YouTube channel - Auxy remakes

So I have this idea of creating a channel similar to those channels that share FL studio remakes of songs but specifically for Auxy. I think it would be a great way to show off the talent of this community! I would also like to manage this with other members so if anyone is interested in working with me on this please let me know!


I’ve had this idea before but never actually worked on it :smile:

I kind of feel like this is in the same vein?

I know these wouldn’t be a tutorial per se, but a healthy chunk of the community videos are posted here.

I’d just hate to see duplicate, fragmented threads is all.

1 Like

I do understand that a lot of people post tutorials but that isn’t really the purpose of this. This is more of a YouTube channel specifically to upload remakes of songs by people from the Auxy community and to showcase their talent through that


Cool. Seems like not a bad idea I’ve seen remake threads come and go. I’ve fixed up title and category for you. Let ‘er rip :smiley:

1 Like

What about publishing rights?
Technically, they’d be cover versions, so you’d need to pay royalties, if you wanted to keep it legit.

Something to keep in mind.

The reason the tutorials vids recreating existing commercial tracks won’t need to pay royalties is because they fall under the Fair Use exemption of ‘educational purposes’.

@akabillposters pretty much said exactly what I was going to.

A lot of people don’t allow remixes of their songs, and regardless of whether or not it’s licensed properly they wouldn’t be happy about someone covering their song and separately distributing it.

Obtaining permission for every Auxy track that you showcase would be rather tedious and not even close to guaranteed, especially for the purpose which you have described.

If you’re going to stay super small with this channel you probably can get away without obtaining permission, but that’d kind of defeat the purpose of what I imagine you hope to achieve with this, in which case you would need to pay some royalties to the original artist in some shape or form.

That is true but we wouldn’t be posting remixes just covers which are 100% allowed. And to be safe there are websites you can go to to get proper licensing for covers.

At least that’s what I’ve heard from other people reguarding covers

Depending on how the creator of the original track licensed their song (and if they did it properly), covers aren’t allowed without permission from the creator. A cover and remix is splitting hairs in terms of infringing upon copyright.

I think the question is…

Are you and those who want to have their covers/remakes posted prepared to pay the royalties?

It’s not huge sums - e.g. Distrokid costs it at ~$12 per cover per year.
But still, many here can’t/won’t pay for something like Soundcloud Pro account, so I’m not sure how many will offer up covers for the channel.


As I understand it, it’s more common for publishers* to give carte blanche permission to create cover versions.
i.e. they give broad, open permission. You just need to pay the royalties.

These days, you don’t typically need to contact the publisher. Just register your cover version, pay the royalty fees (see above) and you’re good to go.

It’s uncommon for publishers to block a cover artist.

(* it’s the publishers who own the rights, though they are sometimes also the recording/release artist, but not always.)

I just did a bit of research and here is what I found out

So it looks like a YouTube channel may actually be difficult

Posting it anywhere that’s open to the public will constitute ‘publishing’ (also ‘releasing’), including SoundCloud and, I would assume, this forum too.

I see that now… I once heard that there’s no issues with covers as long as you don’t use any parts from the original track and everything in the song was recorded by you but there’s clearly a lot more to it than that

True. However, for such a small project operating in a tightly knit community, I assume he doesn’t think it’s worth it to pay royalties in which case you can obtain explicit clearance from the original producer to cover it without the need of royalties.

Good luck getting any popular, commercially releasing artist publishing rights holders to respond to that kind of request, let alone waiving their usual rights.

Again, worth keeping in mind that the publishing rights holder (i.e. the one you’d need to ask) isn’t always the recording/release artist.

I’m not sure how one would argue that the Auxy (remake/cover) community would deserve a special waiver.
‘Small, tightly-knit’ doesn’t mean the music we’re creating isn’t being commercially released.

Still, ya don’t know until ya try. :wink:

This sounds awesome! I think as long as you get definite permission from the people you would be remixing songs from then it should be fine.

Well I just remade a Martin Garrix track earlier today so I don’t really think I’ll have an easy time getting into contact with anyone on that😂

Those distributing commercially (via distribution services like Amuse for example) would not be the best candidates to try to duck out of royalties for. :wink:

As a side note, tightly knit is largely referring to the fact that at in the best case scenario his project would reach maybe 25-75 people (generously gauging based on active disco users unless he has other means of Auxy outreach) which might not justify the royalties he’d have to pay on a per track basis. However, that’s for @NightOwl to decide.

For sure, but as mentioned, even publicly posting on SC or YT (and possibly even here, as it’s a public forum) qualifies as a commercial release, as the Auxy artist is potentially able to benefit commercially, either directly from monetisation, or indirectly, by advertising the (Auxy) artist.

Whether or not the (Auxy) cover is likely to actually generate revenue has no bearing on its classification as a commercial release.


tightly knit is largely referring to the fact that at in the best case scenario his project would reach maybe 25-75 people

Similarly, the number of people it might realistically reach, despite being publicly available, isn’t really relevant.
If it’s publicly available, then it’s technically released.
If it’s not offered as non-for-profit (e.g. released into public domain), then it’s a commercial release.


which might not justify the royalties he’d have to pay on a per track basis. However, that’s for NightOwl to decide.

It would be for the Auxy artist themselves to pay the royalties, not @NightOwl as the reposting channel owner.
(Unless NightOwl is considering a label/releasing agent/distributor arrangement, which is unlikely.)

All that said, the CDBaby/DIY Musician post linked earlier does a fairly good job of explaining what would actually happen for cover versions released without royalties – i.e. YT’s Content ID algo might identify it, and the publisher would automatically take any monetisation.
(Check out the section on ‘Synch licensing’.)

One thing I’m not clear about is what happens when YT’s Content ID algo identifies a cover track that does have a synch license and royalties paid up.
In those situations, the publisher wouldn’t have the right to take the monetisation. I would assume the cover artist would need to counter-claim and show that they’ve got those things sorted.