Can churches put worship services on YouTube and Vimeo?

[CopyrightSolver]

The fact that videos are on YouTube does not mean they are public domain. In fact, almost almost none of the content on YouTube is in public domain. (Hillsong songs are also not in the public domain).

Songs fall into public domain status if they were created before 1923 or 70 years after the death of the creator.

The notion that folks posting to YouTube must have appropriate rights is completely wrong. There is nothing preventing people from putting videos up there illegally and the vast majority of copyrighted works that are on YouTube have been put there without permission from the owner.

If the video is viewable on your url (www.mychurch.org) through the YouTube widget, you are responsible for getting permission from the copyright owner to use that video. If you are linking to videos that are views at other urls (www.youtube.com), you do not need permission.

In general, if you did not create the music or the video, you need permission to put it on your web site. Be careful.

[Brad Weber]

Originally Posted by CopyrightSolver

The notion that folks posting to YouTube must have appropriate rights is completely wrong. There is nothing preventing people from putting videos up there illegally and the vast majority of copyrighted works that are on YouTube have been put there without permission from the owner.

My point was that as someone viewing the content, YouTube clearly places the responsibility for obtaining rights on the party posting the video. Admittedly, saying that you have rights and actually having them are two different things, but as stated on one of YouTube's copyright pages "Since all content on YouTube is posted by our users, we make it clear in our terms of use and at the time of upload that they must own the copyright to the videos they post or have permission from the copyright holder."

However, I would guess most churches fall into two categories with playing YouTube videos; it's either part of the service, in which case it is likely exempt, or it is not, in which case it is likely considered a public performance and those would be separate rights to be obtained.

[CopyrightSolver]

Originally Posted by Brad Weber

My point was that as someone viewing the content, YouTube clearly places the responsibility for obtaining rights on the party posting the video.

Of course YouTube is trying to absolve themselves of their responsibility by saying it is the responsibility of the poster. (Whether or not that is the case is the subject of a massive lawsuit by Viacom). That said, making the assumption that any content that is up there is legit would be grossly incorrect and could lead one to making unadvised decisions.

More importantly, YouTube's attempt to put the responsibility on the poster does not address the legality of putting such content on your URL. It may provide YouTube with a legal fig leaf, but that fig leaf would not transfer to others

[Brad Weber]

Originally Posted by CopyrightSolver

Of course YouTube is trying to absolve themselves of their responsibility by saying it is the responsibility of the poster. (Whether or not that is the case is the subject of a massive lawsuit by Viacom).

I have not been following that whole issue that closely but I believe it's not quite that simple as I understand that the courts supported the general concept but that the questioning of that revolves around YouTube's reasonably knowing that many items are being posted illegally.

Other than that I think we are really saying the same thing from two sides. It is not your responsibility for addressing the rights of anything others post on YouTube but it is your responsibility to address the rights for what you do with any of that posted content. If you are going to do something where the content rights could become an issue then it is best to confirm everything.

[CopyrightSolver]

Hmmm. We've spent a fair amount of time analyzing the YouTube case, and we'll just have to agree to disagree

[firevideo]

It sure is an interesting topic as far as what the law says is concerned. By the way Happy New Year to you guys.

Copyrightsolver, you were right about songs that are in the public domain. My choice of words were poor. i was referring to the fact that the videos are there already for the world to see on youtube, vimeo etc.

What we are just trying to do is create a worhship channel on a non-commercial basis, for visitors to our site to enjoy and be saturated with the presence of God. I just came across the video ready license on copyrightsolver's website. could that be the license that we need? hmmm!! Since the webcasting license is not for what we are trying to do. I also hope to hear from Songselcect this week.

Of course the easiest is to get to the artists directly. But with the big names out there the record companies give you the run around.

I will keep you posted on my findings.