The vimeo issue for me has nothing to do with copywrite violation but pulling unpublished private/password uploads. I use Vimeo pro for a lot of back and forth with clients. I can't afford to pay for clearing the rights to songs and have the client want a different song so I temp in the music until it is approved and then clear it for broadcast. This makes up a lot of Vimeo pro users and they will loose big on this. I have no need for a vimeo account if I have to pay for temp music to be able share a rough cut with a client privately.

I can understand Vimeo going after public works but private works which are password protected that is just crap and the wrong direction to go. The fact that even if I clear a song the onus is on me to prove I have cleared it before it can be posted. How long will the grieving process take? If the client needs to watch it in a day and the Vimeo staff won't get to it for a few days or a week I have just lost the client on the next job.

I'm cancelling my Vimeo pro account and searching for an alternative to sharing easily viewable private rough client edits.

@Azo

Likely it was not a single lawyer, but representatives from many labels and copyright societies (organizations that collect and pay artists performance royalties). Youtube for example has negotiated many kinds of agreements with both of those.

@Eno

Sorry for nitpicking, but remastering usually means adjusting sound of existing recording. Do you mean creating a sound-alike, or in TVTropes lingo, "suspiciously similar song"? That is common thing to do in music, TV, and film industries. Oftentimes it's the better option from creative perspective too, unless original track is needed for reference rather than music.

Btw, worse thing here is that with time it can result in the arms race, were utilities will exist that remove certain information and rebuild sound file to sound the same, but being undetectable.

What is VPS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_server

@Ratlabproductions Just use Dropbox your client can play the video on there or download the original.

Additionally, anytime you want to transfer/upload the video to Vimeo, just use the Dropbox > Vimeo upload feature and the video will be uploaded from Dropbox to Vimeo without having to upload again from your PC.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev ...

"Real copyright must protect you, but only in a way you get proper, not excessive reward. Whole idea to make one or two songs and get rich is sick."

So, say someone writes a song that becomes real popular ... who decides when to cut off their copyright/use payments? You? And ... who gives the whomever you think should judge this the right to decide that?

If 50 million people want to buy a song, what's wrong with that? And what business is it of anyone else's? Don't understand the thinking on this. If someone else gets paid because a ton of people chose to buy a song they wrote, no matter how much, why in the world is it the concern of the rest of us?

Will this me clients won't have the music on the "original file" too? Can the download with the music still in tack?

I license music for my wedding videos… I'm wondering how long the "quick appeal" process really is… I don't want to post a video for a bride and groom, only to go through weeks of back and forth with some asshole at vimeo before my clients can start sharing their video online with their family and friends.

Or in other cases where I've got time sensitive projects like crowd funding videos that my clients use for their campaigns… that can't wait for an appeal some times.

Looking at Vold site:

Have you seen this?

vimeo.com/blog/post:626

Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.

On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.

Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.

This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.

Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.

I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.

I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.

Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.

Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!

Sorry bud - stop using real world working peoples sound art on your stuff for your websites promotion, which you do earn $$ from. Sadly Vimeo is rightly taxing you for usage on other peoples work to promote your (good) personal video work. Sadly I can imagine the artists will earn nowt for their efforts, which ultimately is sad.

Once Googly are involved they want their point -sadly the originators recuperation of monies may take a long route - it's been a free for all for years and only now online policed as the guys running our streaming services want some wonga finally - from the side of the fence wondering what's the problem - when you're the other side defending YOUR thing it becomes a bit more interesting. I found that CSI was using a falsely used tune of mine for several years via a naughty chap in the States who sold a lot of the early British dance artists to the US and luckily was recompensed via the broadcaster for a substantial amount - it was ours - (funnily it was rubbish lol) but was ours - use free market music or make your own or (hell!) pay lol

On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.

YouTube only leaves the music and puts an ad link for those music recordings that Google has deals with the right holders for. YouTube pays those rights holders for each play. Other videos will just be silenced. YouTube uploaders have no control over this, and the situation can change after a video is uploaded.

@DrDave

Why then small labels are also on the side of copyright restrictions? Ask any commercial indie label owner, they might have very open attitudes to enforcement (some do not enforce at all) but I bet every single one will support copyright policing of their catalogue.

What you mentioned happens sometimes because there is (or has been) some licensing between indie and a major and then major starts to enforce rights beyond those agreements.

Of course there are clearly dishonest cases too, but AFAIK that's not common. Do you know of many such cases?