QueenZone discussion #1330695
Polite Note From Queen Productions Ltd. to YT users
| Jedi Knight 16.11.2012 12:22 |
Polite Note From Queen Productions Ltd. Dear YouTube User We are writing to inform you that Queen Productions Ltd. will soon be conducting a thorough YouTube search for certain content that infringes Rights owned by Queen. We are not planning to remove every Queen item to have been uploaded without permission. At this time we are only planning to remove examples of unreleased Queen studio recordings, session out-takes, demos, and the like. We are not referring to familiar Queen promo videos - we mean material such as My Secret Fantasy, Face It Alone, Robbery, Self Made man, I Guess We're Falling Out... items in this general category of unreleased archive rarities. We notice you have uploaded one or more items that fall into this category, and we therefore politely request you remove these item/s forthwith. We would further advise that if these items are not removed by Friday, 14th December 2012, and we are forced to take them down ourselves, as a result of this process you will receive an automatic 'Strike' action from the YT system (which is not within our control). YT advise us that any User receiving three or more of these Strikes, will automatically result in that individual's account being blocked. We are not looking to spoil your enjoyment of Queen on YT, but merely to protect material owned by the band that has no business being on this (or any other) site without consent or permission. We are aware that the vast majority of YT Users may not know that certain material they have uploaded infringes rights owned by Queen (as well as YouTube rules), and thus we hope this respectful notice will avoid the need for us to Take Down the offending item you have uploaded. Please remove all offending items forthwith, avoid the '3 strikes and you're out' rule, but most importantly... do continue to enjoy Queen footage on YouTube -- but the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material -- not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. Thank you The Queen YouTube Team --------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think abou this? |
| pianoshizzle 16.11.2012 12:39 |
I can see their point, in terms of a musicians point of view. If there were songs I had written that were put on the internet without my permission then I would be pretty annoyed. However, since this is more to do with copyright and privacy laws etc, then shouldn't Queen be taking advantage of this? Seriously, there is surely a demand for these songs obviously as the YouTube videos have been watched thousands of times. That's a lot of moneys-worth if Queen were to sell them on iTunes for 99p each (surely enough to pay for srudio remastered verisons?) Surely it is time for a proper official rarities album? The extra songs on the 40th Anniversary re-releases were good, but most well-versed Queen fans have already heard them before. Suprise Christmas release anyone?! |
| cmsdrums 16.11.2012 12:59 |
Interesting that they are going after the unreleased demos etc rather than, as I'd thought they might, things like the numerous copies of the New Budapest audio and video and the like which people have ridiculously already uploaded in their entirety. Perhaps they are pulling the rare stuff in preparation for some archive releases? I live in hope!! |
| cmsdrums 16.11.2012 13:00 |
Ps. Perhaps this should be a sticky topic in the 'Serious' and 'Announce' sections? |
| pittrek 16.11.2012 13:28 |
Did this end up in your mailbox ? Or what exactly is this ? |
| Jedi Knight 16.11.2012 13:31 |
They sent this to me today to my YouTube inbox. |
| pittrek 16.11.2012 13:39 |
Which things did you upload ? I have uploaded only samples from unreleased concert, and I didnt get any notice |
| Jedi Knight 16.11.2012 13:59 |
A lot of fan-made videos, official videos, unrealesed concert footage, and just one unrealesed demo (Feel Like), that one would be the reason why a get that message. |
| emrabt 16.11.2012 14:17 |
They are well within their right and this is much better than a cold formal cease and desist. |
| . 16.11.2012 15:09 |
Laughable |
| GinjaNinja 16.11.2012 15:46 |
Well, if they're removing them in preparation for some sort of archive release, brilliant. If they're pulling them because Brian's having a hissy fit about it, well that's a shame. I hope they pull those full length Budapest videos too though. |
| scottmax 16.11.2012 15:59 |
Mr Fuller's fucked then....... |
| flash00. 16.11.2012 16:09 |
More like Mr May having a another hissy fit more like |
| DavidRFuller 16.11.2012 16:16 |
scottmax wrote: Mr Fuller's fucked then.......Meh... |
| matt z 16.11.2012 17:13 |
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. |
| tomchristie22 16.11.2012 18:15 |
Ah yes, we can all go to the official youtube page for Queen and enjoy the 'best sound and picture quality material' of the clips as presented on Greatest Video Hits I - oh wait. I doubt we can gather anything about any sort of archive release from this, it's probably more the hissy fit one. |
| fr1986 16.11.2012 20:48 |
Jedi Knight wrote: Polite Note From Queen Productions Ltd. Dear YouTube User We are writing to inform you that Queen Productions Ltd. will soon be conducting a thorough YouTube search for certain content that infringes Rights owned by Queen. We are not planning to remove every Queen item to have been uploaded without permission. At this time we are only planning to remove examples of unreleased Queen studio recordings, session out-takes, demos, and the like. We are not referring to familiar Queen promo videos - we mean material such as My Secret Fantasy, Face It Alone, Robbery, Self Made man, I Guess We're Falling Out... items in this general category of unreleased archive rarities. We notice you have uploaded one or more items that fall into this category, and we therefore politely request you remove these item/s forthwith. We would further advise that if these items are not removed by Friday, 14th December 2012, and we are forced to take them down ourselves, as a result of this process you will receive an automatic 'Strike' action from the YT system (which is not within our control). YT advise us that any User receiving three or more of these Strikes, will automatically result in that individual's account being blocked. We are not looking to spoil your enjoyment of Queen on YT, but merely to protect material owned by the band that has no business being on this (or any other) site without consent or permission. We are aware that the vast majority of YT Users may not know that certain material they have uploaded infringes rights owned by Queen (as well as YouTube rules), and thus we hope this respectful notice will avoid the need for us to Take Down the offending item you have uploaded. Please remove all offending items forthwith, avoid the '3 strikes and you're out' rule, but most importantly... do continue to enjoy Queen footage on YouTube -- but the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material -- not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. Thank you The Queen YouTube Team --------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think abou this?Well you are not the only one my friend. I also received that advice, i found it today when logging in . I do not have many rarities but mainly live show. All footage and some audio . I will have to remove all the "rare" tracks i have. I am not removing any of the gigs i have uploaded. Some of them have been already removed. hahaha! Let's see what happéns. If my channel has to die in order to have rare material released in proper quality i do not mind Here is the link if you want to check it: link |
| Jimmy Dean 16.11.2012 21:24 |
it's probably the nicest way of saying get my property of your website.... they gave an entire fucking month!... who does that!! really! 2 weeks is plenty. |
| john bodega 16.11.2012 23:12 |
It's usually a good idea to download stuff that you want to keep if it's on Youtube. |
| dysan 17.11.2012 04:15 |
Agreed Zebonka. And ironically, the stuff I personally want removed has been there years and years :o( Good to see the general sentiment is agreement about this, even just from a legal point of view. I can't see how they would think it would effect sales of 'official' archive material in future if it is for that, but I guess they have always been anti bootlegs etc, barr the 100 Greatest Concerts charity thing as bourne out by the patchy 40th Anniversary bonus material. |
| DLCVinnuendo 17.11.2012 05:58 |
if they are asking to take the rarities of you tube, we may have surprises in the future, but not yet animate guys, this QP loves surprises, unpleasant to our side |
| Marknow 17.11.2012 07:51 |
Yikes! |
| Ozz 17.11.2012 10:47 |
Brian, Jim, Greg or whatever is delusional if they think they "can delete" something from the Interwebs.... Popcorn time for sure |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2012 12:57 |
Did the message come from "queenofficial" or someone else? That should help determine if this is legitimate or not. In the event that it is, the unreleased songs in question aren't licensed or published, so the legalities of this proceeding will certainly be interesting. |
| Jedi Knight 17.11.2012 13:07 |
This is a screenshot of the message. |
| cmsdrums 17.11.2012 13:25 |
The message is from 'The Queen You Tube Team' - is that a legal entity?? I'd say most of the fans thus has been sent to are more a Queen You Tube Team than the people who sent this message. As stated above, the fact that the specific tracks mentioned have never been released or published surely means that there is no way we will have been able to be aware of any copyright ownership on these because those details have never been issued??? |
| Heavenite 17.11.2012 14:38 |
What about the Mercury/Jackson tracks? They have been on the internet for years. I wonder if they will also be removed as part of this programme. I mean if they seriously want to release that stuff, having it readily on YT wouldn't help sales of this stuff. |
| . 17.11.2012 14:49 |
Now that QPL has no doubt downloaded all of these YT videos perhaps we can look forward to them being released officially on blu-ray ! |
