« If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em: Indie Music Embraces Streaming Music | Main | The Problem With False Content »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gramblers NOT Gamblers

It's Gramblers NOT Gamblers!

Michele Augis

Thanks so much to Clyde and Hypebot for the great summary of our post. To clarify, my name is Michele Augis and I am on the Marketing team at Topspin, as well as handling Digital Marketing for Nicki Bluhm over the recent months. And another huge thanks for Alex's inspiring data-drill-down.

This is a real win for independent artists everywhere, from my perspective. To the artists: KEEP MAKING GREAT ART! To the artists' teams: stay committed and positive. Anything really is possible these days. Cheers!

P.S. Yes, it is indeed Gramblers vs. Gamblers : )

Clyde Smith

Just updated it. Looks like I should also capitalize the The.

Hey, go bug Alex. He's got Gamblers on his post too!


Consider me bugged.

Sorry! I like to think it was auto-correct that turned Gramblers into Gamblers, but it doesn't seem to be auto-correcting now, so it was probably my mistake!

Thanks Clyde for reposting! And thanks to Nicki and the Gramblers for the great Van Sessions, and allowing those covers to let us into your original music.


Clyde Smith

I only mentioned you to take the heat off me! I was working off Michele's post so I can only blame myself!

Actually, it was the auto-correct mechanism in our brains that got us.

Take a name that is unfamiliar and idiosyncratic but looks closely like an incredibly familiar word and that's going to happen.

Check out this search:

It's happened many times before and will happen many times in the future.

Suzanne Lainson

You'll see some of my comments accompanying the article.

I continue to have a problem with the lack of information about YouTube's policies on song copyrights and ad money payouts whenever an article pops up recommending doing cover songs as a career strategy.

It's not that I don't think doing cover songs works. I know that it does. But performers haven't been specifically told under what circumstances their videos might trigger warnings/takedown notices.

And I think this is intentional. It's good business for YouTube to encourage performers to upload cover song videos, but YouTube can't overstep its legal bounds. It has put in place ContentID so that copyright holders can tell YouTube in advance whether to issue notices or leave up the videos and add ads. So in its way, YouTube is streamlining music licensing and I think everyone benefits.

In my comments, I was told that YouTube now has a deal with music publishers so there is less concern in doing cover songs. That hasn't ever been said by YouTube to musicians, but upon checking, I see that publishers can enter into an agreement with YouTube to collect ad money, so I suppose the assumption is to be that most song publishers have okayed the use of their songs this way and performers no longer need to worry about obtaining synch licenses for YouTube videos. However, there's never been, to my knowledge, any actual statement from YouTube about this.

An additional concern to me is that the partnership agreement is still unclear. It is my interpretation that if you do a cover song, whatever ad money generated by the video will be split between YouTube and the songwriter/publisher rather than the performer who uploaded the video. If there is other information clarifying this, I'd love to see it.

Michele A

Yes, you are not the first, nor will you be the last... you are both out of the hot seat. Thanks for making the fix(es)!

Clyde Smith

No, "Michele A", thank you!

Chad Dahlstrom

When Google bought youtube they had a huge escrow for all the copyright lawsuits that might happen. I'm pretty sure that never amounted to much if anything at all. However if you are going to cover a song and post it to youtube there are ways to do that properly check out http://rightsflow.com/ and limelight for tons of information on licensing. Another player in micro licensing information, another site to check out would be rumblefish.com who helps artists collect royalties on youtube. There's one more I'm not thinking of now but it's a hot topic these days!

Suzanne Lainson

When I go to RightsFlow, it takes me to Limelight, which provides mechanical licenses, which you have always been able to do via Harry Fox.

I'm not sure RightsFlow/Limelight provides a synch license. What I am always trying to pin down is whether a performer doing a cover song needs one for a YouTube video. I'm pretty sure virtually no performer doing a cover song on YouTube has bothered to obtain one, but I'd like to be able to share whether or not they will run into any problems if they don't have one.

Very few have, but occasionally in the past a performer has gotten a notice from YouTube that they can't do that song. That's a worry in that notices like that count against the number of warnings they can get before their YouTube account is disabled and they lose all their videos and subscribers.

If people are going to recommend to performers that one way to boost their careers is to perform cover songs on YouTube, I think it is good to let them know if they run any risk of YouTube ultimately disabling their accounts. It has happened.


Thanks so much to Clyde.Great tips.



The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources