Is monetizing covers possible on YT?

[VidaDeJeremiah]

Incorrect!

It no longer matters if a song is in the public domain, or you have a license and commercial use rights. If you didn't write it, YouTube will not monetize it even after you reach the review threshold. Please read my earlier post thoroughly. And if you don't want to believe me, then go to either the now-retired YouTube Help Forum, or the new YouTube help community and have a good look around. The help community can be found by going to the address below.

support.google.com/youtube/community?hl=en

You’re in UK, I’m in US. I’m speaking from my experience. Yes, you can cover songs freely without licenses, but they’ll have claims, in order to avoid claims you have to get licenses from all parties involved not only from the writers of the songs, but producers, record labels etc.A single song can have many licenses. With these licenses you are free to cover the song and monetize. Public domain songs lyrics are free to use but composition and other factors keep a video from being fully copyright “unclaimable”, but if you change it up enough there’s a chance nobody claims them and you’re able to fully monetize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KatyAdelson]

Channels whose videos are mainly based on Public Domain Media being demonetized/rejected for "reuse".

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder if this might be happening to channels that upload old audio files of public domain songs? A lot of people assume that if the sheet music is in public domain, then the original recording must be, too, but it's not. Recordings of songs and sheet music of songs have different copyrights. Under current US copyright law, I don't think any audio recording made before 1972, regardless of how ancient it is, will enter public domain until 2067, or something like that. I'm not sure what the rules are for old video recordings. If someone is using old audio from 1890 or something (I wonder if they could record audio back then?? lol...), I can see the video being demonetized, but I think it'd be weird if one's own recording of a public domain song would be demonetized...

2. Channels with music videos backed by either Public Domain or even paid license photo stock being demonetized/rejected for "reuse" even though the music was original compositions by the channel owner.
3. Channels with original composition music videos based on paid license stock footage being demonetized/rejected for "reuse".

4. Channels using RF background music, or even music from the YouTube Audio Library being demonetized/rejected for "reuse".

I think there has to be something else going on with the channels that experienced this -- it seems too weird and extreme to me... YouTube wouldn't have anything to monetize since everyone seems to have used the YouTube music library at some point. I'd imagine that they made that library to be used by YouTubers needing background music for their videos, not to trick YouTubers into being rejected from monetization...??

Adsense is now targeting licensed media which is not owned by the video uploader. It's my guess they are trying to force us to do buyout licenses so that we actually have exclusive ownership of what we upload.

Hmm... that sounds like what I've heard about article 13. Maybe YouTube is just trying to get all the monetized content to fit with Article 13?? Maybe it will only apply to those in the EU?

I found this on the YouTube Forum (From https://support.google.com/youtube/forum/AAAAiuErobUUxfdrq_tAlM/?hl=en):

What about content ID claims, commercial use rights, or fair use? In most cases, even if you have licenses to use the content or your videos are protected by copyright laws, such as fair use, if the main purpose of your channel is to monetize other channels’ or sources’ content, then you won’t be eligible for YPP. You still need to be contributing to the value of that content in some way. Note: some of these videos may still be fine to remain up on YouTube!

What are some examples of content that would be removed for duplication?

• Appears to be automatically generated
  
  
• Pulled from third party sources with no content or narrative added by the creator
  
  
• Uploaded many times by multiple users and you’re not the original uploader
  
  
• Uploaded in a way that is trying to get around our copyright tools
  
  
• This Help Center article has more details!
  

If my channel was removed for duplication, what can I do? You can remove or update content to comply with our policies and reapply for YPP in 30 days. At that time, we will carefully review your application and channel again. Here are some best practices to get you started:

• Add commentary or show your presence in your videos (voice or on screen)
  
  
• Link back to your YouTube channel from your website
  
  
• Provide more context about your work in your video and channel descriptions
  
  
• Make sure the content on your channel aligns with our policies. You can review: Community Guidelines,AdSense Policies, andYouTube Partner Program policies.

When they outline the reasons to be rejected, it really does sound like they are targeting a bunch of spam channels -- I don't think they are trying to alienate people making content that has value. The "You still need to be contributing to the value of that content in some way" seems hopeful, as does the, "show your presence in your videos (voice or on screen)" -- I think both of those sentences sound positive for a lot channels.

Ultimately, I think it's important to find other ways to earn money from your content, and to focus on making YouTube a good place to market your stuff. With Adsense on my videos, I'm not making a boatload of money, lol. It'd be sad if it were to go, but I make more from selling music online... I mostly use YouTube to reach an audience.