| pittrek 17.11.2012 14:53 |
Kurgan100 wrote: Now that QPL has no doubt downloaded all of these YT videos perhaps we can look forward to them being released officially on blu-ray !You should come now to my house to clean up my monitor :-) |
| boah 17.11.2012 18:29 |
So over the top.Just read a great article where Bruce Springsteen was asking his fans to send them their live footage and rare recordings for a documentary.The guy is a genius and in touch with his fans which is more than I can say with Queen these days...........sad but true. |
| The Real Wizard 17.11.2012 20:44 |
boah wrote: So over the top.Just read a great article where Bruce Springsteen was asking his fans to send them their live footage and rare recordings for a documentary.The guy is a genius and in touch with his fans which is more than I can say with Queen these days...........sad but true.A couple years back Brian appealed to the public for 8mm footage of the last two songs of the Hammersmith 75 concert. Not sure if he was successful. QPL does get rare stuff from fans. They just aren't as overt about it. |
| cmsdrums 18.11.2012 02:18 |
Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release. |
| The Real Wizard 18.11.2012 12:16 |
cmsdrums wrote: Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release.With the exception of the Magic tour rehearsal and the Alexandra Palace '79 clips in the Great Pretender documentary, you're absolutely right. ;) |
| Nitroboy 18.11.2012 14:24 |
boah wrote: So over the top.Just read a great article where Bruce Springsteen was asking his fans to send them their live footage and rare recordings for a documentary.The guy is a genius and in touch with his fans which is more than I can say with Queen these days...........sad but true.Riiight, because Bruce Springsteen is the first artist to do so ;) |
| Kevinrm15 18.11.2012 17:30 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Don't forget about the Winterland 77 clips in Champions of the World.cmsdrums wrote: Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release.With the exception of the Magic tour rehearsal and the Alexandra Palace '79 clips in the Great Pretender documentary, you're absolutely right. ;) |
| kosimodo 19.11.2012 15:11 |
How can there be rights on something not released.. Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale. They are legally simply not there.. I think. |
| john bodega 20.11.2012 12:36 |
kosimodo wrote: How can there be rights on something not released.. Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale. They are legally simply not there.. I think.Very, very wrong. You might want to brush up on your copyright. |
| cmsdrums 21.11.2012 08:38 |
Zebonka12 wrote:But would you have a reasoned argument that, because there has never ever been a statement or declaration to confirm who owns the copyright, you reasonably thought the track was 'in the public domain'?kosimodo wrote: How can there be rights on something not released.. Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale. They are legally simply not there.. I think.Very, very wrong. You might want to brush up on your copyright. Queen are asking for tracks that are under their copyright to be withdrawn, but how are we supposed to know which tracks they hold copyright on and which they don't? Well we can easily tell from anything that has been released that this is actually under copyright because the packaging, sleeve, disc, label etc,,, bears a warning notice, but a track that has never been released in any form has never had actually had such a copyright notice publicly announced, so perhaps legally they should be obliged to prove their right to ask for these to be removed first before we hand them over - if not, we could all lay claim to all sorts of music that is all over the net and declared to be in the public domain! However as a musician who has had copyright issues I know the difficulties involved, so am just playing Devil's Advocate here by putting the 'innocent' argument across! |
| uef 21.11.2012 13:45 |
Copyright is started at the point of creation - it's not registered officially or anything like that. You created it, you got copyrighted. Shouting back "prove it then" when we all know which group of people created this would be incredibly disingenuous. |
| john bodega 22.11.2012 00:51 |
"Queen are asking for tracks that are under their copyright to be withdrawn, but how are we supposed to know which tracks they hold copyright on and which they don't?" Anything they've recorded or written. There's a large grey area of stuff that most people don't tend to take action on, but Queen are within their rights to remove virtually anything from Youtube that infringes. I don't know if they're going to remove gig recordings, for instance, but they are totally allowed to. |
| cmsdrums 22.11.2012 01:17 |
