Post removed.
I did not know.
Post removed.
#Questions
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Does Taylor or Big Machine Records know this video is posted on here? Are you generating revenue from this post?
I'm curious because I am also in the music industry.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The only way to generate revenue with this post is by way for community upvotes. If Big Machine Records get's a vevo spin they have their agreement to pay Taylor. The community elects whom to vote on and by their vote power Steemit rewards are offered.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If it's enough to make Taylor a drink I would be surprised. Read about curation on Steemit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I read an interesting article about curation, but that does not address the copyright infringement issue. If someone on Steemit is making money from a post that contains content that they do not own, it is illegal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
refrence removed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If the above photo is a private photo and you do not have permission from the owner to upload, then that is a breach of copyright.
The USA Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) can only pay the copyright owners if they know something was broadcast publicly. I do not know if they have an agreement with Steemit yet. I will look into this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a youtube link that's monetized by the person of reference.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The video is displayed on YouTube vevo. Those that engage pay her a royalty. Study up. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infringement
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand that part. Since you link to the Vevo video, the views will be counted, and the copyright owners will be paid accordingly. However, if you were to upload the video without linking it to the Vevo account, that would definitely be infringement.
However, you are still making money by posting someone else's intellectual property, I will have to research further to see if that is infringement.
For example, what if Big Machine Records do not want any of their content on Steemit without their consent? Do they have control over that? Do they even know their content is being posted?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm glad we can clear this up. I'm not an attorney. It appears that we are uncovering answers to questions that many may have when considering crypto rewarding social media. Let me address each one of these thoughts one at a time in this comment.
Your text states your thought here : "If you were to upload the video without linking it to the Vevo account, that would definitely be infringement."
Every form of social media is difference when considering monetization. Let's take a few examples in YouTube, Vevo, and D.Tube. YouTube monetization is based around add placement by majority. In order for users to monetize it takes the growth of a YouTube account to achieve milestones and goals. Taylor Swift achieved those tiers of excellence a long time ago. She's monetizing content in videos like this video here REFERENCE REMOVED. My share of the video in this comment may result in upvotes. As you see the content isn't hers alone when considering the text in this post. However, her monetization doesn't change. If anything this link offers an additional point of engagement. Users will find it, click the link, listen, and YouTube monetization takes place. Users on Steemit should be aware that their upvotes may result in earning on other accounts. Whereas, if RiceGum was to put a stone cold million into STEEM after reading that China's rank for the crypto is very high. Than he can power up his account with STEEM. The token is reserved for a period of time. It's a promise. It's like if Taylor Swift made a promise and kept the promise. The STEEM is kept with dedication that Taylor Swift isn't breaking her promise. But, she's increasing her upvote power so her fanbase can buy her a drink rather than make it in the future. The power up math is existing in a post I resteemed yesterday. This is still new to me as well. It's a new website. Now, the share of her link isn't infringing on her content because it's her content and I'm not claiming it as my own. If you were to take her videos and upload them to D.Tube without her consent there could be reason that your account would suffer due to the infringement even if you place link source of screen capture reprint. Whereas, yes it would be to infringe to upload a dedication to Taylor because you love her and YouTube may transfer monetization when finding songs used in content, pictures used in content, and may remove the video or account all together due to infringement. I would not recommend that anyone upload a video on D.Tube without permissions. A YouTube reproduction hedges by way of advanced recognition to allocate API indicating monetization aspects to flag and transfer to user. As the content owner of the Daddy Kid album should I produce a video and place it on YouTube initially my content may be flagged. Whereas, I'm delivered the ability to contest the content with verification that it is my own and or with proper permissions. So... I release a song to iTunes. Now, the reprints begin where lyric video and official video contain the same song. YouTube will flag in suspect of infringement matching audio files. I can contest and offer documentation providing my content generation ownership has authority to release such videos. Monetization is collected by ASCAP or BMI. It's why I reference the agency in charge of collecting monetized profits from platforms like YouTube. Due to the links existence where it's previously monetized, and understanding of Steemit user agreement, my curation acts as a search reference. Imagine SteemSearch whereas a search engine was created to optimize Steemit post API's and provide a better search result for users. In example where should one search Daddy Kid Eternal on D.Tube, and the post had been promoted by SBD in Steemit link, can you find the reference when searching on D.Tube? If the answer is no, you see why my thought of optimizing search results in a SteemSearch IO makes perfect sense. Now should D.Tube users upload Taylor Swift original videos without consent the resyndicate profiting in upvotes may have infringed. To share a link isn't to infringe. To upload a link and use the song should consider D.Tube YouTube style offering where profits in question can be allocated by system programming. In the case of Steemit should you find content that is lets say Loren Grey uploaded where profits are made and content is pointing to monetized link's on YouTube. They are likely flagged on YouTube. If the upload is D.Tube itself. The community can rightfully flag those posts. I'm not sure what happens with posts flagged down to have made STEEM Power or SBD. Still learning.
Your statement : However, you are still making money by posting someone else's intellectual property, I will have to research further to see if that is infringement.
