Entertainment desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21[edit]

YouTube video use as a reference[edit]

Are YouTube videos allowed as a reference for music showing a different version of a song that is known already? Please expalain why or why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallow88 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket ban on Youtube videos. However, with regard to your question, Youtube videos would either be:

copyright violations (if the video is unofficially released on a channel that doesn't own the original video). Don't ever do this. We can and do block people for linking to these, we don't tolerate copyright violations. Doesn't matter if they say "no copyright intended" as part of some (incompetent) Fair use claim, don't ever link to these videos.
primary sources (if it's the original video officially released on the channel of the legitimate copyright owner). You'd need a secondary or tertiary source to establish that the different versions are not only legit but distinct because we don't use original research (case in point the article on the Sky has four citations to establish that it's blue). In the case of remixes by the same artist, you probably could use the video's description to establish that it's a distinct song. In the case of covers by other artists, you'd need a secondary source to establish that anyone cares about the cover (and it'd help if both artists were notable enough that we already have articles on both of them).
user generated sources (if it's analysis of the video from some channel besides the legitimate owner). User generated sources are generally equal to monkeys banging on typewriters. They might one day produce the works of Shakespeare, but they're still monkeys. Wikipedia is also a user generated source, which is a pretty big nail in the coffin for the validity of user-generated sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The video has a Standard YouTube License. The video I created has part of the music which is the same artist as the first half of the video, just using a different remix of an additional vocals by another vocalist (Copyrighted) has given permission to use in the video. The first half has not been claimed. Also, is not shown as information in the Wikipedia page or anywhere else. Is this video reference material? Hallow88 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the link to it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgz9rXS8kTQ 2601:40C:8203:5606:7962:9DFA:3A36:F61 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see the problem now. @Hallow88: Wikipedia is not for promotion. If you didn't have a conflict of interest with regard to that video, I'd say you need professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the video's producer to demonstrate that your remix is worth mentioning. Just because it's exists doesn't mean we're going to cover it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I'd note to reemphasise an earlier point, that 'standard YouTube licence' is largely irrelevant. I'm sure I could find some TV series episode or movie which is clearly copyrighted but not auto detected by Youtube and upload it and put it under a standard Youtube licence. This would be a clear copyvio. Potentially it may be taken down without hours or days if whoever owns the copyright have their own systems and I put the title of the content as the title of the video but I still had a copyvio under a standard Youtube licence. Further, while this isn't legal advice and there are a lot of complications, permission or a licence will generally be required for any copyrighted work that appears in the video including whether it's original or modified. YouTube have their autodetecting and rights assignment system which means for music if it is original it will either be blocked or allowed with monetisation going towards the copyright holder based on their agreement. (You can see if any rights have been assigned by looking at the details. In this case you can see there is something under 'Music in this video'.) I imagine this is generally enough to deal with our concerns, but it's not something I've ever dealt with so you should seek further advice if it ever comes up. I imagine it rarely arises since most cases the video is simply unsuitable for other reasons like here. When it is suitable, it's likely licencing issues have already been dealt with one way or the other. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only source won't be found here then. Hallow88 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia can probably live with that. If there are no other sources then it's not a notable subject. I'm still not clear on what it is you're trying to add. --Viennese Waltz 05:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is another version of the same song, different vocalist. YouTube can determine if both are original music? If it is an original recording it still needs a secondary source? Hallow88 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not magic. Youtube can detect some copyvios and will automatically assign rights which may be enough to deal with out concerns, but it is still the responsibility of the uploader to ensure they have all the necessary rights and if we have doubts they do, then the link is automatically out. The absence of detection of a copyvio issue doesn't mean there is no issue as Youtube will miss a lot of copyvio issues. As has been said, the video you links to, whatever the copyright issues does not appear to have any secondary source coverage so it does not appear to have any notability/significance to wikipedia. Otherwise for a popular song we'd be adding thousand of random covers, remixes etc. In reality we don't even add a lot of covers by well known artists even though these may have some minor mention in some secondary source. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can this information on the Evanescence Origin Wikipedia page:

A previously unreleased demo, Origin was released commercially for the first time in December 2016 as a part of The Ultimate Collection vinyl box set.[8]

be listed on the album page, but the page shows the album released in 2000? The whole article contradicts itself. Hallow88 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origin (Evanescence album) says the album "was self-released in 2000," and later "was released commercially for the first time in December 2016." The 2000 release would have been sold by the band at their shows or maybe sold on consignment in local record shops, but the 2016 release would have been the first time you could have bought it from Amazon, Walmart, or some other big chain. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean that the original self-released album could differ in other ways from the commercially released one besides the fact its a vinyl too.Hallow88 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. Some bands insist on transferring the same mix when they commercially release their demos, some insist on polishing the demo. Without a professionally-published source that compares the two releases, the article can't really say. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-released means unofficial? Article page states album was sold in limited numbers on the Bigwig Enterprise website to the public, so if it was previously unreleased how could the recording very well be identical? Also, articles claims and its sourced that it was a rough draft. Hallow88 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)'[reply]

See Demo (music). A band can privately record a demo (which is always a rough draft for a professional album), sell copies of it by themselves ("self-release"), then (hopefully) get signed to a record label that may later decide to sell ("commercial release") new copies of the original demo recording. If they do so, the band does not re-record the album, they use the master copy of the band's demo (which the label may or may not additionally polish). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, last question would be pertaining to the Origin article page here on Wikipedia, what is the overall explanation of why the articles referenced don't coincide with the same information?Hallow88 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What information doesn't coincide and with what references? Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've modified some info to coincidence with the reference, this was the right thing to do. Since you did this before commenting here, I guess this is not what you're referring to but if there is any other info which is disagrees with the references, you're welcome to correct it yourself to what the reference says. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see what you mean. The other source used, and our article, did claim it was a previously unreleased demo which contradicts the 2 earlier references and what our article said earlier. I have removed the 'previously unreleased demo album' bit. While handling disputes between refs is always complicated and sometimes it's better to present both claims as a dispute, in my judgement in this case it's simply that the source is either wrong or chose a poor wording; either way probably due to the small number, manner, and probably limited time they were sold. It could also have been part to do with marketing, it isn't uncommon sources will just repeat what they were told by whoever marketing the product in a press release or whatever, without researching for themselves. (While not an RS, a review here [1] makes me think there actually may have been multiple releases of Origin predating the current release.) Anyway thanks for pointing this out. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]