Account suspended after 'information within legal request was fraudulent'

[sd007]

Did you state you are the owner or have permission while just used someone's video or music?

It was all my work and as said before used the same information as I needed to for previous counter notifications.[DOUBLEPOST=1528838468,1528838252][/DOUBLEPOST]

Did you actually own the video, or was it something either filmed at an event with your mobile, recorded from television and edited for YouTube, or was the video in question copied from another channel? Exactly what was in your video?

If you used third party copyright media and claimed to own it in your counter-notification, that is why you have been suspended. You've literally perjured yourself by telling a legal lie to YouTube.

If it has been 15 days without a reply, try waiting 30. If you don't get an answer by then, I'd say that YouTube has rejected your appeal and your channel and your YouTube adventure are both done forever. If you send multiple appeals, YouTube will see that as SPAM.

I didn’t lie in the counter notification and because it got passed on to the claimant it makes even less sense why they would suspend me. It’s been over 20 days now and still nothing, has anybody been through this before or know anyone that has? If they rejected it wouldn’t they email? I’ve read on the YT forum that it may take 28 days and others have said keep appealing every 7 days until they come back with an answer.

 

[Rambalac]

So, what was in the video?

 

[UKHypnotist]

Yes, you still haven't explained the content of your video. Both @Rambalac and I have seen many people say on the YouTube Help Forum "It was all my work", only to find out that the video in question did indeed contain third party content.

Just because a person made a video doesn't necessarily mean they hold all rights to its content.

 

[sd007]

It was a football interview video, which doesn't really get copyrighted.

Anyway, I think the issue here is they think i filed misleading information on my counter-notification? i.e my name etc. because its not like the claimants who blocked my video would contact YT saying they think my information was fraudulent. I just need to know how long this appeals take to review? Its been 3 and a half weeks now since my first appeal, I've replied to that email twice again after.

Also does it matter that my counter-notifcation got sent through originally?

 

[UKHypnotist]

It was a football interview video, which doesn't really get copyrighted.

Anyway, I think the issue here is they think i filed misleading information on my counter-notification? i.e my name etc. because its not like the claimants who blocked my video would contact YT saying they think my information was fraudulent. I just need to know how long this appeals take to review? Its been 3 and a half weeks now since my first appeal, I've replied to that email twice again after.

Also does it matter that my counter-notifcation got sent through originally?

It might indeed matter that the counter-notification was sent to the claimant. If the claimant was someone like Sony Media or Sky Sports, and you claimed the video was your creation, YouTube would have known the second you countered that it was a false claim. They may have asked the claimant for their broadcast rights, but it would only have been a formality.

You also seem to be confusing a copyright strike or claim with a copyright filing. One doesn't have a video posted to YouTube "get copyrighted", as copyright actually exists at and from the moment of creation of a piece of media. What happens is the video receives either a copyright claim, or in your case, a copyright strike.

As of the mid 2000s, formal filing of copyright for video media was no longer necessary; as most if not all government copyright offices recognized digital media as auto-copyrighted at the moment of creation. If you didn't perform and film this football interview yourself, it was certainly created by a sportscaster of a TV network; placing you in violation of the network's copyright at the moment you uploaded it to YouTube if you hadn't licensed it for re-broadcast.

All the network therefore had to do was inform YouTube they had not granted you a license, when you filed your counter-notification. It most likely has nothing to do with your name or address unless you deliberately falsified those.

Did you?

As we have said, wait for the full 28-30 business days. If you haven't heard anything by then, your YouTube adventure is over, as your channel won't be returned to you. One last pair of questions, however: 1. What did you give as your reason for counter-notification? 2. When YouTube asked you for your explanation after terminating your channel, what did you tell them as your appeal?

 

[Cephus]

@sd007 What was the legal request you were accused of sending fraudulent information in? Counter-notification, or copyright takedown? Please explain the circumstances completely, as simply posting YouTube's suspension email gives no information about what led to this happening.

According to YouTube's TOS: "If you think content is inappropriate, use the flagging feature to submit it for review by our YouTube staff." This is on the page that lists copyright as one of the inappropriate features.

 

[UKHypnotist]

According to YouTube's TOS: "If you think content is inappropriate, use the flagging feature to submit it for review by our YouTube staff." This is on the page that lists copyright as one of the inappropriate features.

Hi @Cephus

As much as I like you, you have something incorrect here. The OP never stated his content had been flagged; only that he had received a notice that his channel had been terminated for filing a fraudulent legal form. I therefore asked him what type of form he had filed: Copyright Takedown, or Counter-Notification.

