Google removes monetization for some manual copyright claims

[bobbyflo]

Quote

...going forward, our policies will forbid copyright owners from using our Manual Claiming tool to monetize creator videos with very short or unintentional uses of music. This change only impacts claims made with the Manual Claiming tool, where the rightsholder is actively reviewing the video...

While, rights holders will still be allowed to block the video from being monetized at all, this change looks to remove the incentive labels had of digging thru and claiming everything under the sun. I'm not a content creater, but I remember during a WAN show, Linus giving an example of a half second audio clip of a popular meme causing their entire video to loose monetization and the frustration was palpable. The change doesn't go into effect until mid September, but I feel like it should be pretty big if the systems the labels have set up to make these manual claims won't be able to pay for themselves anymore. 

 

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-manual-claiming-policies.html

[GrockleTD]

1 minute ago, bobbyflo said:

While, rights holders will still be allowed to block the video from being monetized at all, this change looks to remove the incentive labels had of digging thru and claiming everything under the sun. I'm not a content creater, but I remember during a WAN show, Linus giving an example of a half second audio clip of a popular meme causing their entire video to loose monetization and the frustration was palpable. The change doesn't go into effect until mid September, but I feel like it should be pretty big if the systems the labels have set up to make these manual claims won't be able to pay for themselves anymore. 

 

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-manual-claiming-policies.html

do we know if this covers GTA V? (i.e. you get into a car, and the radio plays for half a second before you can turn it off, have been demonetized before from that)

[vorticalbox]

What we really need for there to be real consequences for incorrect  claims made, as it stands you can use tool to auto client 100s or 1000s of videos, which take money from the video and once is disputed  the ads are back but there is nothing done to prevent this abuse.

[RejZoR]

It was idiotic as it is. Oh, you used a copyrighted 10 second audio/video clip in a 30 minute video that took you hours to record, edit and upload. Well, fuck you, we're claiming it all and taking all your revenue for whole 30 minutes of your own work. That's such a ridiculous design it's not only sad, but also hilarious at very same time. I've watched few times what kind of crap AngryJoe has to go through and he's not the only one although he's among larger profile Youtubers and he at least has some connections. Imagine you don't know anyone to report or complain. And these mega corporations just feed on your work. Ultimately, Youtube doesn't give a shit coz they get their cut either way. And since they are the video monopoly, they know users won't go elsewhere, which is why they give even less fuck about it.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It was idiotic as it is. Oh, you used a copyrighted 10 second audio/video clip in a 30 minute video that took you hours to record, edit and upload. Well, fuck you, we're claiming it all and taking all your revenue for whole 30 minutes of your own work. That's such a ridiculous design it's not only sad, but also hilarious at very same time. I've watched few times what kind of crap AngryJoe has to go through and he's not the only one although he's among larger profile Youtubers and he at least has some connections. Imagine you don't know anyone to report or complain. And these mega corporations just feed on your work. Ultimately, Youtube doesn't give a shit coz they get their cut either way. And since they are the video monopoly, they know users won't go elsewhere, which is why they give even less fuck about it.

Yeah I can understand making the video not have monetization but stealing the revenue seems like a bad idea to begin with tbh unless it is a complete RIP off of someone else's work. 

[ThePD]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It was idiotic as it is. Oh, you used a copyrighted 10 second audio/video clip in a 30 minute video that took you hours to record, edit and upload. Well, fuck you, we're claiming it all and taking all your revenue for whole 30 minutes of your own work. That's such a ridiculous design it's not only sad, but also hilarious at very same time. I've watched few times what kind of crap AngryJoe has to go through and he's not the only one although he's among larger profile Youtubers and he at least has some connections. Imagine you don't know anyone to report or complain. And these mega corporations just feed on your work. Ultimately, Youtube doesn't give a shit coz they get their cut either way. And since they are the video monopoly, they know users won't go elsewhere, which is why they give even less fuck about it.

Happened to YongYea as well.

What was Google's mission again? "Don't Be Evil"...

[vorticalbox]

3 minutes ago, ThePD said:

Happened to YongYea as well.

What was Google's mission again? "Don't Be Evil"...

Also happened to mumbo jumbo because the music he had the rights to use in his intro has sound bites the artist used which he didn't have rights for.

[RejZoR]

39 minutes ago, ThePD said:

Happened to YongYea as well.

What was Google's mission again? "Don't Be Evil"...

"Don't be evil" doesn't stand anymore for very long time. They even removed it from their company MO page.

 

Today it's "Don't get caught being evil". Though it's slowly shifting towards "We don't give a fuck if you think we're evil" coz they are so big and everyone just uses them by default despite numerous alternative (and better) options.

[LAwLz]

This is a great love in the right direction. 

This, plus the chance to copyright claims having to specify exactly which part of the video contains copyrighted material, and editing tools to remove it, is fantastic news. 

