All-Star NEWS: Cheer history = gone 🎥

[TheCheerBuzz]

6 years of cheerleading is gone, Varsity lawsuit update & get ready for the European Championships! Here are some of the latest news in cheerleading:

The best & biggest cheerleading youtube channel got deleted (+ how to help)​

Ever seen a high-quality video of a routine on youtube? Chances are it was from Andy Simon’s channel!

The USASF has gotten Andy’s youtube channel deleted, which has resulted in a ton of backlash for the organization. That means 6+ years of great cheerleading and history is gone… Unless you pay for the competition live streams & replays with *debatable* quality…

Now, our whole brand is built on the idea that cheerleading should be available to everyone & that more quality content should be available for free, like Andy’s videos. It benefits everyone in the sport & ultimately helps it grow!

Our own youtube channel, for example, would be nothing without Andy’s hard work providing the best videos.



Tons of athletes, parents, fans of the sports, and big-name gyms are now demanding the USASF to retract their claims, which would bring back the channel.

Want to help? Here are a few ways:​

• Sign the petition urging USASF to bring back the channel
• Contact news stations & publications and ask them to cover this topic
• Contact the USASF (by commenting, emailing, etc) asking them to remove their claims
• Share this info with everyone you know & get them to help

Copyright is not a simple subject, but maybe we can get USASF to retract their claims & work on figuring out a better solution for everyone involved in cheerleading - because the current model is clearly not sustainable for anyone.

---

Update on one of the Varsity lawsuits​

Trigger/content warning: sexual abuse. Please skip reading this if you need to.

A judge in one of the lawsuits against Varsity decided that former cheerleaders who said they were sexually abused by their coaches can continue moving forward with their lawsuits against Varsity Brands and Varsity Spirit.

But the judge didn't agree with some other claims the lawsuits made, including “racketeering activity, fraud and civil conspiracy.“

Read the full article here.

---

This weekend: ICU European Championships​

The European Championships is taking place this weekend (in Verona, Italy) featuring teams from, you guessed it, all over Europe!

• See the competing teams, performance orders, and more by clicking here.
• The competition will be live-streamed on the ICU Network and the Olympic Channel.

Enjoyed reading this recap? We think you'll like our weekly newsletter, where this post is taken from! Subscribe (it's free) here & get the latest news every Monday!​

 

[Keep_Believing]

Very sad for Andy

His videos were awesome

 

[catlady]

This is incredibly sad, I loved his videos. It was the Music Modernization Act of 2018 that greatly impacted music concerning streaming and compensation. From what I read about the MMA, there is not an OPT OUT option allowed in contracts. This goes way beyond a petition, and any lawyer is going to tell a large business to not allow their events to be streamed with music, especially when its thousands of different songs. A great example is TV producers getting bent out of shape if someone just sings "Happy Birthday" on their show because of having to pay the royalties. It gets even more complicated on SM because some have ads attached and the poster, not the artists, are being compensated for those videos with their music.

Something I learned quickly being an exec in Corp retail, any time a business does an about face on certain policies that don't make sense...like allowing high quality videos to be streamed for free advertising...it is because 1) new laws were enacted, or 2) they've been threatened with a lawsuit.

 

[caffeineandglitter]

This is incredibly sad, I loved his videos. It was the Music Modernization Act of 2018 that greatly impacted music concerning streaming and compensation. From what I read about the MMA, there is not an OPT OUT option allowed in contracts. This goes way beyond a petition, and any lawyer is going to tell a large business to not allow their events to be streamed with music, especially when its thousands of different songs. A great example is TV producers getting bent out of shape if someone just sings "Happy Birthday" on their show because of having to pay the royalties. It gets even more complicated on SM because some have ads attached and the poster, not the artists, are being compensated for those videos with their music.

Something I learned quickly being an exec in Corp retail, any time a business does an about face on certain policies that don't make sense...like allowing high quality videos to be streamed for free advertising...it is because 1) new laws were enacted, or 2) they've been threatened with a lawsuit.

i hear you but doesn't YouTube have an ASCAP license?

 

[catlady]

i hear you but doesn't YouTube have an ASCAP license?

Yes, however, that has nothing to do with the poster or EP owning the rights or having consent to post it. For example, FloCheer by the way it works obviously has the right to record with sound (Public Performance Right), but after that, they don't own the rights to post that music with sound.
Directly from ASCAP:

So you want to use music in your YouTube video? You’re in good company. Every minute, users upload 500 hours of video to YouTube, and a whole lot of it contains music. By all means, do it! Before you hit the “Upload” button though, consider that there’s a songwriter or composer who created it who relies on income from all the different uses of their music for a livelihood. Remember: every time you upload a video, you are agreeing to YouTube’s Terms of Service - including the part that says that “you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit.” That means music, too.