There is full transparency here and once again Steemit users know that upvotes allocate earnings. I've upvoted your comment. It made a value. Have you infringed by mentioning Big Machine. I can overcome your ignorance and wish you wouldn't look at me like a criminal attempting to profiteer off of Taylor Swift shares with unique comment offering the video is approaching it's 900,000,000 th view. I can only suspect that you're advancing me in this way with some form of vendetta created by fake news media over my song. I hope that by the time we have fully completed this conversation you won't view me with suspect of criminal intent for sharing Taylor Swift with the community under #Music to archive it in search results as people are inclined to gather around similar interests and shares are purely symbiotic. In addition, the earnings resulting from Taylor Swift videos on my @Sutter account can be considered by Big Machine. Should the Big Machine wish to take me to court I would happily appear. Should I be found not guilty I would happily be reimbursed for my expenses. Should the judge choose to strip me of my earnings on the posts where crypto earnings were retrieved for community selection to upvote the post they would be chasing pennies for dollars literally. The term, I made maybe a penny on the posts and I'm investing all this time explaining I'm not guilty of any crime to you right now. Meanwhile, in California Oliver Stone broke the Son of Sam Law when paying Snowden to produce a film about the crimes in leaks enabled by Glenn Greenwald and the Department of Justice is a failure to recognize the criminal act of aiding and abetting treason. In addition to that truth, I did report the treason acts including Jack Dorsey comforting of Snowden with @ PardonSnowden using influence of his corporation acts consistent with aid and abetting criminal treason by comforting in aim to influence reason for pardon of treason offense. Literally, the corporation would let it go in my case it's symbiotic. In the case of upload and it's Taylors song but RiceGirl is performing it claiming it as his original content and furnishing links to iTunes for his cover without paying residual to the artist than he's going to have to pay should he have profited.
Your statement : "For example, what if Big Machine Records do not want any of their content on Steemit without their consent? Do they have control over that? Do they even know their content is being posted?"
I would advise that Big Machine Records could work with Steemit to provide source programming. Whereas the Markdown Styling Guide could be advanced to block links. When a Taylor Swift link is posted, the accounts attempting to post can result in error display; "STEEMIT does not support Big Machine Records videos as pur agreement. Please never attempt to post anything in reference to Taylor Swift." Agreement between the corporations can advance the blockade of Taylor Swift via Big Machine. However, if another artist was to go by Taylor Swift and it was her actual name? A retaliation making the selection to blockade Taylor's YouTube could go into legal selection of producing content. Should the world have a by birth on certificate Taylor Swift and it's not Taylor's real name. Big Machine could be imposed upon to bar all Taylor Swift content that is falsely representing the name. Things like that can happen. But, they are more nuisance to the artist. Taylor may want to get on Steemit to control content and provide D.Tube is furnished with approved content earning Big Machine Records the potential to capitalize. In comparison to YouTube partner and D.Tube the Steemit system results in analytics are finding D.Tube more profitable per view in many cases. With UUNIO another social for crypto it's a good time to address the fears. D.Tube can vet the content when found by unique file. A good example is @BuildTeam contest for music where submission is outside my ability to copyright the instrumental
How can they know?
Digital content is binary code in essence. It breaks down to a series of 1's and 0's. The positive and negative resulting in voltages once processed translated by coding implementation creating unique signature. Whereby, once on Apple music released via distribution owned by Big Machine, whom qualifies due to the number of releases, to be a official distributor on the iTunes story like CatapultDistribution.com. Each reference has a signature, D.Tube could provide that signatures API reference used with YouTube is enabled to flag content for the furthering of protocol. Whereas, content may be categorized as a number of things where claims can be made to provide proof of BuildTeam to use Choose Us instrumental. Process resolution provides truth to license and no harm is done. In a secondary case someone uses screen capture to upload Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do." API protocol surfaces the link and requests claim submission if one can be made by Big Machine team the content than enters the D.Tube search engine results. If not, the content will not display to the public. There are some situational nuances to consider with technology. All valid questions. I thank you for your comments and hope I have cleared my name from your suspect of intent of criminal acts when sharing Taylor Swift videos.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for your thorough reply. It took years for Youtube to develop a ContentID system, so I suspect it will also be years before D.Tube or Steemit does.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not a part of the developer community there and suspect that in reality it's created by the copyright office than later protocoled by DTube. There are elements within this form of technology that depend on GitHub open source. For example; My D.Tube isn't hitting search results and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. A developer sees me in morning over the fact. Than composes within open source an extraction that boosts meta data content of the post to 18 pts size than enables additional keywords, and lastly perform ContentID functionality complete with various protocols to settle arrangement where infringement is of suspect. As a live performer I stopped playing my covers and played only my own or inspired in the moment style songs. But, would be happy to know that a system existed to allocate appropriate revenues generated from licensing. For example one day I may have a singer sing this song
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also if you took all the Taylor Swift lyrics. You are more likely to find she has infringed on others lyrics. Sharing a link here isn't infringement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A hack injection like this one may more likely fit the term infringement. https://www.facebook.com/379784999106499/photos/a.379787485772917.1073741827.379784999106499/379787435772922/?type=1&theater
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think you're understanding how Steemit works. To my knowledge the curation of catagorization in reference to this link is the value I've created that may earn the upvote. Whereas #Music and I put Taylor in there. Someone upvotes my share. I'm not making money off of Taylor Swifts music. I don't think you're familiar with law. If you knew the laws you may know that there is no form of infringement going on in this case. If you're not familiar with infringement and are suggesting that I have infringed on the music due to the value I earn from a post like this one you're mistaken. May I ask are you accusing me of a crime? http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/legal-recourse-falsely-accused-crime.html
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We are just having a conversation right now. I'm just curious. I am also a music publisher, and own copyrighted material.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand your thought process. I'm putting my music up. I own the copyright. And, have been raising some awareness in question of the thoughts you presented. And, it may be redundant by telling you personal. I've come to find that there is a potential where on D.Tube If you were to upload music without permission it's not best practice and may result in infringing. Every response from the departments responsible for developments there is returning messages of developing states within their scope of things to perfect. So... Hypothetical ; If, you upload a Musically to D.Tube, and it's not your song. Than you may be infringing on the artist by allowing for a reward. I also came to find when uploading my music no offering of need to claim authority was sent to verify my permission. It's a situational nuance that's going to find resolution for artists like us in the future.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit