Shockwave-Sound Blog and Articles

A video for ‘Soft Explorations, Vol. 6’

Music collection: Soft Explorations, Vol. 6For your listening pleasure — and in order to preview the royalty-free background music on our downloadable CD-collection “Soft Explorations, Vol. 6“, we’ve created a nice YouTube video that plays all the 11 tracks from this album, one after the next. With on-screen information about the track title and artist, and a nice, soothing nature photo to go along with it.

 

 

Advertising will play only at the beginning of the video; then, no ad-breaks during the 31 minutes of playtime. We hope you’ll find this useful and, well, just enjoyable.

The music in this video is great for falling asleep, studying, meditation, relaxation, yoga, focusing at work, etc. It’s also great music for use with nature footage, relaxing vacations, soothing footage of things like properties, landscapes, and as background music for relaxing video games.

You may want to subscribe to our YouTube channel for more such videos featuring stock music from our library. We put up videos of all our royalty-free music tracks and, sometimes, our CD-collections like this.

#RoyaltyFreeMusic #StockMusic #Shockwave-Sound #BackgroundMusic #MusicForVideos

Finding the details of a YouTube copyright claim and who’s claiming what

If you have an active copyright claim on your YouTube video, it may be useful for you to find exactly what is being claimed, and by whom, so that the claim can be dealt with.

  1. Ensure you are logged into your YouTube account.
  2. Click the icon near the top right of the screen and click YouTube Studio.
  3. In the menu on the left-hand side, click “Content”.
  4. Above the list of videos that comes up, click “Filter” -> “Copyright claims”. Now you see a list of the videos that have active copyright claims on them.
  5. Hold the mouse button over “Copyright claim” in the list, and “See details” comes up. Click it.
  6. Now you see a pop-up window that shows the details of the copyright claim. It could be useful to take a screenshot here, or just note the exact information about what’s being claimed, and who’s claiming it.
  7. When you send the information and ask to have the claim released, remember to also include a link to the video.
The below image shows an example of the YouTube copyright claim detail page. In this case, the music is “Hotwired 1-8466” by Dr. Awesome, it’s being claimed by CD Baby on behalf of Lynne Publishing.
Youtube Copyright claim

Youtube Copyright claim

It’s important to understand that a “copyright claim” is not the same thing as a “copyright strike”. A copyright claim is a much less dramatic event; it does not cause the video to be blocked, muted or removed, and it does not have any negative effect on the uploader’s YouTube account standing. It does, however, mean that you cannot monetize the video.

If you have licensed music from Shockwave-Sound and you get a copyright claim on your video, getting it released is usually a simple matter. Just send us the information: Link to your video. Details of the claim. We’ll get it released. It’s usually done in a few hours.

Google Close Captions Sound Effects

Google Close Captions Sound Effects

Google, ever the inventors of new technology and the owners of YouTube.com, have broadened their work into the area of sound effects, specifically through the audio captioning on their YouTube network. Traditionally “closed captions,” which provide text on the screen for those with hearing challenges, provided dialog and narration text from audio. Now, however, Google has rolled out technology that can recognized the .wav forms of different types of sounds to include on their videos, dubbed “Sound Effects Captioning.” They do this to convey as much of the sound impact as possible from their videos, which is often contained with the ambient sound, above and beyond the voice.

In “Adding Sound Effect Information to YouTube Captions” by Scorish Chaudhuri, Google’s own research information blog, three different Google teams, Accessibility, Sound Understanding, and YouTube utilized machine learning (ML) to develop a completely new technology, a sound captioning system for video. In order to do this, they used a Deep Neural Network (DNN) model for ML and three specific steps were required for success: to accurately be able to detect various ambient sounds, to “localize” the sound within that segment, and place it in the correct spot in the caption sequence. They had to train their DNN using sound information in a huge labeled data set. For example, they acquired or generated many sounds of a specific type, say “applause,” to be used to teach their machine.

 

Interestingly, and smartly, the three Google teams decided to begin with 3 basic sounds that are listed as among the most common in human created caption tracks, which are music, applause, and laughter: [[MUSIC], [APPLAUSE], and [LAUGHTER]. They report that they made sure to build an infrastructure that can accommodate new sounds in the future that are more specific, such as types of music and types of laughter.  They explain a complex system of created classifications of sounds that the DNN can recognize even multiple sounds are playing, meaning the ability to “localize” a sound in a wider variety of simultaneous audio. Which, apparently they were successful in achieving.

 

After being able to recognize a specific sound such as laughter, the next task for the teams was to figure out how to convey this information in a usable way to the viewer. While they do not specify which means they use to present the captioning, the different choices seem to be: have one part of the screen for voice captioning and one for sound captioning, interleave the two, or only have the sfx captions at the end of sentences. They were also interested in how users felt about the captions with the sound off and interestingly, discovered that viewers were not displeased with error, as long as the majority of time the sound captions communicated the basic information.  In addition, listeners who could hear the audio did not have difficulty ignoring any inaccuracies.

 

Overall this new system of automatically capturing sounds to display as closed captioning via a computer system as opposed to a human by hand looks very promising. And, as Google has shown time and time again, they don’t seem to have a problem with the constant evolution of products that succeed and that users value. They stress that this auto capturing of sound increases specifically the “richness” of their user generated videos.  They believe the current iteration is a basic framework for future improvement in sound captioning, improvements that may be brought on by user input themselves.

 

Explanation of YouTube Content-ID for Stock Music / Production Music composers

Explanation of YouTube Content-ID for Stock Music / Production Music composers

Recently, one of our artists wrote to me with questions about YouTube and his right to receive compensation when his music was used in YouTube videos. I ended up writing a pretty long explanation around the whole YouTube / Content-ID issue, and I just thought it was worth sharing here, in case it can help clear some things up. So here it is. If you already know all of this, great. 🙂

Let me try to explain the YouTube / Content-ID situation

YouTube (or rather, their owners, Google) developed an “audio recognition” program called Content-ID, into which it invited large music publishers such as Sony, Universal, Warner Brothers etc. to submit audio recordings of all their album releases. So these companies sent their music into Content-ID, and now, every video that uses music by these companies (say, Justin Timberlake music or whatever) is automatically “detected” to include this music. As soon as the video is uploaded to YouTube, the audio in that video is scanned and compared with millions of audio recordings that they have on file. When a match is found, the person who uploaded the video to YouTube will receive a “copyright notice” in his inbox. It says something along the lines of “Your video is found to contain music copyrighted to Sony” (or which ever company). Now, advertising is put on the video. This advertising is paid for by the various companies who advertise there (obviously) and it can be anything from movies to cars to shampoos, etc in those adverts, but often times it will be an advertisement that is somehow related to the content in the video. For example, if it’s a holiday video, the advertisement could to be some kind of holiday resort. Now, YouTube obviously makes money on that advertising, and a small portion of that money is now paid out to the company who owns the music that has been detected in that video. So if the music was Sony’s, Sony are now making money on each video, and I’ve heard this amounts to approximately $1.00 – 1.25 for every 1,000 views that video achieves.

A side effect to this program is that the person who created the video and uploaded the video to YouTube is not able to monetize his own video. By this I mean that the video creator can’t sign the video up with the YouTube partnership advertising program and receive his own advertising income from his video. Because the advertising money from that video is already “taken” by the company that owns the music that’s playing in the video.

Some people also decided that it would be a good idea to let independent musicians and bands into this whole setup. So they started Content-ID programs for independent musicians, where the aggregator (CDBaby, Rumblefish, AdShare, AdRev, IODA, The Orchard, INDMusic, Rebeat, Tunecore, AudioSparx, Magnatune, to name a few) feeds the independent music into YouTube’s Content-ID system, and starts to make money on the videos that contain this music. What happens now when people use this independent music in their videos is that they get a message from YouTube saying that their video “contains music owned by Rumblefish” (for example) and advertising starts appearing on the video. About $1 – $1.25 per 1,000 views is sent to that company (for example Rumblefish or INDMusic). Some of this is sent on to the aggregator (for example CDBaby or TuneCore), and some of this is sent on to the artist. Exactly how much is left for the artist, I’m not sure, but what started as $1.00 – $1.25 per 1,000 views has now passed through another couple of companies before it got to the artist, so it’s definitely considerably less. And now, the guy who created the video is not able to monetize his own video, because the monetization on that video is done by the Content-ID company who claims to own the music.

