Licensing claim question

[Garrick5F9C]

We created a sting video for a client and licensed the audio track accordingly. 

The client then sponsored an industry festival. The festival then used the sting video within their festival highlights videos on YouTube, as a ‘sponsored by…’ intro sting (together with their own intro sting). Kinda like the logo idents you get at the start of movies.

There is now a claim from the artist that the license doesn’t cover such usage. But the Festival aren’t creating their own vid using the asset for themselves, they are just featuring the video the track was licensed for.

What’s my best reply to the Artist?

Thanks!

[Abambo]

There is now a claim from the artist that the license doesn’t cover such usage. But the Festival aren’t creating their own vid using the asset for themselves, they are just featuring the video the track was licensed for.

What’s my best reply to the Artist?

By @Garrick5F9C

The artist did make a claim directly to your customer? Or to the festival?

Anyhow, as long as the video is not behind a paywall, IMHO, the licence covers that use.

Look here: https://stock.adobe.com/license-terms#audioLicenses

I did strike out what you don't have and marked what you have. YouTube is social media.

It is irrelevant who publishes the video on YouTube.

Now, I, personally, would answer the sound artist that in your view, you are covered by the licence and that he insists that you would need to contact Adobe to denounce him with his claim. The e-mail to denounce this is copyright-stock@adobe.com.

Look here for more information on licensing: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock/links-for-licensing-terms/td-p/11366788
(Disclaimer: As always with licensing, this is my interpretation of the rules. I think they are correct and advice is based on reading and interpreting the licence terms and on fair use for both the buyer and the artist/stock company, but I cannot rule out that my interpretation is wrong. I'm not an Adobe employee).

[Garrick5F9C]

Hi! Thanks for the reply. The artist made the claim against the Festival and the Festival contacted my client, who then contacted me.

I can only imagine that the artist assumes thay can make a claim to the Festival as their videos feature my client's video in their work – and therefore their asset. The artist is probably fine with my client using it on their video. But the whole point of the project was to create something that could be used to represent my client in these highlight videos. The Festival aren't taking the asset and using it over their own footage – for which obviously they would need their own license. 

i can see why the artist would assume they are entitled to put in a claim due to technically the asset appearing in 4th party's video – BUT as with most things, context is everything: the Festival is not getting direct license to use the asset alone for their own projects.

Thanks again. 😄 


ps i've already been through the terms etc, AND contacted the copyright email and both routes shed no further light on the matter as neither cover the specific cirumstances i've outlined.

[Abambo]

I can only imagine that the artist assumes thay can make a claim to the Festival as their videos feature my client's video in their work – and therefore their asset. The artist is probably fine with my client using it on their video. But the whole point of the project was to create something that could be used to represent my client in these highlight videos. The Festival aren't taking the asset and using it over their own footage – for which obviously they would need their own license. 
By @Garrick5F9C

If your customer's video is shown in the context of the festival, it is correctly licenced. Even if the festival would make a compilation of all their received videos, but not makrketing that as a separate asset, they would be clean. As long as your customer is correctly referenced, the use of the video is inline of the licensing terms. Anything other would make the licence absurdly obsolete, and unworkable. This is part of fair use, your customer has paid for a work that should be shown for your customer's glory.

Look here for more information on licensing: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock/links-for-licensing-terms/td-p/11366788
(Disclaimer: As always with licensing, this is my interpretation of the rules. I think they are correct and advice is based on reading and interpreting the licence terms and on fair use for both the buyer and the artist/stock company, but I cannot rule out that my interpretation is wrong. I'm not an Adobe employee).

[jimy_wolf]

that is  great

[Abambo]

that is  great

By @jimy_wolf

What is great?