35 ms·

There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube: 1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of t

There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube: 1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of these at once, their entire channel gets taken offline. The dispute resolution mechanism leaves the video in whatever state the copyright owner chose (for possibly 2 months), and they get to keep the revenue from the dispute period, even if they lose (its possible that youtube has changed this). 2. ContentID. Copyright-Owners just give Youtube a copy of your copyrighted works, and tell it if you'd like videos containing your content to be left alone, monetized for your adsense account, or have the video taken down until the offending content is removed. This can be manual, or automatic. Contesting these is basically impossible (its possible that youtube has changed this).

ikeboy 7y ago
It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now. If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn. See my post at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... which goes into extensive detail on the process with sources. See also the eff links in my above comment which has the same information.
- falcolas 7y ago
  This doesn't go into the "three strikes and you're shutdown" which has been used extensively against small creators. For example (and notwithstanding the rest of the issue) how 2k Games knocked the Borderlands 3 leaker (SupMatto) off YouTube, permanently, by making dozens of copyright notices against their channel. There's also the case of Alex Mauer (a song writer) who took several channels offline as a side effect of her legal battle with a videogame creator. Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. As a side note, the revenue escrow is very new. It took YouTube over a decade (Content ID was introduced in 2007) to come to this fairly reasonable middle ground. Just... don't take a vacation, OK?
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown. >Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. Note that per https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en >If your channel is in the YouTube Partner Program, you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy period after 3 copyright strikes before your channel is disabled. During this period, your copyright strikes won’t expire and you won’t be able to upload new videos. Your channel will remain live and you will be able to access it to seek a resolution for your strikes. If your strikes are resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful, your channel will not be disabled. The Youtube Partner Program is the system that allows for monetization, so everyone that's making money off Youtube ads is in it. I.e., everyone who's making money off Youtube ads has 7 days from receiving the strikes to file counternotices, and by my reading their account will remain active until those are resolved one way or the other. It says the channel won't be disabled if the notices are successful, implying that it isn't disabled even temporarily. Regarding your examples, yes, if there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble. But that's true regardless of whether they got strikes or filed a counternotice. I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare".
    - falcolas 7y ago
      Once again, I would point out that most of these creator friendly policies and programs are quite new. Angry Joe has a video that covers when they were put in place, and most of those occurred in the last year, after a decade of creator-hostile policies. > you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters) Also, why doesn't the copyright claimants also only have a maximum of 7 days to respond? We're talking about Content ID claims here, as a reminder, not DMCA. > resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful Which can take upwards of 30 days per step in the process, no matter how quickly the creator moves. So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. This is an eternity in a business which relies on consistent and frequent content output to remain soluble. > there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube. > I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare". Does that really matter, if Content ID claims alone have devastated the channel's viewerbase? Jim Sterling from the article has many a horror story of spending between 6 months and 2 years fighting copyright claims and associated from corporations and CEO's. So does sidalpha and Angry Joe. Can we really claim in good faith that they're lying by pointing at Google FAQs?

ikeboy 7y ago

It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now. If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn. See my post at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... which goes into extensive detail on the process with sources. See also the eff links in my above comment which has the same information.

falcolas 7y ago
This doesn't go into the "three strikes and you're shutdown" which has been used extensively against small creators. For example (and notwithstanding the rest of the issue) how 2k Games knocked the Borderlands 3 leaker (SupMatto) off YouTube, permanently, by making dozens of copyright notices against their channel. There's also the case of Alex Mauer (a song writer) who took several channels offline as a side effect of her legal battle with a videogame creator. Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. As a side note, the revenue escrow is very new. It took YouTube over a decade (Content ID was introduced in 2007) to come to this fairly reasonable middle ground. Just... don't take a vacation, OK?
- ikeboy 7y ago
  3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown. >Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. Note that per https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en >If your channel is in the YouTube Partner Program, you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy period after 3 copyright strikes before your channel is disabled. During this period, your copyright strikes won’t expire and you won’t be able to upload new videos. Your channel will remain live and you will be able to access it to seek a resolution for your strikes. If your strikes are resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful, your channel will not be disabled. The Youtube Partner Program is the system that allows for monetization, so everyone that's making money off Youtube ads is in it. I.e., everyone who's making money off Youtube ads has 7 days from receiving the strikes to file counternotices, and by my reading their account will remain active until those are resolved one way or the other. It says the channel won't be disabled if the notices are successful, implying that it isn't disabled even temporarily. Regarding your examples, yes, if there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble. But that's true regardless of whether they got strikes or filed a counternotice. I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare".
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Once again, I would point out that most of these creator friendly policies and programs are quite new. Angry Joe has a video that covers when they were put in place, and most of those occurred in the last year, after a decade of creator-hostile policies. > you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters) Also, why doesn't the copyright claimants also only have a maximum of 7 days to respond? We're talking about Content ID claims here, as a reminder, not DMCA. > resolved through a retraction, or we forward your counter notifications and they are ultimately successful Which can take upwards of 30 days per step in the process, no matter how quickly the creator moves. So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. This is an eternity in a business which relies on consistent and frequent content output to remain soluble. > there's actual legal action then the creator will be in trouble Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube. > I stand by my claim above that legal action in obvious fair use cases is "astonishingly rare". Does that really matter, if Content ID claims alone have devastated the channel's viewerbase? Jim Sterling from the article has many a horror story of spending between 6 months and 2 years fighting copyright claims and associated from corporations and CEO's. So does sidalpha and Angry Joe. Can we really claim in good faith that they're lying by pointing at Google FAQs?