Does © Claim: monetize just seconds or whole video?

[Plasmaburndeath]

Hi Everyone, I just have a quick question about the Youtube copyright © claim system Adsense, that might shine light on how severe this system is.

 

     I have seen on Linus, and other videos recently about how the system flags one of your videos; that the system will show the claimed seconds or minutes of affected video in question.

It then gives option to ('remove music' ,or challenge\appeal, and of course you can ignore it if you want) 

I know that if no one challenges this claim, then the 'Adsense' goes to whomever made the claim.  But I can't find details on the affect. 
 

     What I would like to know is => does this mean the 'WHOLE' /; Or just the affected {Claimed} seconds or minutes of a video's Adsense go to the claimant? 

 

     So for Example: if someone  has a 30 minute video, and mistakenly plays 15 seconds of copyrighted music, And someone else *or the algorithm* does a copyright claim, and the person who made the 30 minute video does not remove or challenge the claim..,

Does that mean the 15 second claimant gets paid for their {A} Fractional amount of Adsense(15 seconds)     Or {B} does Claimant somehow get paid for not only the 15 seconds claimed but the WHOLE video including in this example the rest of the videos  29 minutes 45 seconds Technically NOT their work at that point?   

 

If the answer is {A} Then at least the system is fair on letting you pay someone for their work without you losing all your work if you want to keep your video 'True' to how it was made or your vision. 

But If answer is {B} Then in a way this would seem to me at least, to be very backwards logic. Suddenly someone can claim a small portion of work was used in something bigger; and get non-propositional rewards, of technically someone else's possibly greater 'Copyright' work if someone does not challenge the claim or remove it from the video once flagged.

 

Huge thanks for your work.

- All hail the algorithm

[Windows7ge]

From my understanding you lose all adsense on the video and any money made from it goes to the plaintiff. The length of video makes zero difference.

 

I don't make content though so people can challenge what I THINK I know.

[matt-fr]

On 2/20/2019 at 10:27 PM, Plasmaburndeath said:

{B} does Claimant somehow get paid for not only the 15 seconds claimed but the WHOLE video including in this example the rest of the videos  29 minutes 45 seconds Technically NOT their work at that point?   

The answer is B. The claimant get all the revenue of the video.

Some creators upload their videos unlisted for the first hours, before making it public. That lets the automatic Youtube Content ID system (the algorithm) analyze the video, to see if you used copyrighted work/music.

After people can manually claim the video. Some people/companies do that, even if they don't own anything, because they know they can get the hole revenue of a video.

 

Linus and Pewdiepie joked about claiming their own video, so others can't claim it. But it doesn't work that way : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6300781?hl=en

[Plasmaburndeath]

6 hours ago, matt-fr said:

The answer is B. The claimant get all the revenue of the video.

Some creators upload their videos unlisted for the first hours, before making it public. That lets the automatic Youtube Content ID system (the algorithm) analyze the video, to see if you used copyrighted work/music.

After people can manually claim the video. Some people/companies do that, even if they don't own anything, because they know they can get the hole revenue of a video.

 

Linus and Pewdiepie joked about claiming their own video, so others can't claim it. But it doesn't work that way : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6300781?hl=en

This is Crazy!  Again just my opinion: but... 

This would be like saying, if Robert Kearns fight against Ford, Chrysler and General Motors (and others); resulted in him suddenly getting 100% of the whole Revenue from the cars; that they sold using his Intermittent windshield wiper invention. (Without licensing It) instead of just his proportional $10.2 million win he actually got from Ford, the $30 million he got from Chrysler.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_Genius_(film)  

 

 

=> If possible I'm willing to bet Floatplane would attract tons of creators if they had a legal way to just put in a proportional honest, split of revenue from claimed copyright portions of videos. I think this would also reduce stress and aid creators of content to streamline making videos. Just an idea.  

 

 

P.S.  I know technically the Wiper case is 'Patent' vs 'Copyright'... however they are both 'IP'

- "The difference between copyrights and patents is the type of property they protect. Copyrights and patents are legal designations granted to intellectual property holders, designed to protect such property from being copied, sold or used in any way without owner authorization. Intellectual property can include inventions, certain types of discoveries, written or recorded work, paintings, drawings, plans, designs and other original creations and ideas." 

Ref. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-copyrights-patents-3220.html 

 

 

 

 

[Evanair]

Considering a half-good lawyer can put you in the poor house for the rest of your life for a copyright claim, losing the AdSense to one video is pretty small in comparison.

 

Copyright law is no joke, it's rarely inforced as it's written.