Only if you sell it. The Eagles will copyright claim an hour long video with 5 seconds worth of a cover of their songs. So you either take the video down, send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video, or remove the 5 seconds.
> send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video
From the last instance I’ve seen that wasn’t even an option, the video was struck down and that was it.
Granted that was a cover not just a small bit of cover inside a longer video, but the cover-er specifically noted the Eagles opted to neither revenue-share (which was the cover’s state as it’d been properly content-id’d as a cover) nor demonetise, just take down the video entirely.
He also cites Rick Beato as having repeatedly had analysis of Eagles songs taken down.
Though maybe it’s because YouTube only has revenue sharing, you can’t send 100% revenue to the eagles?
Given their experience in signing off on a bad, exploitative deal at the inception of their careers, and the fight they had to get control of their songwriting catalog from David Geffen, I really can't be surprised.
Once (at least!) burned, forever shy. And they're not wrong: what YouTube does is also exploitative. Anybody on YouTube who's building a career on publicising the reprocessing of other people's music in any way, is building on sand. In no way are they any better off than the Eagles were under their original contracts.
Leaving the question, is it better to do react videos on Creedence because the owners aren't issuing copyright strikes, when you know that Creedence was robbed?
Ah yes, “we’ve been burned therefore we’ll be taking the risk of getting you banned from the platform you’re trying to make a following and money on”. That sounds so nice of them.
