Mike's Oud Forums

Interesting Copyright claim on "Samai Shad Araban"

Chris-Stephens - 8-2-2022 at 09:48 AM

Anyone know whats going on here? Our performance of "Samai Shad Araban" by Cemil Bey is being copyright claimed as both "Ferahfeza Saz Semaisi" by MESAM/MSC CS and "Arabic Way" by Audiam, Securights Inc.

Who is getting paid ad money through this video? Its weird to me that anyone other than the original record label Mr. Cemil Bey recorded with would get royalties. Maybe thats what the MESAM claim is but its just the wrong tune. This other claim of it being the song "Arabic Way" is a mystery to me...

Untitled.png - 337kB

Brian Prunka - 8-2-2022 at 10:14 AM

Cemil Bey died in 1915 so his compositions should all be public domain (rules vary by country but generally works prior to 1925 are public domain, and the general rule is 70 years after the composer's death works become public domain). So you can contest this claim and note that the underlying work is public domain based on the date of the composition/lifespan of the author.

There's no such thing as 'copywrite' btw, the concept is related to rights (like human rights) not writing. They are "copy rights".

The fundamental right relates to the composition - which is based on the lifetime of the original author and original date of composition/publication.

There is a right in sound recordings as well. Recordings are tricky, but generally recordings have a copyright that lasts about 100 years, so even the original recording here is not subject to copyright. In the US all recordings made prior to 1923 are in the public domain. But none of that applies here as it is your own performance and recording - you can simply note that the recording/video is your own work.

Anyway, there is a lot of false copyright claiming on YouTube, done either by algorithmic mistake or intentional false claims. You can contest it with the notes that the composition is public domain and the recording is your own.


Chris-Stephens - 8-2-2022 at 12:13 PM

Oh wow I had no idea! Its also copyRIGHT (haha) claimed for playing al Wahabs 'Aziza' and Qasabgi's 'Zikrayati'. So you're saying if you "cover" an old traditional tune who's composer has died is not a valid copyright claim? What if it is less than 100 years ago in the case of Wahab and Qasabgi?

Brian Prunka - 8-2-2022 at 01:34 PM

a composer who died less than 70 years ago probably is still under copyright. There are exceptions sometimes, but that's a general rule.

So Qasabgi will be free to use in the year 2036 and Abdel Wahab in 2061.

Chris-Stephens - 8-3-2022 at 09:02 AM

Interesting! I have no understanding of how these things work. What is your experience with copyright, in performing covers like this? I'm curious about this now I should do some research, I wonder if the 100 year rule only applies to recordings made in the US or what happens when its originally from another country, in this case of Cemil Bey I'd assume the original recording was made in Turkey.

"none of that applies here as it is your own performance"

So performing covers of copyrighted music shouldn't trigger youtube at all? Have any of your Oud videos ever gotten copyright claimed if you're playing a cover?

Brian Prunka - 8-3-2022 at 09:29 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Chris-Stephens  
Interesting! I have no understanding of how these things work. What is your experience with copyright, in performing covers like this? I'm curious about this now I should do some research, I wonder if the 100 year rule only applies to recordings made in the US or what happens when its originally from another country, in this case of Cemil Bey I'd assume the original recording was made in Turkey.


The rules on copyright are broadly agreed to by many countries via the Berne Convention, but it's true they can vary somewhat.
From what I can determine, 100 years on recordings is pretty safe and some countries have a shorter terms. I'm not sure about Turkey specifically.

Many countries, including the US have rules that allow anyone to record and release a cover version of any song by paying a statutory fee. However, this only applies to audio and doesn't extend to the right to use in in video or other media. There are related agreements regarding live performance, most of which are covered by PRO licenses such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.

Quote:

"none of that applies here as it is your own performance"

So performing covers of copyrighted music shouldn't trigger youtube at all? Have any of your Oud videos ever gotten copyright claimed if you're playing a cover?


I don't think I've posted any covers on youtube. I posted a couple of analysis videos using original recordings - one got a copyright claim and another didn't.

