obviously they employ people to scour youtube specifically for their content, but i'm sure they miss some, maybe even a lot, especially if there is no attribution. i was more interested in debunking the idea that there was some kind of automatic payment from youtube. when it comes to performances, the publishing rights have to be claimed first, which means coming across each video. i'm curious how soon youtube will have an automatic detection of a previously published song (not recording) if ever. i'm sure that algorithm would be quite complicated and would have all sorts of interesting side effects like detecting plagiarized and similar pieces of music. right now if a rapper uploads a video rhyming over someone else's beat, content ID will list the original artist and song below the video, for example, but imagine if the same could be applied to songwriting.
>The fact that this is listed by name with all the song titles >listed and has been up for a few weeks suggests to me that >this is all legal. I could be wrong though.
attribution doesn't change its legal status any more than how long it's been available. it's all legal, there are just royalties to be paid, and they don't start until a claim is filed because youtube puts the onus on the publishers (gee, wonder why). since this is to do with songwriting, the rights society probably is on top of it, but if it were up to d'angelo or his label, look no further than the live and mixtape bootlegs being sold under his name for the last several years.