10 ms·

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

by 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 And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn.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
      Most of the policies I'm referencing are a few years old. My reddit post I linked is from around a year ago and talks about all these policies except for the 7 day courtesy period, so I don't know exactly when that went into effect. Anyway, if people are linking articles from 2016 I'm going to point out the current state of the policies. >Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters) It's not forever, you can always file a counternotice after it's been taken down. But yes, you should be prepared to defend your business. You want passive income, you can be prepared to check your email at least once a week. > >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. That's a fair criticism. Presumably Youtube feels that they need a longer time to satisfy claimants and avoid DMCA filings. Remember, content ID claims do not harm the channel at all, so there's no real rush to get them removed except for getting the ad revenue out of escrow. >So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. On my reading you can keep uploading while the counternotice process continues. >Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube. Looks like Alex Mauer was involved in legal action https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-alex-mauer/ https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-ale.... Not familiar with the other case but looks like it's not obviously fair use to share leaked content, could be wrong. >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? What are they claiming? Have they claimed to have submitted a counternotice that was rejected? Can you link me to someone going through a timeline, with dates on what was disputed when, showing that Google FAQs are wrong? Because I've not seen that. I have seen someone posting about getting a counternotice rejected mistakenly and getting it overturned by tweeting at Youtube. And then there's the UMG exception as my first comment noted. But most horror stories I've seen are people who get a bunch of claims and don't even seem to consider filing a counterclaim, or think it's too risky based in bad info. Or, very very rarely, people who actually get sued.

by ikeboy 7y ago

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
    Most of the policies I'm referencing are a few years old. My reddit post I linked is from around a year ago and talks about all these policies except for the 7 day courtesy period, so I don't know exactly when that went into effect. Anyway, if people are linking articles from 2016 I'm going to point out the current state of the policies. >Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters) It's not forever, you can always file a counternotice after it's been taken down. But yes, you should be prepared to defend your business. You want passive income, you can be prepared to check your email at least once a week. > >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. That's a fair criticism. Presumably Youtube feels that they need a longer time to satisfy claimants and avoid DMCA filings. Remember, content ID claims do not harm the channel at all, so there's no real rush to get them removed except for getting the ad revenue out of escrow. >So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. On my reading you can keep uploading while the counternotice process continues. >Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube. Looks like Alex Mauer was involved in legal action https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-alex-mauer/ https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-ale.... Not familiar with the other case but looks like it's not obviously fair use to share leaked content, could be wrong. >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? What are they claiming? Have they claimed to have submitted a counternotice that was rejected? Can you link me to someone going through a timeline, with dates on what was disputed when, showing that Google FAQs are wrong? Because I've not seen that. I have seen someone posting about getting a counternotice rejected mistakenly and getting it overturned by tweeting at Youtube. And then there's the UMG exception as my first comment noted. But most horror stories I've seen are people who get a bunch of claims and don't even seem to consider filing a counterclaim, or think it's too risky based in bad info. Or, very very rarely, people who actually get sued.