Yes, but what I'm saying is that they should need to prove that they created it (the main way of which this is done is by issuing a formal copyright notice) otherwise they could lay claim to creating anything that doesn't have a published copyright notice already on?!! How many times have we heard songs on here that claim to be Queen unreleased tracks, and then turn out to be fans doing their own 'Queen soundalike' songs - we may well think they are genuine Queen songs that Queen hold copyright to them, but they're not, and they don't. How do we know that, for example, My Secret Fantasy, is actually Queen?? (again, just playing Devil's Advocate!) |
| john bodega 22.11.2012 05:09 |
... that's not devil's advocate, that's just ridiculous. My Secret Fantasy is patently a Queen demo. I've heard people try to make fake ones, and it's always hilariously not-convincing. I know you're just trying to set up a plausible example, but you need a better one. Besides which, the infrastructure of issuing copyright takedowns is already pretty good. It's a little unfortunate that Youtube errs on the side of caution, but I've had to appeal bad decisions before and the appeals process works fine. It's not fun, mind you. But it does work. When you say, "they should need to prove that they created it (the main way of which this is done is by issuing a formal copyright notice)" ... this is basically already how it's done, at least on Youtube. As far as the 'why Queen is doing this' question goes ... I'd love to be an optimist about it. I'd like to think they're going to throw us a bone and do at least a semi-official job of letting us hear some rarities. Won't hold my breath, but we'll see. |
| splicksplack 22.11.2012 06:49 |
The indignation of some people on here is laughable. Stop trying to find excuses. From the moment of creation Queen own their recordings, released or not. Go and create something of your own you leeches. |
| kosimodo 22.11.2012 13:16 |
It is not for sale.. It is out there.. Dunno how, maybe a technician with his copy who shared his. But when it is out there is it is there. Cant see the legal point of them having rights on copy of sound with no copyright. If there was copyright on it.. There must be published list. Isnt it? |
| john bodega 22.11.2012 22:28 |
*headdesk* Look. Just because you don't understand copyright law doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The simplest way I can put it is that copyright is automatic. It exists from the second that you create something. Copyright exists on every Queen item; even the live gig recordings. They've either been nice or lazy in not being more enthusiastic about having stuff taken off the internet. That doesn't make the infringements any more or less real - it just means they weren't acting on them for whatever reason. |
| Barry Durex 23.11.2012 03:36 |
What a load of cock |
| john bodega 23.11.2012 08:45 |
Well no one ever said that copyright law was Fun, as such, and I'd be all for some changes in how it gets implemented. Still, that's the playground we all mess in when we download free shit - we might as well know the rules a little better. |
| kosimodo 23.11.2012 08:46 |
So.. When i heard Him singing on his way home on the street and i accidently recorded that... That could not be put on youtube due to copyrights in His voice? Dont think so. You have to make something first. the demo dont legaly exist imo. And even if. they could be legaly obtained. Let them provide a list of stuff they think they have copyright on. Then we know. |
| Doga 23.11.2012 08:53 |
Queen and Queen Productions made and record those demos, tapes, records... so they own it, end of story. If someone wants to own a song, he/she must write and record it. |
| 1sharppencil 23.11.2012 10:32 |
property of Queen Productions... "are they finally planning to go ahead and start work on some anthology-type project?" asked the fan in me "No way" answered the realist in me...and repeat after me... Property of Queen Productions [p.s. at least we got some stuff as part of the Island deal - now wait for 10 more years] |
| john bodega 23.11.2012 10:57 |
"So.. When i heard Him singing on his way home on the street and i accidently recorded that... That could not be put on youtube due to copyrights in His voice?" 'He' would be more likely to get you on invasion of privacy, for which there are relevant Flagging options on Youtube. Even so, on grounds of intellectual property or song ownership, 'He' could probably get the video taken down. As far as takedowns go, it comes down to who has the biggest legal team. Have you heard of Prince? He got a bee in his bonnet some years ago and the Youtube takedown was so extensive that he nearly took his parents down for giving birth to Prince in the first place. "Dont think so" Irrelevant. "You have to make something first." Yeah - they made the demo. How it works is basically that the song is split up into different kinds of copyrights and ownerships. You've got the copyright that's inherent in the recording itself. This belongs to whoever paid for the recording. If Queen funded the session, then it belongs to Queen. If a label paid for the session, then the recording would belong to the label (although there might be some terms in the contract concerning how long it remains in the ownership of said label - recordings can pass into the ownership of an artist in certain conditions. It gets fuzzy here because all contracts are not made equal). Aside from the copyright in the physical recording itself, there are performance copyrights to consider (these go to the musicians who play on the recording) and songwriting copyrights - for the songwriter. 