If You Choose To Deliberately Use Copyright Media On YouTube

[Shendijiro]

Oh god, hopefully my nintendo gameplay will stay safe .-. just a few get claim because of the music usage and I was using the nintendo creators program, so hopefully that wont be a mess for me and by using the program we are safe.

 

[Wakanda]

Really not funny at all.

With a major network like ABC, one would need to clear re-broadcast rights before posting any network news excerpt. Was this a Content ID claim, or an actual copyright strike? If you didn't purchase a license, and you found a way to download from the YouTube White House channel, you stand to be in even more trouble...

Downloading YouTube videos is a violation of the YouTube Terms of Service.

In any case, unless you downloaded a direct White House archive from whitehouse dot gov, there is no way you should have disputed this claim; you didn't possess the rights to uphold the dispute.

Content ID it was.
I got it off Facebook Live. The reason I’m contesting is because neither ABC posses the right to the ID claim,and it may affect my eligibility for monetization if I let it pass.

It’s nothing much but thinking about it, White House does not sell these rights; they just invite media houses who then stamp the videos with their logos. Mine had nothing but White House.

I think it was erroneous. Sometimes back I shared a short clip from International Criminal Court presser and an obscure Chinese channel had this claim. I wrote to them and they promptly dropped it.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Content ID it was.
I got it off Facebook Live. The reason I’m contesting is because neither ABC posses the right to the ID claim,and it may affect my eligibility for monetization if I let it pass.

It’s nothing much but thinking about it, White House does not sell these rights; they just invite media houses who then stamp the videos with their logos. Mine had nothing but White House.

I think it was erroneous. Sometimes back I shared a short clip from International Criminal Court presser and an obscure Chinese channel had this claim. I wrote to them and they promptly dropped it.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this; but the invited media journalists bring their own cameras and microphones when invited to a Presidential Conference. This makes the recordings done with those channel owned cameras and microphones the Intellectual Property of the network which recorded the event. Multiple networks can create their own recording of each event, so there is possibly more than one copyright involved, according to the number of network cameras present.

If it is an ABC recording, containing ABC's logo, then the claim is correct; and your taking it from Facebook was an act of theft, unless you obtained both written permission and rebroadcast rights before uploading it to YouTube. You should have gotten permission anyway, no matter who the broadcaster was.

Only the White House's own recording of the event wouldn't fall under copyright, as the US Government is forbidden by law to copyright its own produced documents and media. The White House also has its own YouTube channel so you may also get hit with a video duplication charge by YouTube itself.

It's really much better to create your own videos, not take the work of other people if you plan to monetize a YouTube channel. Also disputing a CID claim when the rights to the claimed video aren't yours to begin with, is a dangerous move; and shouldn't be done simply in an attempt to clear a claim.

Please let us know the eventual result of your dispute.

 

[Wakanda]

Only the White House's own recording of the event wouldn't fall under copyright, as the US Government is forbidden by law to copyright its own produced documents and media.

That’s my point. Only White House can legitimately issue a CID claim on President Trump’s speech shared by White House Press. Any other is spurious.

You are right. The only way to grow consistently on YouTube is making your own content

 

[UKHypnotist]

That’s my point. Only White House can legitimately issue a CID claim on President Trump’s speech shared by White House Press. Any other is spurious.

You are right. The only way to grow consistently on YouTube is making your own content

@Wakanda My apologies for the late reply; I've been experiencing hardware issues.

I must regretfully correct your statements, as you have the situation reversed.

The White House cannot issue a CID claim. Any US Government entity or department is forbidden by law, copyright of government originated documents or media.

By contrast, any private media channel, such as a major broadcast television network, does hold copyright in media it records with its own cameras and microphones, even if the broadcast originates in or from a US Government office or department.

Good luck with development of your unique and original channel content!

 

[HiTech Central]

There is a new demonetization move being made by YouTube in the wake of the new rules. If you use copyright media and simply choose to accept any claims made against your videos, you need to be aware of this new move. It is indeed briefly stated in the YouTube Help section, but until now has never been broadly enforced.

YouTube is now sending out emails declaring channels which consist largely of copyright media ineligible for monetization. There are two forms these emails take: one will allow the channel owner to reapply to the YouTube Partner Program once 30 days have passed, and is accompanied by a change to the Monetization channel Feature Box which states "This channel is currently ineligible for monetization. Learn More". The second one will say that the owner is being disabled for "repeated submission of ineligible material and/or insufficient documentation"; and is accompanied by a change to the Monetization Feature Box which states the same, and will not allow the channel owner to reapply to the YPP with that channel.

In addition, channels consisting largely of copyright media are showing up with the following Monetization Feature Box Statment: "Monetization has been disabled on this channel due to Adsense Policy Violation", though that statement may also appear for other reasons. People seem to forget that attempted monetization of third party copyright media, without proper licensing and obtaining Commercial Use Rights violates Adsense Policy as well as YouTube Partner Program Policy.

In closing, I just want to warn all here that using copyright music or video and hoping to get away with just a CID claim is no longer the safest road if you want to retain your YouTube Monetization.

If my content is mostly copied, but I don't have any claims for it, am I in danger to not get approved for monetization?

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

So far every one of my monetization review requests have turned up suitable for all advertisers. I just had 2 happen this last week, in fact. It's possible that these 2 are unrelated, though.

Does regularly disputing claims remove you from this category of "consisting largely of copyright media"? Like, do you have to just let the claims remain for you to be labeled as such?

 

[UKHypnotist]

If my content is mostly copied, but I don't have any claims for it, am I in danger to not get approved for monetization?

Yes you are. If your channel gets reviewed and you are already monetized, you are likely to lose it. If you have only made your initial application to the YPP, you are likely to be refused monetization with that channel.[DOUBLEPOST=1524585269,1524584988][/DOUBLEPOST]

So far every one of my monetization review requests have turned up suitable for all advertisers. I just had 2 happen this last week, in fact. It's possible that these 2 are unrelated, though.

Does regularly disputing claims remove you from this category of "consisting largely of copyright media"? Like, do you have to just let the claims remain for you to be labeled as such?

This has nothing to do with the yellow dollar sign, @Idec Sdawkminn.

If you regularly receive Content ID claims and successfully dispute them this may act in your favour. Uncontested and unsuccessful claims will work against a channel. YouTube is now also reviewing monetized channels and sending out the aformentioned emails to existing partners; thus removing them from the YPP.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

I see. Well that's good. Every claim I receive gets disputed and ultimately won by me. I even had a letter threatening they would sue me if I didn't retract my counter-notification. I got this from Ace of Base. Dudes, submitting the counter-notification is me saying to sue me if you want to keep it down. Threatening just shows your weak hand. Nothing happened from it.

 

[UKHypnotist]

I see. Well that's good. Every claim I receive gets disputed and ultimately won by me. I even had a letter threatening they would sue me if I didn't retract my counter-notification. I got this from Ace of Base. Dudes, submitting the counter-notification is me saying to sue me if you want to keep it down. Threatening just shows your weak hand. Nothing happened from it.

Good for you! Keep your fingers crossed, as I have no idea where this new path will lead.