 

It will hopefully reduce the number of crazy claims by a lot. 

[bobbyflo]

2 hours ago, GrockleTD said:

do we know if this covers GTA V? (i.e. you get into a car, and the radio plays for half a second before you can turn it off, have been demonetized before from that)

The phrasing of the blog post makes me think that this change would cover these situations

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This is a great love in the right direction. 

This, plus the chance to copyright claims having to specify exactly which part of the video contains copyrighted material, and editing tools to remove it, is fantastic news. 

 

It will hopefully reduce the number of crazy claims by a lot. 

While I agree, most of these systems should have been in place ages ago. For all of YT's brilliant tech, they always lump all channels together when their data can clearly sort them properly to allow for differential effects of their systems. 

 

Well, I guess not all channels. I believe its Viacom holds the Sword of Damocles over YT, so they get to do as they please. (YT might have enough systems in place, now, to avoid 100s of Billions in losses in a Copyright Lawsuit from the major IP holders now, but Google doesn't want to risk that. This is why YT acts the way they do.)

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, bobbyflo said:

While, rights holders will still be allowed to block the video from being monetized at all, this change looks to remove the incentive labels had of digging thru and claiming everything under the sun. I'm not a content creater, but I remember during a WAN show, Linus giving an example of a half second audio clip of a popular meme causing their entire video to loose monetization and the frustration was palpable. The change doesn't go into effect until mid September, but I feel like it should be pretty big if the systems the labels have set up to make these manual claims won't be able to pay for themselves anymore. 

 

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-manual-claiming-policies.html

It will just shift things around, so instead of allowing carte blanche manual claims, the copyright holder has to actually let ContentID find it by uploading the media in question. 

 

What they should be doing is allowing the video uploader and the supposed rights owner brought to a virtual negotiation table like you would in a PayPal dispute, and just hold money on claims until a licence is worked out, or it can be proven the claimant doesn't have the rights to begin with. 

 

Like, I kid you not, there are people who monetize covers of commercially released music, and you can re-generate these exact covers using MIDI files that have been on the internet for decades, or exist in existing midi libraries.

[bobbyflo]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

It will just shift things around, so instead of allowing carte blanche manual claims, the copyright holder has to actually let ContentID find it by uploading the media in question. 

 

What they should be doing is allowing the video uploader and the supposed rights owner brought to a virtual negotiation table like you would in a PayPal dispute, and just hold money on claims until a licence is worked out, or it can be proven the claimant doesn't have the rights to begin with. 

 

Like, I kid you not, there are people who monetize covers of commercially released music, and you can re-generate these exact covers using MIDI files that have been on the internet for decades, or exist in existing midi libraries.

I'll be the first to bash on google and youtube specifically with how they've handled things in recent years, but with how easy it would be to automatically upload music or use it for legitimate copyright breaking reasons, technically speaking I think we're way past the point of some sort of 'virtual negotiation table'. Like there's way too many cases to cover, youtube needs some sort of automated or policy based system. There's no barrier to entry for uploading a single or a dozen youtube videos. With paypal, the barrier is that you have to actually be moving capital around and buying something from someone, so the scale of cases they have to deal with is much much lower. 

[Eaglerino]

4 hours ago, GrockleTD said:

do we know if this covers GTA V? (i.e. you get into a car, and the radio plays for half a second before you can turn it off, have been demonetized before from that)

They'll probably still demonetize it out of spite but now they'll have to fire all those people they hired to manually claim any video so they could get the revenue instead

[Trik'Stari]

Here's an idea.

 

Make them actually prove copyright violation before taking action. Allow them to file a claim, that will be held as "pending" and not have any effect on the video or channel in question. From that point in time, the alleged rights holder has 90 days to prove actual copyright infringement 

 

Maybe build in a fast lane (meaning they get manually reviewed by Youtube, before most other things) for youtubers claiming content violations against other channels. Like back when a rando new channel would upload all of LTT's videos in an attempt to make some money.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Here's an idea.

 

Make them actually prove copyright violation before taking action. Allow them to file a claim, that will be held as "pending" and not have any effect on the video or channel in question. From that point in time, the alleged rights holder has 90 days to prove actual copyright infringement 

 

Maybe build in a fast lane (meaning they get manually reviewed by Youtube, before most other things) for youtubers claiming content violations against other channels. Like back when a rando new channel would upload all of LTT's videos in an attempt to make some money.

 

It doesn't work that way. Nearly all the money on a video is made within the first 4 hours of it being uploaded, thus the incentive to "steal" the revenue from newly uploaded videos by bad actors in the copyright cabal. It's no different from Facebook stealing your photos and using it to generate an AI facial recognition database.

 

Like really, a reform needs to be done to copyright law so it's broken into into smaller pieces with different timelines:

a) Music (sheet music/MIDI) from Instrument sounds

b) Text, Lyrics and Dialog (eg books, words, lyrics, slogans)

c) Drawings and 2D Animation

d) Computer generated artwork and 3D animation

e) Recordings of Live actors, or other subjects

f) Video game assets

g) Software code and Game engines

h) Personal and Historical data

 

For Music, since music can be infinitely reproduced or remixed digitally, the copyright should only apply to a specific (analog) recording of the music with those instruments, lyrics or not. If someone wants to record yakey sax on a theremin, that is two separate copyright claims, one for the music notes, and one for the instrument sound. If someone just downloads a midi, sets it to a different instrument, records the output and puts it back up, there's not really any creative effort there. If the song has lyrics then there is a third claim, for the lyrics.

 

For books, there is one copyright claim for the text of the book, and an additional claim for the artwork on the book.

 

For Drawings, one claim for the work, per image. In a sequence of animation, the individual images are considered individual copyrights, though assembled as a sequence to produce a second copyrighted form of animation. Same with 3D, except that 3D is actually code that generates images, that generates animation.

 

Recordings of a paid actor and recordings of your kids or pets are the same value in a copyright claim. If your kid is singing a cover of a Katy Perry song, you have two claims, one on the subject of the video, one on the musical "effort" they put in, while if there is backing music there is a claim by Katy Perry on the music and lyrics.

 

Video games are fun compilations of many copyrighted materials often held by one publisher, who already cleared the rights to the music, videos, lyrics, and so forth to appear in a video game, not a broadcast medium. So if you stream that game with that music, there are several competing claims, of which your own gameplay itself is one claim, the developer/publisher claims the video game as whole, and the individual voice actors and music artists have their own claims.

 

However games and software have a shelf life, they can not be played without the original hardware, and sometimes original operating system they were designed to operate under, which means that video games (as a whole) should be released from copyright protection once the game is no longer available for sale, while the individual parts that were licensed (eg sound track, voice acting) would remain under copyright of the contributing artist, and they could then put that back out to commercially benefit from it even if the software is defunct.

 

For things like Wikipedia, or databases like phonebooks, census, and all the private data Google and Facebook snarf down, that should be held under a personal claim (like the gameplay above), if someone publishes your private data, you should have the right to make that data disappear from compilations, be the sole benefit (eg fine, but give me $500) or only be released to the public domain after your death.

 

Ultimately, if there was a way to just have the money earned held in escrow until a license is agreed to, that solves the problem and removes the incentive to steal, from both the uploaders and other copyright holders. One doesn't need to agree to a license for the content to exist if you're okay with not monetizing it, but if you're explicitly uploading content to be monetized, then you should have access to that copyright clearing house, just like all the other copyright holders.

 

Plus if it makes it easier to find the real source, that invites other people to license the same source material instead of just stealing over and over. Incidental use of copyrighted material (seconds out of long videos) is a problem, and only a petty copyright holder would go after that on principle. So what likely is happening is that the people in the legal department of large music companies like Warner/EMI/Sony, etc are not actually familiar with what they have the rights to, and they could fire large portions of their legal department in exchange for sales people who could just negotiate fair licenses in the first place.

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

49 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

It doesn't work that way. Nearly all the money on a video is made within the first 4 hours of it being uploaded, thus the incentive to "steal" the revenue from newly uploaded videos by bad actors in the copyright cabal. It's no different from Facebook stealing your photos and using it to generate an AI facial recognition database.

 

Like really, a reform needs to be done to copyright law so it's broken into into smaller pieces with different timelines:

a) Music (sheet music/MIDI) from Instrument sounds

b) Text, Lyrics and Dialog (eg books, words, lyrics, slogans)

c) Drawings and 2D Animation

d) Computer generated artwork and 3D animation

e) Recordings of Live actors, or other subjects

f) Video game assets

g) Software code and Game engines

h) Personal and Historical data

 

For Music, since music can be infinitely reproduced or remixed digitally, the copyright should only apply to a specific (analog) recording of the music with those instruments, lyrics or not. If someone wants to record yakey sax on a theremin, that is two separate copyright claims, one for the music notes, and one for the instrument sound. If someone just downloads a midi, sets it to a different instrument, records the output and puts it back up, there's not really any creative effort there. If the song has lyrics then there is a third claim, for the lyrics.

 

For books, there is one copyright claim for the text of the book, and an additional claim for the artwork on the book.

 

For Drawings, one claim for the work, per image. In a sequence of animation, the individual images are considered individual copyrights, though assembled as a sequence to produce a second copyrighted form of animation. Same with 3D, except that 3D is actually code that generates images, that generates animation.