'You have to make something first' is exactly what I tried to point out to you. Copyright is automatic in this regard. There is no registrar of copyrighted songs - you don't have to mail your song to someone to get it copyrighted. It is copyrighted under law as soon as you make it. This is why people keep lyrics sheets and doodles and little cassettes - not just to write the song in the first place, but to establish ownership if anyone ever comes up to you and says 'hey, that's MY song'. That's when you get out your evidence and say, "actually it's mine, I made it first". It never hurts to have evidence. To reiterate - the demos are, in fact (ie. not open for debate) just as copyright'd as any official product. Now, if you think those copyright laws should be changed, this isn't the place to be doing it. And pretending that those laws don't exist just because you don't like them (or understand them) doesn't exactly achieve much, either. "the demo dont legaly exist imo" Yes, they do. I would love to see how your 'imo' stands up in a court of law. Look, I'm only joshing. I hope I've been able to explain even a simple, tiny aspect of the laws to you. It's not my exact area of qualification (plainly) but I have had to sit through many copyright lectures before, as both a songwriter and an engineer. As effing boring as it is, copyright law is a very real thing. Pretending that it isn't is just ... silly. If you'll forgive me for saying so. |
| . 23.11.2012 12:35 |
Still a load of cock |
| . 23.11.2012 12:35 |
Still a load of cock |
| john bodega 23.11.2012 13:10 |
Pick a login. Any login. |
| deleted user 23.11.2012 16:59 |
|
| cmsdrums 24.11.2012 10:20 |
Slightly off fopic, but interesting article on a recently found 'The Beatles' demo which is being sold at auction. There have been lots of previous posts here from the 'magic circle' of Queen collectors claiming that because they own an acetate/demo etc that they may have bought by legit means (EG auction) that they actually own the music on the physical disc too to do with as they want - I and others have tried to point out that all they own however is a very expensive reel to reel tape/acetate etc... but still couldn't do anything with the actual music on it, and this is backed up by the following statement from the The Beatles' story: ""Apple, the company set up by The Beatles, holds the copyright to their voices and if anyone tried to release the material without their permission they would certainly be sued," said Fame Bureau managing director Ted Owen, The Times reports. So to those who hold discs, tapes etc with unreleased demos or other tracks on, if you release them you ARE breaking copyright law if you release any if those tracks, even though you own the physical media that the music is held on. |
| john bodega 24.11.2012 12:31 |
Yeah, I remember this coming up in the last argument about acetates and such. "I bought this, I own it, I can do whatever I want with it!". Admirably pigheaded, but legally not accurate. |
| matt z 28.11.2012 00:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Pick a login. Any login.Alright. I pick Kenny Loggins. What next? |
| shamar 28.11.2012 15:57 |
"Jedi Knight wrote: ... continue to enjoy Queen footage on YouTube -- but the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material -- not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. " Pathetic loosers. |
| waunakonor 28.11.2012 20:31 |
matt z wrote: Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.Sorry Matt, but it seems that QPL is blocking what you're saying. Were you trying to say anything that was copyrighted? Maybe you could try rewriting that a different way. (; |
| shamar 03.12.2012 17:50 |
"the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material -- not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. RIGHT. 360p... |
| Jedi Knight 04.12.2012 14:32 |
shamar wrote: "the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material -- not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. RIGHT. 360p...Here's a contrast of Spread Your Wings between (in order) the YouTube version, the Greatest Video Hits 1 DVD and the old Greatest Flix I & II DVD of 1997. For me the Greatest Flix looks much better than the others. So I don't know what quality standards QPL use. |
| john bodega 04.12.2012 16:22 |
That's actually quite remarkable. |
| Stoner 05.12.2012 01:26 |
Too late I already downloaded everything. |
| cmsdrums 05.12.2012 07:07 |
You should send that YouTube comparison to Brian (may be best on his twitter feed?) and see if he has the balls to try to defend it |
| GinjaNinja 05.12.2012 10:13 |
That's astonishing! I really hope that if they release a new video compilation that they treat them properly, leave them in the original aspect ratio and make some new transfers of the tapes. The quality of the rushes featured on the DOOL doc. is excellent. |