- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 33
Hi. My username is Actar. While I mainly specialize in toy/action figure reviews, I've begun to branch out into anime reviews. Unfortunately, one of my review videos was hit by a takedown request from Toei and my channel received a strike. Even after filing a counter notification, YouTube rejected my appeal without even forwarding it to the claimant. Before anyone says that Japan doesn't care about fair use, please read on.
The video in question was a review video with the express purposes of critiquing an episode of the television series Digimon Adventure:. Video clips from the original source were not used in whole, but were carefully selected and remixed to be used as visual aids and reference for my original commentary and critique. Essentially, for the entirety of the video, I have added new insights and understandings to the original work. In addition, due to the nature of the clips being deliberately cut up and used without any accompanying audio from the original source, the review video does not in any way serve as a market substitute of the original (of which the video used a very small part of) at all as people would have to have first watched the original to fully understand or appreciate my commentary.
My video did not overstep any boundaries nor did I do anything different from other content creators who do reviews on various movies or anime series (The Nostalgia Critic, Gigguk, Mother's Basement, etc...). In fact, Billiam, who also reviews the Digimon series, has all his videos up without any issues (full list here). Our videos are of the exact same format and style - audio commentary and critique over edited footage of the original material. His videos are much longer than mine and have hundreds of thousands of views, totaling millions, which is arguably far, far more egregious than my video by any metric. Despite this, even after exchanging numerous e-mails with YouTube's support staff, they still won't lend me any kind of help or useful advice, replying with only blatant copy and pastes of the original e-mail: "Based on the information you provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube". Does Billiam? Does The Nostalgia Critic? Does Gigguk? Does Mother's Basement?
Even if we assume all of them don't, the treatment I'm getting by YouTube is markedly different from other documented high profile cases involving bigger YouTubers and copyright strikes relating to anime. For instance, YouTube invalidated Studio Ghibli's claim on The Nostalgia Critic's My Neighbor Totoro review. There was a video from the YouTube channel AnimeAmerica that also received a takedown notice from Toei. Unlike my video, YouTube was 100% on her side and got her video reinstated and her strike removed. Not only are our videos of the exact same format and style, this time, the claimant is also the same. Why is it that YouTube supported her but is not willing to support me? Is it because of the subscriber count? Is it because I don't have the backing of an MCN? Is my video or channel not worth YouTube’s time or effort?
I understand that YouTube has to appease the companies and copyright holders. That's fine. However, this is a rather clear cut issue of double standards and I would appreciate some explanation as to why YouTube has thrown me under the bus in this particular situation. Their review system is so opaque that it leaves one feeling both helpless, frustrated and indignant. All I want is one simple explanation as to why my video is being treated differently. "Nostalgia Critic's video did A, B and C, whereas your video did D, E and F. Therefore, we can’t reinstate your video". At the end of the day, I am not against my video being taken down. If it's truly inappropriate or in violation, fair enough. I'll gladly take the strike as a lesson learned. However, if no reason can be provided, other such videos really shouldn't have been allowed or restored.
Regardless, my only recourse was e-mailing the claimant directly to ask for a retraction of their takedown request. So I did. The beautiful thing is... their provided e-mail address was an invalid one. Are these e-mails and/or copyright claimants not validated by YouTube before approving their strikes? How is that not broken or unfair if these e-mails are provided for the express purposes of contacting the claimants directly?
If anyone has any advice or opinions on the matter, I'm all ears. Thank you so much for reading all the way to the end. You've already done more for me than YouTube ever has.
The video in question was a review video with the express purposes of critiquing an episode of the television series Digimon Adventure:. Video clips from the original source were not used in whole, but were carefully selected and remixed to be used as visual aids and reference for my original commentary and critique. Essentially, for the entirety of the video, I have added new insights and understandings to the original work. In addition, due to the nature of the clips being deliberately cut up and used without any accompanying audio from the original source, the review video does not in any way serve as a market substitute of the original (of which the video used a very small part of) at all as people would have to have first watched the original to fully understand or appreciate my commentary.
My video did not overstep any boundaries nor did I do anything different from other content creators who do reviews on various movies or anime series (The Nostalgia Critic, Gigguk, Mother's Basement, etc...). In fact, Billiam, who also reviews the Digimon series, has all his videos up without any issues (full list here). Our videos are of the exact same format and style - audio commentary and critique over edited footage of the original material. His videos are much longer than mine and have hundreds of thousands of views, totaling millions, which is arguably far, far more egregious than my video by any metric. Despite this, even after exchanging numerous e-mails with YouTube's support staff, they still won't lend me any kind of help or useful advice, replying with only blatant copy and pastes of the original e-mail: "Based on the information you provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube". Does Billiam? Does The Nostalgia Critic? Does Gigguk? Does Mother's Basement?
Even if we assume all of them don't, the treatment I'm getting by YouTube is markedly different from other documented high profile cases involving bigger YouTubers and copyright strikes relating to anime. For instance, YouTube invalidated Studio Ghibli's claim on The Nostalgia Critic's My Neighbor Totoro review. There was a video from the YouTube channel AnimeAmerica that also received a takedown notice from Toei. Unlike my video, YouTube was 100% on her side and got her video reinstated and her strike removed. Not only are our videos of the exact same format and style, this time, the claimant is also the same. Why is it that YouTube supported her but is not willing to support me? Is it because of the subscriber count? Is it because I don't have the backing of an MCN? Is my video or channel not worth YouTube’s time or effort?
I understand that YouTube has to appease the companies and copyright holders. That's fine. However, this is a rather clear cut issue of double standards and I would appreciate some explanation as to why YouTube has thrown me under the bus in this particular situation. Their review system is so opaque that it leaves one feeling both helpless, frustrated and indignant. All I want is one simple explanation as to why my video is being treated differently. "Nostalgia Critic's video did A, B and C, whereas your video did D, E and F. Therefore, we can’t reinstate your video". At the end of the day, I am not against my video being taken down. If it's truly inappropriate or in violation, fair enough. I'll gladly take the strike as a lesson learned. However, if no reason can be provided, other such videos really shouldn't have been allowed or restored.
Regardless, my only recourse was e-mailing the claimant directly to ask for a retraction of their takedown request. So I did. The beautiful thing is... their provided e-mail address was an invalid one. Are these e-mails and/or copyright claimants not validated by YouTube before approving their strikes? How is that not broken or unfair if these e-mails are provided for the express purposes of contacting the claimants directly?
If anyone has any advice or opinions on the matter, I'm all ears. Thank you so much for reading all the way to the end. You've already done more for me than YouTube ever has.
Last edited by a moderator: