Reapply for monetization while running a Youtube channel

[Wakanda]

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.

Thanks.
On your second point regarding royalty free music. I keep on seeing this notice on my browser when I visit Studio of more royalty free music.

Do you mean using thst music on your videos can actually work against your monetization quest?

 

[UKHypnotist]

Thanks.
On your second point regarding royalty free music. I keep on seeing this notice on my browser when I visit Studio of more royalty free music.

Do you mean using thst music on your videos can actually work against your monetization quest?

Yes!

The YouTube audio library used to be called "Audio Swap"; and it was understood even back in those days, that using material from it would result in a non-monetizable video. Quite a few of the audio tracks in there come from Digital Audio Distributors such as CDBaby, who monetize the music on behalf of the releasing artist. This is why when you look at the policies you will see such things as country-specific viewing restrictions and the blurb "ads may appear".

The music in videos which use such tracks will immediately be hit with a Content ID claim and monetized on behalf of the artist who composed, recorded and released the track through their chosen distributor.

If the track isn't sourced from a Digital Distributor, it's still not safe to use if you want a monetized channel; as tracks from the Audio Library appear so often in videos that sooner or later everyone who relies on the Audio Library for the bulk of their background music will be demonetized for "Duplication".

 

[Wakanda]

Let’s just say that if you use others’ work on your channel, you risk losing out on monetization. No point whining about unfairness. You made your bed, lie on it.

I am not complaining

 

[SpitItOutProductions]

The question is, will these kind of de-monitizations and/or strict rules apply a much slimmer and controlled Youtube?
If so, will the quality of the search results be narrowed and more accurate?
I believe these questions are important to ask yourself when uploading content.

Youtube is a little bit more like Hollywood everyday, like JFK said, 'It's not about what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country."
I think this is the spirit Youtube will be aiming at in 2018, they want exclusive quality content with originality.

Just thinking out loud I guess.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Youtube is a little bit more like Hollywood everyday, like JFK said, 'It's not about what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country."
I think this is the spirit Youtube will be aiming at in 2018, they want exclusive quality content with originality.

Just thinking out loud I guess.

The problem with your statement regarding Hollywood is that even that so-called "hallowed district" depends on stock media for the majority of movies produced by major studios. If you don't believe me, work up the patience to sit through the full end credits of a few movies released on DVD.

I think this is not YouTube's doing, but Adsense's: they seem to be ones who are the sticklers for "totally original content"; as evidenced by the posts to the Adsense product forum by website owners being rejected for ad service on their websites, and the replies by the TCs of that forum.

I think that YouTube under Adsense's influence, may have actually come to the erroneous conclusion that it is better than both Hollywood and the majority of broadcast TV networks, all of which rely heavily on stock media; and that it has no need of users who act as the media majors do.

And if this is actually the case, I think the admin have shot themselves in both virtual feet. The trickle of disgusted creators leaving after lengthy fruitless waits for an answer to their YPP membership applications is slowly growing to a fast moving stream as creators who've been rejected on the grounds of Duplication not just once, but multiple times join the exodus.

Soon it will be a flood; and if nothing changes still, it may turn into a full fledged rout.

Those who reupload wholesale from other YouTube channels' content or commit flagrant copyright violation deserve their fate; those who are being demonetized simply because they've used stock media which might appear elsewhere on YouTube in a different framework and context don't, in my humble opinion.

 

[Wakanda]

Those who reupload wholesale from other YouTube channels' content or commit flagrant copyright violation deserve their fate; those who are being demonetized simply because they've used stock media which might appear elsewhere on YouTube in a different framework and context don't, in my humble opinion.

Wholly agreed.
What they should have ramped up is Content ID algorithms such that most if not all violators lose revenue. Because violators will quickly learn it is futile copying content. That is if the whole idea is to discourage duplication. Hours on duplicated content should also not count towards meeting the minimum requirements for monetization.

To be honest, totally original content on Youtube is not that much,or may be less than Youtube estimates.

 

[FuzzyHead]

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"

Which is fair enough, but I've just had exactly the same thing happen to my meditation channel & all the recording are original & made by me.

They say I can reapply in 30 days, but give no explanation (other than duplication) as to what needs changing .. more to the point, why should I have to change anything, it's all my own original material.

The reason (I think) this has happened is because YouTube must have used some sort of automated program to demonetize loads of channels & in doing so, it's made some mistakes. Which is understandable, but that doesn't help me if I can't appeal against it.

 

[cbpayne]

From what I see is channels with a lot of gameplay videos without unique commentary are also being demonetized for "duplication" ... maybe the mediation channel not getting monetized due to that very wide interpretation of the word "duplication".
Also, its YouTube's interpretation of that word that matters, not yours or mine.

used some sort of automated program to demonetize loads of channels & in doing so, it's made some mistakes.

I doubt that.
The reason for the new criteria for monetization was to do manual reviews to assess how valuable the video/channels are to the advertiser.
The reason why it has been taking so long is becasue they were probably doing the manual reviews and its taking so long. If it was algorithmic, it would have been a lot quicker.[DOUBLEPOST=1535576054,1535575422][/DOUBLEPOST]

Wholly agreed.
What they should have ramped up is Content ID algorithms such that most if not all violators lose revenue. Because violators will quickly learn it is futile copying content. That is if the whole idea is to discourage duplication. Hours on duplicated content should also not count towards meeting the minimum requirements for monetization.

To be honest, totally original content on Youtube is not that much,or may be less than Youtube estimates.

When it comes to Adsense for websites, more than 95% of new applications are being rejected.

The putative reasons for that is going to have to apply to YouTube channels at some stage in the future becasue:

1) Adsnsee for websites was "easy" money, so that led to a zillion new MFA (made for adsense) websites being created that added no value to the web. Google had to act to stop that proliferation of "duplicated" and useless website content. More and more YouTube channels are just MFA's - they really offering no value to the ecosystem --> YouTube may have to act to stem that in the future.

2) Some website niches (eg recipes, tech) seem to be automatically rejected for Adsense or have an extremely high bar to cross to get approved - that is because the inventory of advertisers for any niche is limited, so the supply of websites that want Adsense in those niches has to be restricted by Adsense. The same thing is going to have to happen eventually to YouTube. The number of generic advertisers (eg Wix) is limited; more and more advertisers on YouTube are going to want to target specific to get a better return on what they spend per click - the supply of advertisers in some niches is going to be limited ----- YouTube is going to have to ration that supply somehow by demonetizing more channels/videos.

3) More and more crap website were being produced expecting to get adsense. The same is happening on YouTube. It can't keep going. The criteria of 4000/1000 was probably the first step on that rationing process.

 

[PPM]

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.

Yes, i have thought of that, and that's when i went on socialblade and check on the stats. If the channel's owner is not making money off other people's music and if the ads appear is on behalf of the original copyright content owners, then the income should be zero. And right now quite some bigger music channels still generate income according to socialblade, so i assume they are not demonetized.

---

After reading all your replies, i have got a better understanding on how youtube's algorithm works today! Thanks for the good read!

 

[Wakanda]

If the channel's owner is not making money off other people's music and if the ads appear is on behalf of the original copyright content owners, then the income should be zero.

Wrong

Social blade estimates and metrics are not in any way based on monetization.