Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I have a home recording studio and have started offering my mp3's on my website for visitors to download if they want.
Is this a violation of AdSense TOS?
Should I call them "Podcasts" or change the format to WMA or OGG?
Here are the basic program policies:-
[google.com...]
... and the T&C's:-
[google.com...]
Which do you think you might be falling foul of?
TJ
Copyrighted Material
In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.
About as clear as mud that isn't it.
Safest bet would be to email and ask.
TJ
Somehow I don't think that it is against the TOS because even though it says:
Copyrighted Material
In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.
we pretty much all have images on our sites.
I kinda think they mean they don't want you randomly linking to massive amounts of copywrited content.
In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.
I'd still like a good definition of what an MP3 "result" is. Is a result an actual MP3 download on the page or is a result a link to a site like the new "N*****r" or is it both?
Thanks Much!
Surely this is to stop the ethically-challenged putting AdSense on pages with material for which *they* do not have the copyright (eg scraping too, as it happens)?
If they're your melodies and lyrics (eg not covers) and you own the copyright then IMHO you should be fine.
Rgds
Damon
Huh. I guess I leave well enough alone and move forward.
My application was denied because the site was under construction, I completed the site and tried to re-apply, but there is really no logical way to do this using the links provided by G that I could find.
(yes I am a newbie, I know this was a silly move on my part)
So I applied again with a different email addy for a different website.
That one had 5 working pages (worthless pages, but complete) and so I was accepted.
This is the account I am currently using, and I have not continued to persue approval of the other.
However, I did use the email associated with my declined application to pose my question about the MP3's, and so I think the customer service-bot:
1) Ignored the content of my email,
2) noticed only the email addy itself,
3) and simply scanned the site for completeness,
4) approved my previously declined application and
5) told me to go ahead without any idea what I was going ahead with.
I will come and whine to you all if I get banned subsequently, but common sense tells me this is unlikely for the time being.
If the songs on your website are your own songs that you wrote and recorded, the AdSense copyrighted material policy shouldn't apply to you. :)
Hope that helps!
-ASA
DO you think I am violating adsense TOS.
Also if you're linking to sites that have been known ton be copyright infringers then you're linking to "bad neighbors" so I wouldn't if I were you, but like I said before I am a newbie.
1) Has the owner/author of the MP3 work authorised its free release in that format and given you permission to link to it?
If the answer is no then isn't it obvious you are breaking the TOS ( as well as inviting the RIAA to your door)?
and if the MP· work is your own material then wqhy on earth are you asking yourself copyright questions or TOS breaches.
Isnīt it obvious that the google TOS, whilst vague in parts, is talking about the mainstream MP3 market which is mainly illegal on internet?
Isnīt it obvious that the google TOS, whilst vague in parts, is talking about the mainstream MP3 market which is mainly illegal on internet?
no it's not. The TOS says no pages with MP3 results, it doesn't specify what the MP3's are of.
It is evident after discussing the subject here in this forum that to G "MP3" refers to the internet music download scene, whereas to many of us MP3 is a specific audio compression scheme.
And the other poster is basically asking whether it's ok to provide BROKEN links to MP3's which is alot different than linking to actual MP3's.
According to G TOS,
"In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results."
I am not good in legal terms and in english, but base on my understanding. the word "may" tells that that particular sentence is not mandatory. I it is mandatory, then it should be "must not" or "shall not" or "Should not".
Please correct me if I`m wrong. Thanks.
I think that the intent here is so clear that any reasonable interpretation by a court would be in favour *if the copyright is yours* or assigned to you.
I am NOT a lawyer, but this is the basis of operation of my major AS site: I have rights releases from all of the contributors (and indeed most of the material is mine, created by me).
Rgds
Damon
