yes that sucks. I have already had trouble using vimeo so I just use youtube now

I am in favour of it

This looks like one of those rare times you're in agreement with Andrew Reid! He is not pleased at all either.

On you tube, I have made two copyright claims and had them remove 2 videos. And, I have had 4 issued automatically against my uploads - to which I have responded with details of the clearance and registrations. It's not an issue if you respect copyright.

I expect the same 4 claims to be issued by vimeo, which will be cleared up pretty much instantly.

I am not sure where you get 2-3 years from. While there are variations from country to country in copyright duration.

Here is a link to UK site that's fairly concise.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-duration-faq/c-duration-faq-lasts.htm

It is also worth noting that there are 2 types of copyright to consider, compositional and mechanical (a recording). For example the song "House of the rising sun' while compositionally in the public domain, If I record it as single ... the recording is copyrighted until 70 years after my death.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev, the 3 years copyright might only work for artists who are already famous, can live off immediate sales of their hits and have big company doing promotion work to ensure good chance of sales. All other artists will get screwed by that idea, especially small artists without radio hits.

I agree that copyright laws need to be reworked, and your 10x expenses limit (or similar idea) is worth thinking about - although in some countries taxation already takes care of that. But as long as artists are supposed to survive in capitalist economy, it's important to keep copyright laws in such form that there is good possibility to make a living by making music. Even as it is now, artists who can live off their music are only the very small tip of a huge iceberg. All artists not at the top are already struggling, what's the good in making it even worse for them.

For-profit companies who make money selling advertising added to content made by artists should pay for using that content. That is what Youtube and Vimeo copyright is about. And at the moment they pay very small sums per stream, many zeroes after the decimal point. No artist could live on that, and for marginal artists with streams numbering in few thousands or less it's a joke. A sum equivalent to buying one coffee cup, in exchange for tens of hours of work not counting the recording and equipment costs.

The good thing about music is that it's largely open source anyway and much of what is copyrighted as "closed source" is rarely enforced. Musical elements are generally recyclable, anyone can use same chord progressions, rhythm patterns and so on. Unless a work is copied tone for tone and note for note, there are usually no legal problems, and even if something sounds very similar it is often not challenged by rightsholders of original works. Sometimes that is because prior art, literally, is already in public domain. Like going along circle of fifths - thousands of tracks use it, and most variations of that idea will be found in music from 1600s to 1900s.

I totally agree with Vitality.

And there is also the problem with buying songs for small commercial use (like uploading a wedding video on vimeo). They tray to charge a very high amount of money for it. Sometimes the filmmaker earns less than he must pay for a good song.

Next up. Tons of silent movies at Vimeo. These new rules also include all private videos. Go figure.

Good topic! And good arguments already from both “sides”. Bravo! True, it’s easy to place a finger on the irony here, in regards to artists wanting something for nothing from other artists… [Artist] - World’s most overused noun:)

I sit in both camps.

I’ve made my living as a filmmaker since the eighties. I’ve worked on in or above nearly every level of film and commercial production, secured rights for many songs, had material - intellectual, physical and representative [reel stuff] ripped from under my feet. I used to have hissy-fits over the injustices I’d witness over copyright infringements and misrepresentation. Now I don’t really.

A © revamp would be great, but unlikely. I don’t know the details. I do know that it’s possible to police your own work (with some difficulty) if you wish. Vimeo’s young proprietors are probably looking down the gun barrel of a hungry set of opportunistic entertainment lawyers from the Excited States; so they’re must be crawling around the water cooler, pooping their skinny jeans. Rightly so.

Today’s indie musicians are a good model for what we enthusiast/pros can do. Make your stuff and get out and show/exhibit it. Have your local banjo player score and call out the moves, then promenade into real musician/filmmaker collaborations. These can be some of the most gratifying experiences a filmmaker can have. (Can’t speak for the musicians though?) Use your microphones and whiz-bang, holy-cow recording gadgets to record things to go behind the videos. And Cats! Well they purr and meow. Sequence meows in your midi setup and drop marbles on the keys!

In short, the extra work finding music will make us take a second look at our latest tree branch or tinker toy dynamic range/duo motion picture masterpieces. And that can’t be bad:)

There’s some public domain music out there. That might be a quick fix, but also might summon the dead.

As far as Justin Beiber songs behind unpack-aging videos is concerned: You have my permission:)

@bheath - skinny jeans! heh.

I figured this day was coming, Vimeo could only hold out for so long before the bmg et al assholes knocked down the door. I have to agree with Vitaliy about the length of copyright. Maybe not as short as 2-3 years, but it needs to be reigned in. As it applies to a new artist (as someone mentioned) if they become popular and people are interested in their back catalog, a copyright expiring will probably not keep them from buying that artist's music. It's ridiculous that someone still owns the rights to Happy Birthday.

The problem with very short copyright (for recordings) is that as soon as back catalogue is in public domain, anyone can sell it - or do whatever else they want - without paying original artist. So that little income would likely become non-existent except for a few buys from extra loyal fans who go to extra lengths to buy from original source.

With same attitude, how long would you allow movies to retain copyright? The ones you make and charge for or otherwise monetize? Would it be OK if someone started selling your works after three years, without paying you? Or began cutting it up for stock material, and then selling the footage without paying you?

70 years after death is ridiculous, but so would be only few years after creation. Perhaps a good balance would be that copyrights last as long as artists' working career, or until death.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev
"I think good idea is to look at local performers and bands. Sometimes it can be cheaper to record it from scratch and may be even modify it according to your video."

Interesting idea, Vitality. Another possibility is to pay somebody to remaster the needed track. The cost can be significantly lower than buying the original track (for commercial license).

I think Vimeo will lose a lot of payed customers with this new policy, I for instance will not pay for a plus account, ever.

I think copyright is actually a good thing especially for the artists. The only thing that really needs to be worked out is the copyright duration. I think 10 years is a pretty decent amount of time and if the artist/musician etc is not successful in that amount of time their is a good chance they will never be successful as an artist.

Vimeo's implementation of the copyright restrictions is the key here. If they implement it properly I think it is fair. This is a very polarizing topic and I can see artist's rejoicing at Vimeo's decision. The real problem of course is the fricken lawyers in the U.S. There are more lawyers per capita in the U.S then any other country in the world. Just look at somebody the wrong way and a lawyer will figure out a way to sue you.

As somebody mentioned an attorney probably representing a musician contacted Vimeo and threatened to sue. So this is really why Vimeo probably taking action.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev, I normally agree with most of your topics and train of thought on most things, however I disagree with you on this one. Just imagine if you worked on something for about 1 month straight and built something the size of a basketball. The whole time that you spent building that you were thinking that you could sell it and make money on it. Then you build it and somebody takes it without your permission, turns around and copies it, and then proceeds to give it to his friends and family and sell it for a profit.

I also enjoy the bickering back forth so late the flaming begin ;-)