Online discussion groups are rife with comments from church techs on using YouTube for live streaming instead of paying for a dedicated service. The discussion usually goes something like this:
“We started using YouTube and it's rock solid and saving us $xxx a month.”
“We did too. Isn't it great?!”
“Yeah, I can't believe it's free!!!”
(Fill in twenty more positive comments here.)
“Noooo! Don't use YouTube. Our service was pulled down right in the middle, with no warning and they shut down our account with all our archived videos on it.”
Diving deeper into the conversation, you find no difference between the two experiences before the church that had their account shut down had the problem. All the churches are using copyrighted music. They're all performing it live. They all get the occasional notice from YouTube not to. They all reply to the notices, responding the YouTube's automated system that the music is used with permission, because they have a live streaming license; they know they're covered legally.
Taking each of these churches at their word, why the disparity? Churches from Canada to Kentucky (two real examples) report having their streams interrupted and accounts shut down, with many more reporting just the opposite.
Is there something about YouTube's copyright policies that might help to explain this?
Up until recently, YouTube's copyright policies with respect to music were somewhat opaque. It seemed like one video with copyrighted music would see no effects at all while another would face the full brunt of the ire of the music industry. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to it.
That's until YouTube added a section in the Creator Studio under Create called “Music Policies” (). You might assume that the policy would be “don’t use copyrighted music,” but it’s more subtle than that.
There are several possible policies. Knowing what each is and how it can affect your video and your account will help illuminate why some churches might have vastly different experiences from others.
Under each song, you have a list of policies that affect that song in different circumstances. The first two options cover who performs the song. If it's the recording from the album, which you play as part of a video or before or after service, the monetization and playback policies are listed under “If you use this song”. If your worship team, or even pianist or organist, plays the song live, the policy is listed under “If you perform a cover”.
The next two sections concern monetization and where the video can be played. Let's start with monetization.
Maybe your church hasn't paid a lot of attention to the monetization tab, or maybe someone has turned on monetization. If that's the case, it's possible that you'll draw the ire of a music publisher if you try to get money from ads you put on a video that contains their music, if it has the “You can't monetize your video” policy. The publisher may still put ads on the video themselves, but churches shouldn't. For most churches, this isn't a big deal, as the live stream isn't a money-making proposition. It is something to keep in mind, though.
The second policy restriction is where, if anywhere, your video can be played back. The song may cause a video that wouldn't otherwise be restricted, to not be viewable in a specific country.
Let's look at an example. “Holy Spirit Rain Down (Live)” by Hillsong Worship from Touching Heaven Changing Earth says that whether you use the album version or perform a cover, you can't monetize it. However, if you play the album version, it's not viewable in Switzerland, while a cover is viewable worldwide. So, a family from your church might not be able to watch your service while they're on a European vacation in the Swiss Alps if this song is played before your church service starts, as a part of background music or in a video. This is assuming that Content ID (YouTube's automated copyright detection algorithm) notices it. Playing the same song live, wouldn't be a problem for that family to watch.
This isn't to say that these rules are set in stone, though. The last section under the policies informs us that, “Copyright holders can change their policies or take action on your video that differs from what's described here.” You might think you're safe based on the music you chose and your research, but you aren't. At least you're not safe from action by YouTube at the behest of copyright holders.
To further add to the confusion. “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail),” also by Hillsong Worship, is viewable worldwide and eligible for revenue sharing with the album version (but can't be monetized if you perform a cover). “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail) [Live]” says that “This song is not available for use in your YouTube videos. If you use this song, your video may be blocked or muted.” What's the difference between the live version and the album version when you perform it yourself? It's not clear. Perhaps one church does it and something about their performance tells Content ID that it's the live version while another is identified as a cover of the album version, and therefore OK to use.
While those are just a couple of examples, they seem to be exceptions. Generally, copyright holders want to make money and are happy to do so by monetizing your videos wherever they're shown. Sometimes a songwriter or publisher has particular reasons not to want to do so, but those are fewer than those that want to make the money.
This confusing patchwork of policies might be part of why some churches have such trouble with YouTube, while others don't. Combine that with the vast amount of video uploaded to YouTube's servers every minute, and the fact that no system is perfect, and you can imagine that perhaps some churches might suffer from repercussions of their music choices and others, so far, have escaped notice.
This isn't to say that YouTube, copyright holders, or churches are breaking the law. YouTube is doing the best it can to police a system that is overcrowded with copyrighted music that is rarely used with permission. Copyright holders are trying to get the money they've earned by writing, recording, and/or publishing music that people like enough to want to copy. Churches are trying to be wise stewards of their resources while often having licenses in place to legally use the music on a live stream that they can, at least in the US, use in person without fear of retribution.
So, were our example churches in Kentucky and Canada “scoff-laws” who deserved to have their live streams pulled? No, probably not. Are all the churches that don't have problems innocent of all violations? No, probably not. Some churches are victims of imperfect systems. Other churches are getting away with doing things they shouldn't. Either way, it's hard to argue with a free service unless you know someone personally who's been bit by it. (Keep in mind that these are just observations, not legal advice.)
There is one thing that YouTube, with all of Alphabet's (formerly Google) resources can't provide. They can't put a human in the judgment seat for every mistake. There's just too much content being uploaded or live streamed for them to do so.
Smaller companies have an edge there, but it's a service that comes with a price. Is your church willing to pay a smaller company with a real person who can help you with your concerns or is your church willing to take the risk that, if you have a problem, you're basically stuck? That's the choice you've got to make as you decide whether or not to use YouTube for your live streaming. Unfortunately, there's no right answer here.
