Reapply for monetization while running a Youtube channel

[userpass]

Hello YTTalk!

I run a youtube music promotion channel that recently got demonitized for 'duplication'.

My channel is not small and receives around 500,000 views a day.

I have received permission for every song I uploaded and used stock images as backgrounds for the videos (Licensed stock images).

I contacted Google Support but the only reply I received was "Reapply in 30 days".

My question is, How do I know that Youtube will accept it to monetization?

I do not own the music no, But I get full permission to share it and around 85% of the time to monetize it as well.

When I now reapply in 30 days, What do I need to think of?
Checking what Google suggests is worthless "Remember to not share others content without permission",


Just gonna throw in a Edit here after checking with Google support regarding this.
Youtube creator support for partner article: 2490020
says that If we have received permission to use audio / visuals created by someone else:
You can monetize such content.

So when I have received full permission to use a song, It's allowed according to Youtube so don't say "It's not your content you can't monetize it".

I am simply following the Youtube guidelines.

 

[Wakanda]

500,000 views per day?

Wow!

Monetization is a privilege not a right.

It means there are no guarantees that you will ever be monetized even if you removed all content,made your own original content and hit 1M views per day

 

[PPM]

I'm having a similar issue. I agree with @Wakanda that there is no guarantees, but on the other hand, youtube is not giving a valid reasoning why monetization is disable, because "duplication" is invalid if you can't find a exact video uploaded previously on youtube.

In addition, why does this monetization disabled thing not happen to all promotion channels (including some very big ones)? And if it did happen to some of those big channels, how did they manage to resolve? Shouldn't all get the same "duplication" reason?

 

[Wakanda]

I'm having a similar issue. I agree with @Wakanda that there is no guarantees, but on the other hand, youtube is not giving a valid reasoning why monetization is disable, because "duplication" is invalid if you can't find a exact video uploaded previously on youtube.

In addition, why does this monetization disabled thing not happen to all promotion channels (including some very big ones)? And if it did happen to some of those big channels, how did they manage to resolve? Shouldn't all get the same "duplication" reason?

I have shared my theories here to the effect that Youtube is seeking to slow down uploads by frustrating monetization (delaying monetization,demonetization etc),which is the biggest motive for uploading. I think this is what is at play.

A friend lost a channel over spam yet he could not for the life of him identify exactly what content on his channel infracted these rules. Appeal fell on deaf ears.

Regarding duplication, does it mean that Youtube expects only one instance of upload of any video under all circumstances?

 

[cbpayne]

I have received permission for every song I uploaded and used stock images as backgrounds for the videos (Licensed stock images).,

Its does not matter if you have permission or not. The content is still not yours, so probably is never going to be approved for monetization due to "duplication"

 

[PPM]

I have shared my theories here to the effect that Youtube is seeking to slow down uploads by frustrating monetization (delaying monetization,demonetization etc),which is the biggest motive for uploading. I think this is what is at play.

I see, that sounds like a reasonable an good theory!

Regarding duplication, does it mean that Youtube expects only one instance of upload of any video under all circumstances?

Frankly I'm uncertain, as they do not mention if "duplication" indicates an exact copy of the video, or visually similar/same, or if audio is similar/same. But from what I understood "duplication" would be an exact copy of something, but English is not my first language so I may be wrong. =/[DOUBLEPOST=1535318653,1535318495][/DOUBLEPOST]

Its does not matter if you have permission or not. The content is still not yours, so probably is never going to be approved for monetization due to "duplication"

Of course it does, the youtube creator team is specifically saying that if you use other people's content, you will need permission. And if it does not matter like you say, then please explain why those bigger music channel is not being disabled monetizing?

 

[cbpayne]

Of course it does, the youtube creator team is specifically saying that if you use other people's content, you will need permission. And if it does not matter like you say, then please explain why those bigger music channel is not being disabled monetizing?

I don't make the policy and I have no idea why. YouTube has it policy guidelines and can choose to apply them or not. What matters is if your channel complies/is eligible or not. YouTube are not going to monetize a channel based on examples of others that are monetized.

1000's of channels are not being monetized for "duplication" as they have content on them that is not theirs. It does not matter if they have permission or not .... its not theirs.

I not here to argue this. Just look at what YouTube/Adsense is deciding not to monetize. 1000 of eg's in YouTube own "help" forum. This is why and this is what is happening. Does not matter if you or I agree or disagree with what is happening.

Added/Edited:
Sorry, PPM - I thought you were the OP that I was responding to!

 

[UKHypnotist]

Of course it does, the youtube creator team is specifically saying that if you use other people's content, you will need permission. And if it does not matter like you say, then please explain why those bigger music channel is not being disabled monetizing?

Have you ever thought about the possibility that the ads you see might be placed by Content ID, on behalf of the original copyright content owners?

In which case: every penny those channels are making, is going to someone else; and that someone is not the channel owner.

 

[Wakanda]

Just thinking loudly
If channels don’t have content ID then it means if their content is reuploaded they would have no way of knowing other than to manually search for it which can be difficult. This means if you are monetized you could milk all that content for all its worth and the owner has limited options.

Maybe here is where Youtube applies ‘duplication’. If they find content in your channel that matches content available elsewhere,they flag your channel,and if you keep doing it they either take down your channel or demonetize.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Just thinking loudly
If channels don’t have content ID then it means if their content is reuploaded they would have no way of knowing other than to manually search for it which can be difficult. This means if you are monetized you could milk all that content for all its worth and the owner has limited options.

Maybe here is where Youtube applies ‘duplication’. If they find content in your channel that matches content available elsewhere,they flag your channel,and if you keep doing it they either take down your channel or demonetize.

Searching for your own content is not as difficult as you might think, Wakanda. I've had to do it and also file manual takedowns a few times, when a couple of channels which no longer exist stole content wholesale from one of my channels and reposted it.

On your second statement, I think you are absolutely correct. However, YouTube is now also applying the "Duplication" label when individual components of a video are found elsewhere in quantity; things such as:

1. Static images used as video backgrounds for music

2. Free royalty free music which can be had for nothing

3. Public domain versions of the above

4. Obvious copyright broadcast clips used in video compilations

5. Obvious full reposts of videos found elsewhere on YouTube

On the fourth listing, it's my belief that YouTube is acting on the assumption that worldwide rebroadcast rights and commercial usage rights would be too expensive for a YouTuber desperate to be monetized to afford.