Hello,

anyone understood this correct?

https://faq.recordjet.com/en/article...ube-content-id

If you are using drum software like Steven Slate drums etc., you are not allowed to apply for a youtube content ID for that song? Do I understand it right?

If you give your 100% uniquely recorded song to a mixing engineer that uses some kind of triggered snare or kick sample and lays it on your recorded track, the song is not allowed to get a youtube content ID?

How do electronic music producers interpret it?

Best Regards

The vast majority of popular music today uses existing sounds to some degree but is not being detected and blocked in most circumstances. I interpret that most of those items listed are in the context that you can't submit nothing but those naked sounds and expect it to not be detected and blocked. Or trying to upload a non-exclusive beat (ie backing track) that you rapped on then try to upload it as if you have the exclusive rights to that beat.

You're allowed to release music using sample library content because that's what it's for. You can't release those raw sounds as your own though.

Complications arise with things like ContentID where it scans for matches, which can result in what it thinks is copyright infringement because multiple songs are legally using the same samples, a licensing situation it has no knowledge of. That's what they're trying to avoid with all those paragraphs in the link your posted. Something like drum instruments or triggers are unlikely to be detected in this way because there will be too much uniqueness between songs. But using straight up drum loops or melodic sample packs gives a much higher chance of detection due to more similarity between songs.

So just don't be a lazy producer throwing in naked unaltered Splice loops and you should be good. Stuff like piano VSTs are perfectly fine.

The final part about TikTok needing all audio in videos to be user generated I would guess is related to how they allow videos to be remixed and reposted while maintaining proper accreditation. They don't want someone using a Beatles song in a video that goes viral in endless variations, and now they owe Sony millions in royalties.

Do check the small print on any sample library you use, quite a few say "Not for commercial use" which can come as nasty shock.

I know two people who made a fortune from this.

So one shots is never a problem? Only loops?

I guess it needs to state clearly, royalty free, yes?

https://touchloops.com/apps/help-cen...s-royalty-free

Unfortunately, it is not of matter whether it is royalty-free or not. Same holds for what @ AVSC wrote. If your library is "good for commercial use", noone cares. They can do what they want, domestic authority. Sure, the original purpose of these IDs is to avoid copyright infringements and collect royalties correctly. But algorithms have some restrictions and downsides. Just hope that @ Afferbeck is right.

That's been YouTube policy for a long time now. ITs based on "real" copy right laws of the US that deal with the rights on the master recording (not composition/song rights). So technically you cannot use a snippet of the bass drum sample of a Motown record without permission for example, thats the (US) law.

But modern music uses all sorts of samples from all sorts of famous record (amen break) and nothing happens. And nothing happens because it's just too difficult to do anything about it. To prove it is difficult and to go to the courts is very expensive. It's all about how much you can get away with. a kick drum? meh no one is going to notice. The main vocal chorus of a famous Police song and you rap on the verses? well, thats easier.

Now. you ask about these sample loops packs/libraries with royalty free licenses.. and well, the answer is similar but from the other end. How does someone know it's a royalty free sample or from a library? kick drum, again, more difficult, but how about a guitar riff? And Did that come from a library or did it come from someone playing it? Maybe someone played the riff they heard in the loop and now several people who used the same or similar riff are saying it's their track.

Sadly YouTube just says to create everything original and thats it. They leave out a ton of issues to fight it amongst ourselves and their dumb platform "copyright" strikes that have no resemblance to real laws. its just a rouse so US congress and EU sort of think its trying to do something about it.

So go ahead and use that drum sample, it's fine but if you use loops or anything from a sample library or loop pack that is more recognizable then just be aware that you can be easily be flagged for copyright issues even if its "ok to use in their EULA".

So if I for example use drum loops I bought off Big Fish, what are the exact implications? As the drums of a song I make with other instruments, not just the drums looping.

I can upload it on streaming services?

But I can’t upload it on Youtube?

"exact" is the point here.. there is no exact.. the YouTube "copyright laws" are not real so theres no "exact". Terms of service for YouTube are a joke at best. It's the Wild West. IF you make a song with a drum loop from big fish library then its up to you to accept the risk that someone else could claim its their music. The chances of that to happen are minimal and increase as more unique loops/samples are used like a voice sample or guitar lick.
And I think streaming services have a similar term of service that says to not use loops or samples or something like that. Its a legal thing to make sure they remove any legal issue from their own backs because you see, they are al platforms and as such they go by the platform laws and those are basically saying they are not responsible for anything people do up there. So they say no samples just to cover those people who might upload a remix of Michael Jackson or something. A drum loop from a sample cd then thats still applies but they dont really care as most of the music on those services have some sort of sample or loop.
So in other words, dont worry about it and if you use unique melodic loops make sure to process them so they are not that easily recognizable and some asshole can claim "copyright" just to game the system.

Thanks!

But is it still mostly youtube we should worry about if anything?

Or do music streaming services / aggros remove stuff in a similar way, to the same extent or for the same reasons (AI detection or reports, I’d guess). I guess ”contentID” is a key here?

I mean the cost/benefit calculation is (to me) VERY different for a Youtube release vs a streaming release (in cases I wouldn’t do both):

YouTube:
No mastering cost
No promo cost
No distro cost
Can upload several a week or more
If a video gets removed, little harm done

Music streaming:
$50-100 Mastering per song
Promo costs
Distro cost
The usual advice is one single every 3-6 weeks in order for it to have a chance on playlists, radio, etc
If such a single is taken down I lose a whole month of the release schedule

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Youtube is looking at content ID to see if you use YouTube material from someone else. platforms don't care. It's random people who might say your music has some of their music/copyright material in it even if it's a loop or even a lie. So if your music is original, even using drum loops or other loops that have been processed then dont worry about it. Maybe look at rick beato channel that has one or two episodes of this situation. But dont over think it.

Also, distrokid/etc have a YouTube option so the music will still come out in YouTube and use the album cover. Not sure if it has changed recently but that was the case before.