You cant use music from pond5 on youtube for Monetization

UGH..
All my videos got flagged. Too much work to dispute a dozen or so videos. Sadly I need another music source if they can't resolve this. I have no desire to inherit other peoples loose ends.

Not good.

What does it say when you got your video flagged? Who is claiming they own the copyright? You should contact the musician whose music you purchased a license from and ask them what the deal is. Personally I think it's bad business to have any stock music in that content id system. Maybe the best way to solve this problem is to start a thread for musicians who guarantee there music is not in the content id program.

If you look at the Youtube content id info it clearly states that a library/publisher/composer that submits to this MUST have exclusive control to do so. This means essentially that as a composer I cant have the same music non- exclusively on Pond5 and non- exclusively on Library B IF that library submits my tracks to a Youtube content ID system.

Composers wake up and sort this out, you are shooting yourself in the foot by doing this. Unfortunately some libraries have in the past submitted the catalogue to the Youtube content ID system without their composer consent, a non exclusive library can not do this. Its totally wrong and screws everything up.

Any track that triggers a content id flag on Youtube that is available on Pond5 should be removed from Pond5 immediately. This is very bad news for Pond5 and is totally unfair to clients who purchase the rights to monetize your music.

As this is still an issue for some clients, i would love to clarify a few points that are constantly misunderstood with the "Royalty Free Audio" claim.

If a customer buys a single license, he has the right to use the music for any non-commercial project, product. BUT if the customer starts to monetize his videos,THIS is where the problem occurs.
The customer has ONLY bought a license and does NOT own the music he bought, so he is NOT allowed to make money out of it on Youtube, as YT only allows the composer / copyright owner of the music to earn money trough it.

I really think we all should question how we act and what we expect how others act. I'm absolutely fine if a customer buys a extended license and includes this in a commercial product for resale (and this is exactly what monetizing YT Videos is), but if he buys a single license for $10-$30 - how could he think it would be fair to create a commercial product /video out of that and earn a lot of money on YT when the composer gets almost nothing ? Fair ? Legal ?

It's really simple :

Single License = You can create a product (i.e. Video) that you put on YT and anywhere else, BUT will not be sold (monetizing is selling content).

Extended License = Your fine to resell any of the bought music in your commercial product (i.e. computer game etc.) and also monetize your videos.

I think, there are to many people still think "everything must be free" and do not respect others hard work. This also applies to some of the Royalty Free Content Marketplaces, as they do not inform them self, their clients and Artists very well when it comes to copyright, PRO, Content ID and so on.

So dear customers, please do not judge artists and composers if they simply try to protect their hard work and rights in some ways. Think about how the music industry and mp3 piracy really made our lives much more complicated and almost impossible to earn enough for a living.

BTW. about 90% of the ID Content messages i get are from people using watermarked preview files in their monetized videos. The other 10% will be "cleared" within 24 hours and will not cause any issues if the customer has a license.

I hope this will bring some light and understanding to the YT ID Content issue some people have.


Thanks

Wouldn’t this process be easier if the RF libraries would indicate at the point of sale if a track is in content id and provide an authorization code at that time? This is assuming the content provider joined the id service as an individual.

Another concern is what Sonic Media Design has stated; about 90% of the ID Content messages are from people using watermarked preview files in their monetized videos. This is why I am seriously considering it.

I agree with Michael. I completely understand why musicians choose to protect their music from theft. I think the problem can be easily solved by indicating whether the music is in Content ID when the music is uploaded for review. Just something simple like Content ID: Yes or No. Maybe in the same area where it asks if the music is available for musical works. It is really not a big issue whether it's in that system or not because claims can easily be removed, but the problem is when customers are blindsided and didn't know they'd have to provide proof of a license. Some applications need to have the music YouTube safe. A lot of projects it doesn't matter. Customers should know though to prevent any problems either way. I think that's the easiest solution.

when I upload videos to youtube that have music that is licensed, I submit the license with the upload. there is a way to do it. I had to do it with tv commercials I did. they never flagged them.

here is the info on how to submit your license documentation to youtube:

http://www.mobihackman.in/2014/02/sample-license-for-youtube-video.html

(Confused about this answer, to generate Content Id about my music track)

There may be some confusion on the usage of your tracks uploaded on our marketplace.

By purchasing our media from our site, a buyer is allowed to use them under our royalty-free License Agreement: http://www.pond5.com/legal/license which allows for worldwide, perpetual use, across all media. This means that the file can be used in just about any creative or commercial context. Restrictions are listed in section 4 of the license agreement. In regards to monetization, the clause is that a buyer cannot collect revenue by uploading the audio content by itself. Since, in this buyer's case, the purchased track is being incorporated in a new work for distribution, so monetization should be allowed.

You may not monetize or collect revenue from YouTube (or other networks that allow for the so-called "claiming" or "monetization of content") for Audio Content by itself (i.e., Audio Content other than as and when used hereunder in Work For Distribution). If a unique license number is provided to you at the time of your purchase of the License, you will, in the event of any conflict on YouTube (or any such other network), via the tools supplied by YouTube (or the other applicable network), provide such license number to the applicable Contributor on request.

Andrea
Customer Care

I think having you tracks registered through a PRO is a way to avoid any confusion. If the music is "broadcasted" then royalties are owed. The royalty free aspect only applies to non-broadcast applications. Otherwise, why would Pond5 have the option to include PRO if it's a totally "royalty free" site? So royalty free is a misnomer in a way. Regarding content ID, I never registered any of my tracks for content ID, but choose simply to do PRO registration. I expect those producing their projects with my music to understand, legally and ethnically, how everything works.
Am I doing the right thing by not registering with content ID? Maybe, maybe not. One thing's for sure, I've never been contacted by any buyer about a problem with content ID.