Another negative effect it will have on the customer’s video is that the video is actually blocked in some countries – for example, in Germany. This is because YouTube and the German royalty collection society GEMA (who control music broadcast and performance in Germany) have not reached an agreement on payments, so GEMA simply forbids YouTube to broadcast registered music in German territory. There are also some other countries that have this problem, but Germany is the most publicized one. So if you upload a video to YouTube and that video is found to contain music that is in Content-ID, the video will be blocked for all German viewers.
Content-ID clean music

This is exactly why people come to a place like Shockwave-Sound, to license music that is not in Content-ID. The music is “clean” and is not automatically recognized at YouTube. When people put our music in a video and uploads that video to YouTube, nothing special happens. The customer does not get any email with a copyright notification. The video is not automatically monetized by a third party. The video is “clean” and the customer is able to monetize his own video. He can sign the video up into the YouTube Partnership program, and he can start to receive advertising money from his video. And his video won’t be blocked in any countries.

When a conflict happens

What has happened sometimes is that artists have not understood this whole setup, and they have had their music both licensed via a stock music site like ours, and also monetized via a Content-ID system through Rumblefish, CDBaby, AdShare etc. And that is a conflict.

As you can imagine, when a customer buys your a license to your music track from Shockwave-Sound and they want to use the music in a video that they wish to monetize, they upload the video to YouTube, only to be told by YouTube that their video “Contains music owned by Rumblefish”, the customer is not happy, and we here at Shockwave-Sound are definitely not happy.

  • Firstly, it creates a big problem for our customer. He is likely to be angry and he will want a pretty good explanation for the music that he thought he licensed from us.
  • Secondly, it makes us look very bad in front of our customer, because it looks like we are a fraudulent company trying to sell music that is owned by somebody else. A competing company, no less.
  • And thirdly, the Content-ID “owner” of the music (our competitor) now actually starts to make money on our customer. We’ve spent years building a customer base, working our guts out day in and day out for years, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Google advertising to tempt customers to our site. We finally land that customer, he buys something from us… only for the Content-ID company to “leech” onto that sale, and start to make money on our customer’s video, even though they did no work in regards to that customer, that sale, or that music. All they do is to “piggy-back” on our sale, our customer, and start to make money for absolutely nothing, other than to have allowed the independent artist to have their music in their systems.

Can Content-ID make us rich?

It is my strong opinion that independent artists will make more money on selling/licensing their music via Shockwave-Sound, than they ever will make with the Content-ID system. Unless your music “goes viral” in some crazy popular video, the money you end up with after what started as $1 – $1.25 per 1,000 views, after the money passes through one or two other companies, is hardly anything left for you. I have never heard of any artist, except for such “crazy popular” cases, that made any money worth mentioning via Content-ID. The guys I spoke with made just “pennies”. Of course, if you’re Bruce Springsteen and you have your music used in 30 million videos, things will start to build up. And for the aggregators, it’s pennies from millions and millions of videos, because they have SO many artists and tracks in their database. But for one independent artist who is part of that setup, the money is likely to be almost nothing. I feel strongly that you guys will make more money by occasionally making royalties from sales via Shockwave-Sound or indeed other stock music outlets, than to receive “pennies” through a YouTube Content-ID system. But that’s up to each artist to consider, of course.

What we’re saying is that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t ask us to sell a license to a customer to use your music track, and then also want to make money through the Content-ID system, having your music flagged as “Owned by AdShare” (or other such company) and deny the customer the chance to monetize his own video.

Sorry this turned out a little long, but this whole thing isn’t a simple, straight-forward thing to explain. It’s quite a complex issue.

But if somebody “just took” our music and used it in a YouTube video, are we not entitled to any income for that?

If you find your music being used in a video, you have the right to ask (nicely) if the video uploader has a license to use that music in their video. They may claim that they don’t need a license because the video is only a personal, non-profit, non-commercial video, but in fact, whether they are making money or not is beside the point. The point is that they (1) put your music to film, and (2) are distributing your music via YouTube, and both of these items are something that you are entitled to receive something for. You created the music that is helping his video, either in a financial, OR in an artistic way. You have the right to ask the customer to buy a license or compensate you in some way. We would of course like you to send the customer to Shockwave-Sound to buy a license from us, but if you wish, you can sell him a license directly (as long as you are prepared and able to give him a proper license document, which he should rightly expect when he pays you for a license).

