Skip to main content

Licensed Music in Youtube Videos

As you might know, I’ve been submitting videos to Youtube for a while that are connected with my photography in some fashion. The channel is located here if you haven’t seen it before. I always strive to improve the quality and content of my videos. It’s been a great learning process with video/audio and just as rewarding and fun as photography. I had done quite a bit of video editing in the past, but now I create most of the content myself along with the editing. 

The largest challenge has been music. People love music and feel it usually adds to the overall presentation. People also complain if something isn’t exciting enough for their tastes. I’ve had a few negative comments on my videos about the lack of background music, so I went on an Internet quest to find solutions.

First off, I have dipped my fingers into audio creation with tools such as LMMS, but this will be a long and difficult process to understand how to make my own top-quality musical scores. The beat in my animated opening for all of the Youtube videos is something I made. It’s a small start, but something I want to eventually get more into. The biggest challenge is that I have no true experience with music, so I don’t understand how it works and how it is constructed (I don’t know how to play instruments or read music at the moment).

Since making my own music is out of the question for the time being, I have been doing research on licensed music. The ideal form of license would allow royalty free commercial use, but finding something that fits is few and far between. Basic creative commons licenses don’t provide any definition of usage that sites like Youtube require when features such as revenue sharing are enabled. Things like revenue sharing give submitters a tiny bit of incentive to produce nice content for the site, but it doesn’t provide any type of substantial income to all but the largest channels. It’s really challenging to work within the whole copyrighted music scene because Youtube is legally forced to have a strong and quick hand with anything that might be copyright infringement. The large music license holders don’t pull any punches and even sometimes appear to game Youtube’s system with false claims (That’s a discussion for another time).

I luckily came upon Dan O’Connor and his generously licensed music. He allows his music to be pretty freely used (read the license for details) with attribution, but for a donation, the music can be used professionally without that requirement. His music is high quality and quite a few songs in the pack will work well for my needs. Needless to say, I donated to acquire a license to his 77 song pack for the quality work as well as the hassle free and liberal nature of the license.

His website: http://www.danosongs.com/

The most important aspect is his license that allows exactly what I needed:
http://community.danosongs.com/page/music-license-faq

He also linked a website JewelBeat.com, that I’ll check out in the future that says it offers low cost royalty free songs.

I already have quite a few videos up with his music as the background. So far so good with Youtube not flagging them with copyright issues. Even if an issue comes up in the future with Dan’s music, I have a very specific license that defines my exact usage on Youtube as acceptable.

Here are two examples:

I think it adds another layer of interest and quality to the videos. I’ll keep making incremental improvements in the quality and content of my work and hope for the best!


A PROMASTER reflector Overview video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhZUNog_OY

Popular posts from this blog

Nikon Z5ii Announced and My Thoughts vs the Original Z5

The Nikon Z5ii was announced recently. I haven't actually used this new camera myself, so keep that in mind. This is going to be mostly me looking at the specs and comparing it to the original Nikon Z5, which I've been using for a few years now. The original Nikon Z5 camera. Overall, the original Z5 isn't a bad camera. I've gotten it to a point where it works how I want it to and it's reliable for what I do.  My main use case is often anime and comic conventions, going there and taking photos of people in cosplay. I usually use the 40mm f/2 lens on the Z5, and it works well for that.  First-person view using the Nikon Z5 at an anime convention. Nikon Z5ii vs Z5: The Spec Sheet Comparison  Nikon has a handy comparison section on their Z5ii page, so let's break down some key differences based on that and my experience with the original. Nikon's website comparing the Z5ii and the original Z5 specifications. First up, the sensor. The Z5ii gets a backside-illumi...

EF-M Sigma 56mm vs. Viltrox 56mm

I was curious how the two native Canon EF-M 56mm f/1.4 lenses compared. Is one better in image quality or features than the other? At least right now there is a significant price difference between the two. Check out the embedded video to see how it goes!  Sigma and Viltrox 56mm lenses Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens for Canon EF-M: B&H: https://bhpho.to/3bNQUjk Amazon: https://amzn.to/3cC8pUb ebay: http://ebay.us/5Q3NxW Used on KEH: https://shrsl.com/2b947 Viltrox 56mm f/1.4 AF lens for Canon EF-M: Amazon: https://amzn.to/39sl5Pa B&H: https://bhpho.to/3nXMoF0 ebay: http://ebay.us/b4IRWE As an affiliate of these shops, I earn from qualifying purchases!  Here are the notes I wrote up while compiling data and deciding what I should mention in the video. Physical properties of the lens: The Sigma lens is shorter but thicker than the Viltrox.   Weight is 280g for the Sigma and 290g for the Viltrox. Sigma: 66.5mm x 59.5mm (W x L) Viltrox: 65mm x 72mm Both lenses have an ape...

Swapping Gear with MPB: A Hands-On Experience

I'm always looking for ways to upgrade my camera gear without the hassle of selling it myself. Recently, I decided to try something different: swapping my old equipment for new gear with MPB and getting some cash at the same time. I've used them to purchase equipment in the past, but this was my first time trading in. In the video I explain how it went, and I'll walk you through the entire process, from getting a quote to unboxing the new-to-me equipment.  It's a simple concept: you send them gear, and they send you stuff back. In this particular case, I even got some money in addition to the equipment because my trade-ins were valued higher than what I wanted at the time.  Why go this route instead of selling equipment directly? For me, it all comes down to time and convenience. The entire process, from shipping my gear to receiving the new equipment, took 11 days. They received it, assessed everything, sent me a final quote, I approved it, and then they shipped the n...