It's important to understand that there are two different and entirely unrelated copyrights:
1- the music (generally life of composer plus ~70 years)
2- the recording (generally about 100 years)

So in a cover version, you are still dealing with copyright 1, just not copyright 2. If you are performing a cover of copyrighted music, you can still get a copyright claim under copyright 1. My quote above was in the context of discussing sound recording rights, which wouldn't apply to your cover version. However type 1 still applies.

Type 1 only doesn't apply here because the music is from a composer who died more than 70 years ago.

I'll mention that copyright 'claims' are a pretty elegant and generous way of dealing with the problem of getting permission (assuming we are talking about copyrights still in effect). Many publishers/copyright owners have decided to essentially grant blanket permissions in exchange for ad revenue. They don't have to do this. They can issue a 'takedown' claim, which results in your viideo being blocked entirely and a "strike" being put on your account. Too many strikes and your whole account is suspended. So in comparison, saying "okay you can keep your video but we will get a small royalty" is a much better option.

The problem is more that people who don't have the actual rights can abuse the claiming process.

Chris-Stephens - 8-3-2022 at 11:21 AM

Cool cool, nice explanation! This is a pretty tricky topic for sure. And yes I'm not upset at all when they get ad money on videos covering copyright tunes as long as it goes to the right place, its better than youtube not allowing covers at all. An open mic night I used to frequent got shut down and had to appeal to some company to let them stay open with a strict "no covers" rule. there were even undercover audience members who worked for this agency who would come try to blend in but were making sure there were no covers. Seems a bit much...

That final point is why I posted this topic, I'm pretty sure whoever the artist behind "Arabic Way" is isn't Cemil Bey and is unfairly getting royalties through the many videos of musicians covering this well known Cemil Bey piece. I did dispute it saying the composition should be in public domain and they released their claim, but the other one from MESAM/ MSC CS saying its "Farahfaza Saz Samaisi" is still active. Just typing in "Shad Araban" in youtube gets hundreds of video results, many with over 10k views so this may be one example of abusing the copyright claim process.

MESAM is the MUSICAL WORK OWNERS' SOCIETY OF TURKEY https://www.womex.com/virtual/mesam_musical_work so maybe they do actually have the rights to Cemil Bey compositions even after the 100 year rule.


Another tangent: what about charging admission to concerts where copyrighted covers are performed? I know this happens a lot with the Brooklyn Maqam

Brian Prunka - 8-3-2022 at 12:47 PM

Turkish copyright law states that protections expire 70 years after the death of the author.
https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/turkey_lawintellectualarti...
Quote:

Art. 27. (Amendment: 7.6.1995 - 4110/10) The term of protection shall last for the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after his death. (Addition: 21.2.2001 - 4630/16) If there is more than one author, this period shall end upon the expiry of 70 years after the death of the last remaining author.


So this is definitely a false claim on behalf of MESAM. It is possible to copyright an arrangement of a PD work, so what is probably being claimed is that your rendition is using a copyrighted arrangement. Searching MESAM's database, I found a couple of registered arrangements of the Ferahfeza Samai.

So yeah, in this case no one should be claiming it.

The issues around public performance are complex.
The basic issue isn't really exactly "covers" vs. "originals", though that's how naive venues often frame it.
Even people performing original music are entitled to performance royalties, the expectation is just that a composer-performer is often waiving this right in a small venue.

Royalties in the US are handled by ASCAP (likely the org in your example) and BMI (which is a bit less aggressive). These organizations work on behalf of composers and publishers to collect the royalties owed to them. They offer relatively inexpensive blanket licenses to public establishments, and the money from those goes into a fund that pays out royalties to registered composers whose work is being played.

I've played in venues that had licenses, and submitted my set list to the org and received a check a few months later. This is pretty common in Europe, where the licenses are generally compulsory, and many musicians make decent extra money if they are composing as well.

There are some issues with whether the money goes to the authors of the actual works being performed - obviously the tracking of every single performance is unlikely so there is some estimation and statistical sampling involved. It's certainly not a perfect system, though with improvements in technology it is getting better. There are similar issues with radio royalties, but these have also gotten more accurate in the past decade or so.