If the video creator refuses to buy a license to your music, you have the right to issue a “Takedown notice” to YouTube. You can do that via this form: http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html. Fill in details about yourself and your song. It gets passed to YouTube’s copyright dept., and the video gets taken down, unless the customer can document that he has purchased a license.

This is what you should do if you find your music in a YouTube video and you suspect that the customer has not bought a license.

But the video uploader claims to have bought the track from iTunes…

Remember, if the customer bought the music track from iTunes, Amazon and other such places that sell a track for a dollar — or if he bought the CD in a record store — that purchase does not include the rights to distribute the music, to Sync it to video, or to perform it through any public website, public space, broadcast, or anything like that. The iTunes / CD purchase includes only the right to personally listen to the music.

I hope this helps. It’s important for me that people understand all of this, which is why I decided to spend some time explaining it properly. Feel free to link to this article if you like; here is a permanent link directly to this article.

YouTube, Copyright notices and YouTube Safe Music

YouTube, Copyright notices and YouTube Safe Music

 
Got a “copyright claim” on music licensed from us?
If you have licensed a music track from Shockwave-Sound.com and you get a “copyright notice” on your video, where the music ownership is claimed by some company (e.g. CDBaby, AdRev), first of all, rest assured that you’re not in any kind of trouble. You are not being accused of copyright infringement. You are simply being informed that our music was found in your video.

Copyright claims on YouTube are completely automated. YouTube’s automated systems do not know that you have bought a license, so that’s why you’re getting the “copyright claim”. The claim can easily be removed by using the “Dispute” feature on the YouTube copyright notice page to provide documentation that you’ve purchased a license to use the music in your video. Within 24 hours, the copyright notice on your video will be removed.

In an ideal world there would be a way to provide License information at the time when you upload your video to YouTube, but so far that is not the case. So the process is: (1) You upload the video — (2) YouTube automatically finds our music in it and generates a “copyright notice” — (3) You use the Dispute link on the YouTube page to provide documentation that you have licensed the music — (4) The copyright notice is removed from your video. It’s a little bit of a hassle, but takes less than 2 minutes, and it’s not dramatic.

If you still have trouble with this, fill in our contact form and let us know (A) the link/URL to your video, (B) details of your license order, such as order number or customer name so that we may find the order, (C) information from the copyright notice screen on YouTube which displays the track title being found in your video, the artist and the company claiming administration of the track. We will help you to look into the matter, possibly contact the artist to get them to help as well. If you are a paying customer, we will definitely get the copyright notice removed from your video(s).

 

Classical music copyright notices

With classical music recordings, the situation is messy. The thing with classical music is that the actual composition is in the public domain (it belongs to no one and everyone), but who ever actually makes their own performance and recording of a piece of classical music automatically owns the copyright to that recording. We have the rights to our version of Chopin’s Nocturne. But another company may have made their own version of the same composition, and they may have put that recording into the YouTube audio recognition system. And that fully automated system often cannot tell the difference between one version/recording and another!

If you received a “copyright claim” message when using classical music that you licensed from us, most likely some company, somewhere, has made their version of the same composition, and they own the rights to that recording. They don’t own the rights to the version that we sell, but YouTube’s automated systems cannot tell the two versions apart from each other, and the track that you licensed from us is wrongly being matched to a recording of the same classical composition made by somebody else.

It’s a real mess up there at YouTube with classical music, and in some cases, several big music publishing companies are claiming the rights to the same piece of music, even though that recording doesn’t even belong to any of them. This thread over at Google Groups illustrates some of the problems people are having with companies claiming rights to public domain and classical compositions that they don’t own the rights to.

There’s not really much we can do about this, other than to recommend you use the “Dispute” feature and, if necessary, provide the license documentation that you got from our site when you made your purchase. You may explain during the dispute submission process that this is a case of mistaken identity and that this version so-and-so composition is a recording that is licensed to you via Shockwave-Sound.com and it is not the same recording as (what ever company is claiming the rights to it). With a bit of luck, this process will lead to the claim being removed from your video.