I don't see what flagging inappropriate content has to do with anything here, and you also made a second mistake. Only a copyright owner or his legal representative may flag content for copyright violation, when found reposted without permission. If a non-owner does it, he can also get the fraudulent legal form termination stated in the original post.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

@UKHypnotist

I wonder if by "doesn't really get copyrighted" he meant "these types of videos don't really get claims on them". I've numerous times heard people say "this video was copyrighted" to mean "this video got a copyright claim on it". But your interpretation also sounds plausible for how he meant it.

What really stands out, though, is you, @sd007 said that all the content in your video was yours, and then here you say that it was an interview, I'm assuming recorded by someone else. And now that we have more information, I believe that this happened because it was forwarded to the claimant. Most likely, the claimant saw the counter notification and they told YouTube that it was false because you don't have the right to upload it. If they don't want to take you to court but still want to stop the video from going back up, the only real option claimants have is to say that the information in the counter notification was false. I've had this happen before and the counter notification went under review, but in my case, it always still went through. It sounds like in your case, YouTube agreed with the claimant. It may not be that you have false name and address. It may be that what you are saying in the counter notification (the reason for submitting one) isn't true.

 

[UKHypnotist]

wonder if by "doesn't really get copyrighted" he meant "these types of videos don't really get claims on them". I've numerous times heard people say "this video was copyrighted" to mean "this video got a copyright claim on it". But your interpretation also sounds plausible for how he meant it.

That was exactly what I was saying; following with full explanations of why his situation would happen the way it did. Now all we need to solve the case is what he said in the counter-notification, and what he said in his appeal-explanation to know how the story will end!

I guess I am just tired of people using the past tense verb form of copyright, when they should be saying they got a copyright claim or strike. It's been annoying me for years.

 

[sd007]

It might indeed matter that the counter-notification was sent to the claimant. If the claimant was someone like Sony Media or Sky Sports, and you claimed the video was your creation, YouTube would have known the second you countered that it was a false claim. They may have asked the claimant for their broadcast rights, but it would only have been a formality.

You also seem to be confusing a copyright strike or claim with a copyright filing. One doesn't have a video posted to YouTube "get copyrighted", as copyright actually exists at and from the moment of creation of a piece of media. What happens is the video receives either a copyright claim, or in your case, a copyright strike.

As of the mid 2000s, formal filing of copyright for video media was no longer necessary; as most if not all government copyright offices recognized digital media as auto-copyrighted at the moment of creation. If you didn't perform and film this football interview yourself, it was certainly created by a sportscaster of a TV network; placing you in violation of the network's copyright at the moment you uploaded it to YouTube if you hadn't licensed it for re-broadcast.

All the network therefore had to do was inform YouTube they had not granted you a license, when you filed your counter-notification. It most likely has nothing to do with your name or address unless you deliberately falsified those.

Did you?

As we have said, wait for the full 28-30 business days. If you haven't heard anything by then, your YouTube adventure is over, as your channel won't be returned to you. One last pair of questions, however: 1. What did you give as your reason for counter-notification? 2. When YouTube asked you for your explanation after terminating your channel, what did you tell them as your appeal?

So is it 28-30 business days or just normal days? And in my appeal I wrote that I had not provide any fraudulent information and was puzzled as to why they thought I did and it was the first time this has happened after filing a counter-notification.[DOUBLEPOST=1528937107,1528936912][/DOUBLEPOST]

@UKHypnotist

I wonder if by "doesn't really get copyrighted" he meant "these types of videos don't really get claims on them". I've numerous times heard people say "this video was copyrighted" to mean "this video got a copyright claim on it". But your interpretation also sounds plausible for how he meant it.

What really stands out, though, is you, @sd007 said that all the content in your video was yours, and then here you say that it was an interview, I'm assuming recorded by someone else. And now that we have more information, I believe that this happened because it was forwarded to the claimant. Most likely, the claimant saw the counter notification and they told YouTube that it was false because you don't have the right to upload it. If they don't want to take you to court but still want to stop the video from going back up, the only real option claimants have is to say that the information in the counter notification was false. I've had this happen before and the counter notification went under review, but in my case, it always still went through. It sounds like in your case, YouTube agreed with the claimant. It may not be that you have false name and address. It may be that what you are saying in the counter notification (the reason for submitting one) isn't true.

I have filed counter-notifications with them before and never had this issue.

Would it be worth trying to contact the company?