Talk:Wang Dang Doodle

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

YouTube audio

This upload, posted on 20 November 2012, clearly says: "Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen*); LatinAutor - PeerMusic, BMG Rights Management (US), LLC, CMRRA, Abramus Digital, LatinAutorPerf, UMPG Publishing, and 6 music rights societies", suggesting that it is copyright compliant? Links to YouTube are not mentioned at WP:ELNO. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the standard YouTube boilerplate, it appears more official than "The Orchard Enterprises" that was recently removed. But there is no indication that the uploader "Classic Mood Experience" meets the "only the videos that have been uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo" requirement. Why not just add links that unambiguously meet this? It's not as if video links are indispensable to song articles (I'm sure the average reader knows where to find them). BTW, YouTube is mentioned in WP:ELNEVER, which is more restrictive than ELNO. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we either believe standard YouTube boilerplate statements or we don't. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's added to some private party uploads, such as this[removed] where the uploader admits "Rights belong to who they belong to, not me". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So are YouTube breaching copyright by doing this? If they were, after 8 years, one might expect UMG to have complained? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Only intended to be temporary to illustrate a point.~~ Often parties do not pursue minor copyvios when it is not cost effective. Arc Music/Dixon went after Zeppelin and not Faces for "Whole Lotta Love"/"You Need Loving". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a "yes" or a "no" to the first question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you've figured it out. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Only intended to be temporary to illustrate a point." So what point is that? Presumably the point that the copyright is held by the publishers and permission has not yet been given to YouTube? So 8 years is not a long time for such a "temporary" notice"? And in the meantime, YT are breaching copyright, but the publishers can't be bothered to do anything about it? Please let me know if I've figured it out, as the phrase "Licensed to YouTube by UMG" doesn't seem to convey all of that exact meaning to me. And what about the other standard message e.g. "Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group"? Is that one also "temporary"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my "Only intended to be temporary to illustrate a point" comment, since it only applied to my earlier link (now removed) regarding a clearly unofficial/fan-type upload that had the boilerplate. The most important point is "use only the videos that have been uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo" (WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos). We've had this discussion before and there was no support for changing the current guidance to allow for amateur/fan/etc. video uploads to be added to WP articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So we don't actually know what these standard YouTube messages mean? Nor if the videos which bear them are in breach of copyright. As you know, I think Wikipedia would be better served if we understood what these messages meant and could then use that to inform a decision on suitability for posting in an article. I'm not particularly interested in videos uploaded to YT by "amateur/fan/etc." but rather videos which YT itself has uploaded under a musician's "Topic" category. Presumably a video like this is acceptable, as it's on a musician's "Official YT channel", whether or not it was actually uploaded by that musician? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. "Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group" sounds like it's been officially provided by the record label, doesn't it? Or does that guideline mean the record label has to have it's own YT channel?