If the venue had people performing, they really should have just paid for a license. For small venues, it's generally between $375 and $1000 per year and is scaled to the size of the business and how much music you use. That shoud be a negligble expense for any bar/restaurant/venue.
Shelling out a couple thousand dollars a year to pay royalties for the music that helps run your business is completely fair IMO. I don't understand these places that will pay tens of thousands of dollars for their booze supplier and their rent etc. but balk at paying for the music they use.

I believe that the venues where Brooklyn Maqam has regular events actually have paid for their music licenses. This is a responsibility of the venue in most cases.

Chris-Stephens - 8-3-2022 at 01:05 PM

Amazing, I had no idea of any of this behind the scenes stuff. Thanks for the info! Its no secret that youtubes "listening" algorithm that TRIES to automatically detect copyrighted musc is extremely flawed. I should do some experiments with transposing to different keys, tempos, time signatures etc. of old tunes and see if they get claimed. Is Farahfaza another name for Shad Araban? We're playing Samai Shad Araban but it got claimed as Farahfaza Saz Samaisi, I thought these were different maqam

just fyi the cafe in my open mic example wasnt really a venue it was literally just a house that the owners converted the first floor into a coffee shop, they closed because they couldnt afford it so I assume they couldnt afford the license and they didnt serve alcohol or food, the open mic night was just a fun low key event. Weird to think that sitting around the campfire singing some old folk song is technically illegal :shrug:

Brian Prunka - 8-3-2022 at 01:58 PM

Oh wild - I was just going by the claim, I didn't even register that it was a totally different composition!
Shadd Araban and Ferahfeza are different maqams and compositions for sure. That doesn't seem likely to be an algorithmic mistake.

Re: the cafe, yeah there are edge cases like this where it really shouldn't be an issue but it is.
I don't think sitting around a campfire singing a bona fide old folk song is likely illegal ever, because a campfire isn't a venue or business, and old folk songs are presumably out of copyright if they ever were copyrighted. But when you open a business and have music in a public space it gets tricky. But honestly if they couldn't afford a few hundred dollars a year, they were presumably going to go out of business anyway.

If they were playing music in their cafe at all, they probably were required to have a license. I think there's an exemption for the radio (since that is already paying broadcast royalties), but records/CDs/iPod/Spotify/etc. are only licensed for private use. There are a bunch of services (like Muzak) that provide music for public spaces and prelicense everything so the business doesn't have to. That's how you hear music in the grocery store etc. They don't get licenses, they subscribe to a service that has licenses for that purpose.

There are a lot of expenses in running any kind of business, it just happens this is one that people don't feel is justified. To me, this is a symptom of the ways in which music is generally devalued, and part of that is that it is piped in everywhere all the time. It's a bit unfortunate that sometimes this creates complications for folks who are trying to encourage live music, but overall it's better IMO to expect people to pay for the music they use. The only real issue with it to me is that the money doesn't get apportioned exactly correctly (I doubt Baligh Hamdi's estate is getting their due from BK Maqam events), which is just a shortcoming of technology and human capabilities — hopefully this continues to improve.

A side note - you can do anything you want in a private space. So if you have people over to your home by invitation, it's not a public performance and no royalties are owed. So performances at weddings and other private events are exempt from royalties and licensing. It's only when something is open to the public that it's an issue.

An aside - I used to have some of my music managed by a publisher, and I'd get copyright claims against me from my own music! But it was supposed to work that way (I got the royalties in the end). It even detected when I did a 'cover' of my own music (i.e., a different recording than whatever they used for reference in the algorithm). Kind of impressive.

Chris-Stephens - 8-4-2022 at 07:20 AM

Yea and the youtube copyright claim offers no other information as to what song is being claimed other than the title and record label/rights agency. Both Cemil Bey and Targan have Farahfaza Sas Samaisi recordings but im not sure how it "heard" Shad Araban as either.

Another interesting thing I noticed is that LatinAutor is claiming Abdul Wahab's "Aziza" as their own when they only represent musicians from Latin America. Not sure whats going on with that. And Broma 16 agency is claiming Qasabgi's "Zikrayati" but a look through their catalog shows only modern pop in their registry. Maybe I'm missing something.

Its not like any of this matters to me as I only have 200 subs so I dont get ad money from youtube, im just curious.