submitted the licensing information, but that would still be plenty of time for clients to see and review a rough cut.
 
I think I might try to upload something and see what happens.

I thought I'd try a track where people are singing live to a well known song - and see if it spotted it - it doesn't appear to have set off any alarms. Maybe it will only kick in when somebody watches it. It's just a random part of a show. https://vimeo.com/96103724 password test

I'll have to wait and see how it impacts on me. In my case - it's stuff like this I shoot, then send to the producer to keep them up to date with how a show is progressing - it's never public.
 
Last edited:
Grug said:
the only reason I pay an annual fee to Vimeo is because the platform was the best out there for sharing private draft edits with clients, and without that capacity (which this new copyright protection will destroy), the service is now useless to me and I'll have to spend the money elsewhere (which is a shame because I liked supporting a system as effective as Vimeo has been for me).
Click to expand...

This will be the situation for a lot of the paid account users.
 
Here's something interesting (I thought): I have found that if you lay dialog or effects over the music track, even at a very low level, it screws up their program (which I think is based on matching waveforms - much like matching finger prints). If you drop in any other sounds on top of the music, the matching system appears to not "see" the underlying music track.
 
I think it's a step in the wrong direction. Copyright works best when held very loosely, if at all. When taken as an absolute, society locks up. For example (and these are real questions I wrestled with when I used to take Copyright as an absolute, natural right, like do not murder, instead of a moderate, artificial right invented in the 1600s to avoid the situation where nobody bothered to publish anything because they would always go out of business).

1. There was one time when I wanted to make a logo of two hands shaking. It was so hard to draw correctly that I googled for an image on the Internet and traced it.
2. If I was making a movie, and the actor was wearing a Ralph Lauren shirt, do I need to get permission to have the Polo logo in my film?
3. If I'm filming a birthday party, and a song is playing on the stereo in the background, do I need to license Synchronization rights and Copyrights from the song holder?

These were all questions I literally contemplated and wrestled with, not only whether I would get caught, but whether it was wrong even if I never got caught.

After many, many years of soul searching and further understanding, I did a complete 180 and hold copyright in great contempt, at least how extreme it has become. At the very least, if the video I'm making is free, then I should be free to mix in other stuff, like a song, quite liberally. In an ideal world, where there were practically frictionless websites that made it easy to license whatever you wanted, and calculated it automatically according to a formula, and that the fees were reasonable, then that would maybe be better. For example, if I put a two-minute cut on the soundtrack of an hour-long wedding video that I got a total of $2,500 for (gross, not profit, wedding videographers hardly make any money) then I think the reasonable fee would be somewhere between $1 and $10. If there was a web site (or set of websites, one for each company maybe) where I could type those figures in (the song name, the length I'm using, the amount of money I'm getting), let me purchase a unique license code, like a27au7djajaklauyaiutatdf7878, with PayPal or quick credit-card entry, then that might be a win-win. I wouldn't worry about being sued, and the artists would rake in at least some money over time from all the little guys using their works.

But as it is now, for even something as simple as that, to legally do it, I would have to call a meeting with their lawyers, draw up a bunch of paperwork, and pay $64,000 (actual amount quoted a nonprofit who wanted to play a certain classical piece underneath a photo slideshow at a benefit dinner for firemen).

I'm not saying it's right if someone uploads a full-length copy of Star Wars Episode VII to Vimeo just when it comes out on Blu-Ray. But I think it's gotten out of hand. A lot of the self-righteousness is predicated on a belief that's not true:

Vimeo is a home for original work --- not for rips . . . . We encourage creativity and innovation.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that the image of an artist staring at a blank piece of paper and concocting a totally original work from thin air is not rare, it's impossible. It just doesn't happen. Everyone from Shakespeare to Led Zepplin has borrowed, and borrowed heavily. Shakespeare didn't invent the 14-line sonnet or blank verse, and practically all of his stories were based on other stories. I highly encourage anyone to take the time some time to watch this very great series of videos called Everything is a Remix (about an hour total, but each video is just a few minutes long and watching just one will pay dividends).
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
if the video I'm making is free, then I should be free to mix in other stuff, like a song, quite liberally.
Click to expand...
The artist would say that you were trading on the equity in his song. You may not be selling the song directly, but the artist's work is helping to advance your career.
They would also argue that each use of their work (in wedding videos, in festival films, etc.) lessens the future value of their work. For example, if most wedding videos had the same music (and there are about a dozen songs that are used quite often), the song would become less "special" - and, therefore, less valuable.
 
cyclone said:
the artist's work is helping to advance your career
Click to expand...

I most certainly am benefiting by including the song in the video. So is the audience. I cannot argue with that. However:

1. The artist did not invent his song out of nothing. He was inspired by other artists who were inspired by others, and so on. And not just inspired by, outright copied. Again I encourage you to watch Everything is a Remix.
2. The artist also no doubt got some free career advancement himself at some time in his life. He probably owes his parents some money, by that line of thought, as well as a few friends, maybe from his days in a high school band, like that one guy who gave him some free advice on how to do that thing with the chord on the guitar?, and his sister who helped make a band poster that got them that gig, and then the bartender who let them play even though they arrived a half hour late . . .
3. The amount I would reasonably owe him is a few cents or a few dollars, especially if I'm uploading the video to Vimeo and making no actual money off it. If there were websites to efficiently handle such micropayments, I would do it. As it is, right now it's best for all parties to just throw each other some slack.

also each use of their work (in wedding videos, in festival films, etc.) lessens the future value of their work
Click to expand...

It could also be argued that it's free advertising, that more people will go out and buy it to listen to it in their car or on their iPod, without having to play this crappy wedding video. In fact, I think I'll go call up this artist and ask for payment for the music video I just made.
 
Last edited:
'Inspiration' and re-appropriating someone else's work in full (or close to full), are not the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top