4 ms·

> So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of ads running on our new production of a

> So, until the 30-day appeal period (appeals are to the claimant!) expires, some copyright troll is making money off of ads running on our new production of a public domain opera. Can someone explain how the copyright trolls are able to steal the ad revenue? Do they upload a different video with the "copyrighted" material, or make money off of the one uploaded by the defendant?

AlexAndScripts 5y ago
The latter.
leeter 5y ago
They make money off the one uploaded and inappropriately claimed until they release the claim (and the money) or decline the counter-claim. They also have an option to claim a strike against the flagged work.
bonzini 5y ago
The latter. If a creator uses copyrighted (or allegedly copyrighted) material, ad revenue goes to the copyright owner.
- dspillett 5y ago
  > to the copyright owner The copyright claimant, which may or may not actually own any such right.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    Example: copyright trolls claiming videos that use public domain NASA footage.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    Yeah that was implicit in the "allegedly" part.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gumby 5y ago
The troll files a copyright claim against the PD post, then gets the ad revenue from the PD post rather than the post's author. Since there's no penalty for the troll, and possible upside, why not do if you have no ethics anyway?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bryan0 5y ago
  Does the ad revenue go to some sort of an escrow until the claim is settled? Otherwise this doesn't seem to make any sense (??)
  - gumby 5y ago
    If Youtube cared they would do something like this excellent idea.
  - pitaj 5y ago
    Yes it does, this is one of the recent changes to the system.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Filing the copyright claim requires identifying information from the claimant. If the ad revenue is valuable enough, the posting creator should have a decent case for fraud.
  - gumby 5y ago
    But a few thousand bucks isn't enough to sue, while a robot can mass collect a few thousand bucks from a bunch of victims at one time.

AlexAndScripts 5y ago

The latter.

leeter 5y ago

They make money off the one uploaded and inappropriately claimed until they release the claim (and the money) or decline the counter-claim. They also have an option to claim a strike against the flagged work.

bonzini 5y ago

The latter. If a creator uses copyrighted (or allegedly copyrighted) material, ad revenue goes to the copyright owner.

dspillett 5y ago
> to the copyright owner The copyright claimant, which may or may not actually own any such right.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  Example: copyright trolls claiming videos that use public domain NASA footage.
- bonzini 5y ago
  Yeah that was implicit in the "allegedly" part.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gumby 5y ago

The troll files a copyright claim against the PD post, then gets the ad revenue from the PD post rather than the post's author. Since there's no penalty for the troll, and possible upside, why not do if you have no ethics anyway?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bryan0 5y ago
Does the ad revenue go to some sort of an escrow until the claim is settled? Otherwise this doesn't seem to make any sense (??)
- gumby 5y ago
  If Youtube cared they would do something like this excellent idea.
- pitaj 5y ago
  Yes it does, this is one of the recent changes to the system.
mcguire 5y ago
Filing the copyright claim requires identifying information from the claimant. If the ad revenue is valuable enough, the posting creator should have a decent case for fraud.
- gumby 5y ago
  But a few thousand bucks isn't enough to sue, while a robot can mass collect a few thousand bucks from a bunch of victims at one time.