5 ms·
Please note that in your linked article, the very end states: "Last week, YouTube removed the claim from the flagger who said TheFatRat was using copyrighted m
by epmaybe 8y ago
Please note that in your linked article, the very end states:
"Last week, YouTube removed the claim from the flagger who said TheFatRat was using copyrighted material, and less than a day after Johnson filed a dispute on his video, the flagger released that claim. That means both YouTubers shouldn’t have to worry anymore about those specific videos.
Neither TheFatRat nor Johnson returned emails from the Daily Dot to see if they were satisfied with the outcome."
This implies that the content creators resolved their problems before getting traction on the published article. However, I will grant you the obvious point here that these content creators that were able to resolve their problems have a huge following, compared to the majority of content creators that don't have the same voice, so maybe this isn't the same for everyone. derefr who also commented below says that it should be the same for anyone who receives a DMCA takedown notice.
- ndnxhs 8y agoThe problem is YouTube heavily prioritizes new content so if your video goes offline for a day you just lost the majority of the profit from it. Its also ridiculous how YouTube presumes guilt. Your video should stay online while a dispute is handled.
- icebraining 8y agoThat's how the law works. If YouTube were to start leaving the videos up, the complainers would just start sending proper DMCA takedown notices, and YouTube would be forced to take it down promptly.
- bencollier49 8y agoBut then if the takedowns were incorrect, the people sending them would have proper liability.
- kilotaras 8y agoAFAIK the only DMCA penalty is if you aren't authorized to represent copyright owner, not if your claim isn't valid.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoWell naturally showing (rather than necessarily legally sound) it would be fraud and/or libel. But I understand the USA legal system doesn't automatically award costs to an injured party, so in practice noone cab afford to challenge any large media corp.
- hrktb 8y agoOne prevalent issue is that even if on youtube the situation is solved easily (i.e. the counter claim is reviewed and everything put back in place in a timely manner) the channel will usualy have missed most of its monetization window. Especialy if the case goes viral and and everyone looks at some side loaded video in the meantime, almost nobody will go back to watch ads on the restored video. In that sense just claiming ownership of a track will deter most other creators to make money from it, even if they can use it. Actualy I think during the time the copyright claim is upheld any ad money done at that point goes to the alegde owner and is not reversed even if the claim is debunked, but I might be wrong.