Or maybe I should try vlogging lol. That seems to be the safest kind of content atm.

It may just be another case of a noobie bot that needs to be trained (kind of like when everyone's videos were flagged for monetization earlier). It stinks that they make it so rough for people to reapply after 30 days + wait out the big backlog, but I guess there really isn't any other way to do it.. :/

 

[UKHypnotist]

It may just be another case of a noobie bot that needs to be trained (kind of like when everyone's videos were flagged for monetization earlier). It stinks that they make it so rough for people to reapply after 30 days + wait out the big backlog, but I guess there really isn't any other way to do it.. :/

No Katy, the channel monetization reviews are being done by humans. In fact, when the backlog first bottlenecked around last March, YouTube actually hired on an extra 10,000 employees just to do channel reviews and nothing else.[DOUBLEPOST=1548067333,1548065606][/DOUBLEPOST]

You’re in UK, I’m in US. I’m speaking from my experience. Yes, you can cover songs freely without licenses, but they’ll have claims, in order to avoid claims you have to get licenses from all parties involved not only from the writers of the songs, but producers, record labels etc.A single song can have many licenses. With these licenses you are free to cover the song and monetize. Public domain songs lyrics are free to use but composition and other factors keep a video from being fully copyright “unclaimable”, but if you change it up enough there’s a chance nobody claims them and you’re able to fully monetize.

Something you're not aware of...

I live in the UK, yes; but...

I happen to be a US Citizen living abroad, and I hold several Sound Recording Copyrights which are at the Library Of Congress! I think therefore that I am fully aware of the copyright laws of the country I was born in; don't you?

The "changing up" you speak of, you had better define; and that right now!

The Creator Insider channel just recently spoke in a video about YouTube being more careful about catching people altering third party copyright media in order to avoid Content ID. I know what will draw claims; stop trying to copyright-educate an Intellectual Property Owner who is also a Silver Level Google Product Expert in the area of YouTube. Some of my actual areas of expertise happen to be Copyright and Trademark (scope, nearly worldwide), and YouTube TOS, Community Guidelines, and Partner Programme Rules and Guidelines.

 

[KatyAdelson]

No Katy, the channel monetization reviews are being done by humans. In fact, when the backlog first bottlenecked around last March, YouTube actually hired on an extra 10,000 employees just to do channel reviews and nothing else.

Do you know if it's manual for the initial review to enter the YPP, or is it also a manual review to remove a channel from the YPP? For some reason I thought people manually reviewed channels to enter the program, but that a bot was disqualifying current YT partners for things like "reuse." I don't know why I thought that...maybe because I'm mixing it up with the monetization fiasco from last year, lol...??

But I guess there really isn't much we can do except wait and see what unfolds next. Maybe nothing will happen with our channels! For now, I'm probably going to stick with my gut that says it'd be odd for a channel to be demonetized for creating versions of public domain music, using the YT music library, and performing a few covers. Maybe I'll regret it later, but time will tell! ^^

It almost makes me want to create a separate pop cover channel just to experiment and see if I could get it monetized... But that'd be a lot of extra work... x_x

 

[UKHypnotist]

Do you know if it's manual for the initial review to enter the YPP, or is it also a manual review to remove a channel from the YPP? For some reason I thought people manually reviewed channels to enter the program, but that a bot was disqualifying current YT partners for things like "reuse." I don't know why I thought that...maybe because I'm mixing it up with the monetization fiasco from last year, lol...??

But I guess there really isn't much we can do except wait and see what unfolds next. Maybe nothing will happen with our channels! For now, I'm probably going to stick with my gut that says it'd be odd for a channel to be demonetized for creating versions of public domain music, using the YT music library, and performing a few covers. Maybe I'll regret it later, but time will tell! ^^

It almost makes me want to create a separate pop cover channel just to experiment and see if I could get it monetized... But that'd be a lot of extra work... x_x

Thanks for asking Katy,

The way I understand it, both sets of reviews are being done by humans. Yes; it does seem very harsh that all of this is happening; but I am seeing the complaints on the Help Community with my own eyes.

At this point both badge-bearing Product Experts and non-experts are responding to the flood; and I will tell you one of the answers I am seeing from a non-badge bearer who has been a common respondent for several years goes something like this (to someone asking if he is likely to be monetized).

"You will not be monetized; none of the content on your channel is yours".

Apparently Adsense wants you to write your own music, and film your own visuals (facecam) or scenics...or put relevent commentary over third party media; but there is only so far you can take this.