ASCAP is a membership association of over 920,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers. As a performing rights organization (PRO), our our main role is to make sure that our members get fairly paid when their music is performed publicly. We work within YouTube’s proprietary Content ID system to identify ASCAP members’ music in the billions of hours of videos that users watch on YouTube every day. Content ID is not perfect, but it is the only system that YouTube makes available for monetizing music in YouTube videos. We believe that through ASCAP's participation, we can improve the metadata in Content ID, which will benefit our members and other rightsholders. Video creators included!

We know it can be frustrating to post a video that you’ve worked on for days, only to have it flagged or blocked because of a Content ID claim. You can avoid all that hassle if you understand some basics of music copyright, and how the YouTube claiming system works.

Copyright Basics

To fully understand how royalties flow for YouTube plays, you first need to know the difference between a music composition and a sound recording.

• The music composition refers to an underlying song or piece of music, encompassing the lyrics, melody, harmony, etc. The rights to a musical composition are owned by the creators (songwriters, composers, lyricists) and their publisher(s). For example, there might be thousands of different recordings of “Over the Rainbow,” but its writers Yip Harburg and Harold Arlen, and their publisher Sony/ATV, are the sole owners of the composition.
• The sound recording refers to a specific recording of a composition onto a CD, digital file, vinyl record, etc. There can be thousands of different recordings of a single composition, and each one may have a different owner. The copyright in a sound recording is controlled by whoever owns the master recording, usually a record label.

There are three types of rights you should know about if you want to use a musical composition in your YouTube video:

1. Public Performance Right - the right to “perform” the music composition publicly. This right is administered by performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP.
2. Mechanical Right - the right to record/copy and distribute (without visual images) a composition. Traditionally, this right applied to physical media like CDs and vinyl but it also applies to digital media. Mechanical rights are administered by a variety of companies including HFA, or directly from the music publisher.
3. Synchronization Right - A synchronization (or "synch") right involves the right to record/copy and distribute a recording of a musical work in audio-visual form: as part of a film, TV program, music video, or YouTube video. Synch rights are licensed by the music publisher (for the composition) and sound recording owner to the producer of the movie or program.

 

[caffeineandglitter]

Yes, however, that has nothing to do with the poster or EP owning the rights or having consent to post it. For example, FloCheer by the way it works obviously has the right to record with sound (Public Performance Right), but after that, they don't own the rights to post that music with sound.
Directly from ASCAP:

So you want to use music in your YouTube video? You’re in good company. Every minute, users upload 500 hours of video to YouTube, and a whole lot of it contains music. By all means, do it! Before you hit the “Upload” button though, consider that there’s a songwriter or composer who created it who relies on income from all the different uses of their music for a livelihood. Remember: every time you upload a video, you are agreeing to YouTube’s Terms of Service - including the part that says that “you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit.” That means music, too.

ASCAP is a membership association of over 920,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers. As a performing rights organization (PRO), our our main role is to make sure that our members get fairly paid when their music is performed publicly. We work within YouTube’s proprietary Content ID system to identify ASCAP members’ music in the billions of hours of videos that users watch on YouTube every day. Content ID is not perfect, but it is the only system that YouTube makes available for monetizing music in YouTube videos. We believe that through ASCAP's participation, we can improve the metadata in Content ID, which will benefit our members and other rightsholders. Video creators included!

We know it can be frustrating to post a video that you’ve worked on for days, only to have it flagged or blocked because of a Content ID claim. You can avoid all that hassle if you understand some basics of music copyright, and how the YouTube claiming system works.

Copyright Basics

To fully understand how royalties flow for YouTube plays, you first need to know the difference between a music composition and a sound recording.

• The music composition refers to an underlying song or piece of music, encompassing the lyrics, melody, harmony, etc. The rights to a musical composition are owned by the creators (songwriters, composers, lyricists) and their publisher(s). For example, there might be thousands of different recordings of “Over the Rainbow,” but its writers Yip Harburg and Harold Arlen, and their publisher Sony/ATV, are the sole owners of the composition.
• The sound recording refers to a specific recording of a composition onto a CD, digital file, vinyl record, etc. There can be thousands of different recordings of a single composition, and each one may have a different owner. The copyright in a sound recording is controlled by whoever owns the master recording, usually a record label.