For example: putting commentary over my self-composed music, or putting my face to the camera would spoil the whole effect I am trying for; it's a bloody music video!

I've seen channel after channel of ambient new age style music videos come complaining they've been demonetized for duplication or reuse (they exchanged reuse for duplication in November); and in the case of self-composed music, it's the visuals they are objecting to. Usually the creator has used still photo assets from someplace like Pixabay. I don't use photos without layering them in transparency with at least one motion video clip; so I might dodge the bullet for a little while longer.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Katy, Cyath et. al...

I just saw a post on the Support Community which is relevant to this thread. It seems that at least some currently monetized cover song channels are being demonetized in the existing partner channel review process.

I think we may now have the answer; and the answer seems to be that cover songs are no longer welcome in the YPP. Truncated link below (wish I could get to VIP point level faster...lol).

https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/1282138?hl=en

[Note: YTtalk staff updated the link to be clickable]

 

[ItsMeJackP]

I know this is slightly different to covers, but I've seen channels upload concert recordings, and as far as I know they're monetized for the uploader, but the record company (or whoever) takes a cut.
Covers are probably the same, I don't know, maybe the record company will take a cut. You say you want to cover songs, but do you write your own? If so, you could use covers to bring in viewers, and then monetize your own material.

 

[UKHypnotist]

I know this is slightly different to covers, but I've seen channels upload concert recordings, and as far as I know they're monetized for the uploader, but the record company (or whoever) takes a cut.
Covers are probably the same, I don't know, maybe the record company will take a cut. You say you want to cover songs, but do you write your own? If so, you could use covers to bring in viewers, and then monetize your own material.

You are incorrect.

The record company is taking all of the money in these cases. And if you use covers to bring in viewers and attempt only monetization of your own original compositions, that won't work anymore either.

Here is why...

A: YouTube now requires all content on a YPP applicant channel to be eligible for monetization upon channel compliance review.

B: The review teams as well as your content eligibility, now look at which content on your channel was likely to have produced most of your views and subscribers.

If most of your views and subs came from monetization-ineligible content, your YPP application will be rejected for reused content.

Before you try to say remove the non-eligible content before the review takes place, when you remove videos, those videos take their views and watchtime with them upon deletion. So removing your most popular content due to non-monetizabilty will drop you below the review threshold; and you will be back to square one.

 

[KatyAdelson]

I just saw a post on the Support Community which is relevant to this thread. It seems that at least some currently monetized cover song channels are being demonetized in the existing partner channel review process.

I suspect his "spam or repetitive" demonetization is because he posts every video twice -- once with the backing track + piano audio, and again (using the same exact video footage) with just the piano audio. I can see why someone would see that as "duplicate." A bot perhaps could even detect that the video footage is exactly the same for both videos and flag the channel.

Also, since the piano's timing is so perfect with the backing tracks, I somewhat suspect a midi file may be built from notation software instead of a physical keyboard. This might push the content to be considered to be in a "computer generated" category, too.

My content is also made with a computer, and I snap stuff to the beat because I'm terrible at piano and couldn't hold a proper tempo with a keyboard if my life depended on it. The ultimate result is a MIDI file, too...but a MIDI file made manually with a keyboard with notes snapped to the beat sounds slightly different and "more human" than a MIDI file exported from notation software (I've been there, done that, because I'm terrible at playing the piano and would much rather compose in notation software and export a midi file. But the manual midi, as terrible as I am with piano, does sound a lot "more human" and realistic). The file result for Synthesia (his piano playing visualization program) would also look more human if the notes were auto-snapped to the beat, but held for slightly different lengths. It's hard for me to describe, and I could be way off base... If he really does play that accurately, his content might be throwing the monetization people a curve by accident.

I don't think it is for being a cover though! At least, I hope that isn't the reason... It still stinks to be demonetized like that...

I would imagine he might gain monetization back if he stopped posting duplicate videos with the different audio, and perhaps filmed his hands playing a real piano to sync to the Synthesia footage...

 

[UKHypnotist]

We can only hope, Katy!

I had only noticed the thumbs; not the duplicate tracks. I was kinda tired when I saw/answered that thread too.

This makes me even more worried. If someone uses notation software to compose, and YouTube decides to consider that "computer generated content", that may also be a blow to YouTube Music content too.

I use two or three computer composition software suites myself; but none of them is notation software. Two produce Generative Music, and one creates Fractal Music; and all output to MIDI files. An example of my output is linked below without the http part.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Rz7hjXvMB4