There are three types of rights you should know about if you want to use a musical composition in your YouTube video:

1. Public Performance Right - the right to “perform” the music composition publicly. This right is administered by performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP.
2. Mechanical Right - the right to record/copy and distribute (without visual images) a composition. Traditionally, this right applied to physical media like CDs and vinyl but it also applies to digital media. Mechanical rights are administered by a variety of companies including HFA, or directly from the music publisher.
3. Synchronization Right - A synchronization (or "synch") right involves the right to record/copy and distribute a recording of a musical work in audio-visual form: as part of a film, TV program, music video, or YouTube video. Synch rights are licensed by the music publisher (for the composition) and sound recording owner to the producer of the movie or program.

that makes sense but it's not CheerMusicPro or other cheer music producers filing the copyright strikes. it's the USASF. They don't have the rights either?

 

[catlady]

that makes sense but it's not CheerMusicPro or other cheer music producers filing the copyright strikes. it's the USASF. They don't have the rights either?

Which takes me back to the last point of my first post when a business does an about face on certain policies that don't make sense...like allowing high quality videos to be streamed for free advertising...it is because 1) new laws were enacted, or 2) they've been threatened with a lawsuit.

Music producers and/or lawyers generally don't have any interest in individual offenders with little to no money, a Corp however, that's a different story. I, personally, have no idea what music producers are fine with it but, the MMA provides no OPT OUT. For that reason, the law would remain on the side of these music producers and YouTube (the compulsary license holder). Again, quoting from the ASCAP site concerning YouTube: to upload a video you are agreeing “you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit.” That means music, too.

 

[caffeineandglitter]

Wait also...

Which takes me back to the last point of my first post when a business does an about face on certain policies that don't make sense...like allowing high quality videos to be streamed for free advertising...it is because 1) new laws were enacted, or 2) they've been threatened with a lawsuit.

Music producers and/or lawyers generally don't have any interest in individual offenders with little to no money, a Corp however, that's a different story. I, personally, have no idea what music producers are fine with it but, the MMA provides no OPT OUT. For that reason, the law would remain on the side of these music producers and YouTube (the compulsary license holder). Again, quoting from the ASCAP site concerning YouTube: to upload a video you are agreeing “you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit.” That means music, too.

This all seems to make a lot of sense (follow the money!) but what I'm not quite tracking would be who is threatening the lawsuit against who? USASF is the one that wants the videos down. YouTube is responsible to the copyright holders. USASF doesn't own the copyright?

 

[UCFKnights07]

im really un educated about this topic to a certain degree, but what about the countless thousands of other videos on youtube who use music, that probably arent getting consents to use artists and producers music....
i mean is it REALLY about the music??? or is it just USASF, flocheer, not wanting their product out their without people paying for it.......
i mean Andys channel was getting flagged by usasf, not by individual artists or companies claiming rights to the music in said videos, or am i wrong in this?

 

[catlady]

Wait also...

This all seems to make a lot of sense (follow the money!) but what I'm not quite tracking would be who is threatening the lawsuit against who? USASF is the one that wants the videos down. YouTube is responsible to the copyright holders. USASF doesn't own the copyright?

im really un educated about this topic to a certain degree, but what about the countless thousands of other videos on youtube who use music, that probably arent getting consents to use artists and producers music....
i mean is it REALLY about the music??? or is it just USASF, flocheer, not wanting their product out their without people paying for it.......
i mean Andys channel was getting flagged by usasf, not by individual artists or companies claiming rights to the music in said videos, or am i wrong in this?

Trust me, I'm no more educated on this topic, I just enjoy business reading and used to deal with lawyers in my past career concerning issues like these on the retail level.
The why's are unknown, but Andy's channel is probably generating income, where most don't. Right now, what we do know is the USASF and Varsity are battling it out behind the scenes on legal issues. There are literally dozens of reasons that may be dealing with this, but these are the ones I have thought of:

1) This could be them (USASF) closing some legal loopholes to protect themselves.
2) This could be pressure from FloCheer based on contract issues.
3) This could be pressure from ASCAP since Andy's videos are generating income and he doesn't own the music, but the USASF Cheer has performance rights.
*****4) Thinking outside the box. This may not even be about music based on their current lawsuits. We have no idea where all those videos are being uploaded/downloaded and where they are being found.****

@caffeineandglitter the music producer would own the music copyright, and USASF would have public performance rights. It gets even more complicated with contracts, such as FloCheer and gyms being allowed certain rights by contract, as well.