 

Recordings of a paid actor and recordings of your kids or pets are the same value in a copyright claim. If your kid is singing a cover of a Katy Perry song, you have two claims, one on the subject of the video, one on the musical "effort" they put in, while if there is backing music there is a claim by Katy Perry on the music and lyrics.

 

Video games are fun compilations of many copyrighted materials often held by one publisher, who already cleared the rights to the music, videos, lyrics, and so forth to appear in a video game, not a broadcast medium. So if you stream that game with that music, there are several competing claims, of which your own gameplay itself is one claim, the developer/publisher claims the video game as whole, and the individual voice actors and music artists have their own claims.

 

However games and software have a shelf life, they can not be played without the original hardware, and sometimes original operating system they were designed to operate under, which means that video games (as a whole) should be released from copyright protection once the game is no longer available for sale, while the individual parts that were licensed (eg sound track, voice acting) would remain under copyright of the contributing artist, and they could then put that back out to commercially benefit from it even if the software is defunct.

 

For things like Wikipedia, or databases like phonebooks, census, and all the private data Google and Facebook snarf down, that should be held under a personal claim (like the gameplay above), if someone publishes your private data, you should have the right to make that data disappear from compilations, be the sole benefit (eg fine, but give me $500) or only be released to the public domain after your death.

 

Ultimately, if there was a way to just have the money earned held in escrow until a license is agreed to, that solves the problem and removes the incentive to steal, from both the uploaders and other copyright holders. One doesn't need to agree to a license for the content to exist if you're okay with not monetizing it, but if you're explicitly uploading content to be monetized, then you should have access to that copyright clearing house, just like all the other copyright holders.

 

Plus if it makes it easier to find the real source, that invites other people to license the same source material instead of just stealing over and over. Incidental use of copyrighted material (seconds out of long videos) is a problem, and only a petty copyright holder would go after that on principle. So what likely is happening is that the people in the legal department of large music companies like Warner/EMI/Sony, etc are not actually familiar with what they have the rights to, and they could fire large portions of their legal department in exchange for sales people who could just negotiate fair licenses in the first place.

 

 

I'm torn by the absolute logic of this, and my own mentality towards drawn images.

 

Pepe is a fine example of that conundrum. The creators efforts to take down what it is used for... bother me. Partially because I see making your own meme of a character (provided you yourself drew or otherwise created the image.) as an act of free speech.

 

Example: Nintendo owns the license to Mario. If you draw Mario, you own that drawing, not Nintendo. At least, that's how I would hope things work. If it worked in reverse, someone could copyright drawing trees and no one could ever draw trees again. At least knowing how retarded our court system is.

 

My reasoning is that, if you are drawing a character that someone else created, you're always going to get something ever so slightly different than the original. Even if you're trying to make an exactly perfect copy, it's not going to be perfect without the aid of some kind of tool.

[CarlBar]

45 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

It doesn't work that way. Nearly all the money on a video is made within the first 4 hours of it being uploaded, thus the incentive to "steal" the revenue from newly uploaded videos by bad actors in the copyright cabal. It's no different from Facebook stealing your photos and using it to generate an AI facial recognition database.

 

Like really, a reform needs to be done to copyright law so it's broken into into smaller pieces with different timelines:

a) Music (sheet music/MIDI) from Instrument sounds

b) Text, Lyrics and Dialog (eg books, words, lyrics, slogans)

c) Drawings and 2D Animation

d) Computer generated artwork and 3D animation

e) Recordings of Live actors, or other subjects

f) Video game assets

g) Software code and Game engines

h) Personal and Historical data

 

For Music, since music can be infinitely reproduced or remixed digitally, the copyright should only apply to a specific (analog) recording of the music with those instruments, lyrics or not. If someone wants to record yakey sax on a theremin, that is two separate copyright claims, one for the music notes, and one for the instrument sound. If someone just downloads a midi, sets it to a different instrument, records the output and puts it back up, there's not really any creative effort there. If the song has lyrics then there is a third claim, for the lyrics.

 

For books, there is one copyright claim for the text of the book, and an additional claim for the artwork on the book.

 

For Drawings, one claim for the work, per image. In a sequence of animation, the individual images are considered individual copyrights, though assembled as a sequence to produce a second copyrighted form of animation. Same with 3D, except that 3D is actually code that generates images, that generates animation.

 

Recordings of a paid actor and recordings of your kids or pets are the same value in a copyright claim. If your kid is singing a cover of a Katy Perry song, you have two claims, one on the subject of the video, one on the musical "effort" they put in, while if there is backing music there is a claim by Katy Perry on the music and lyrics.

 

Video games are fun compilations of many copyrighted materials often held by one publisher, who already cleared the rights to the music, videos, lyrics, and so forth to appear in a video game, not a broadcast medium. So if you stream that game with that music, there are several competing claims, of which your own gameplay itself is one claim, the developer/publisher claims the video game as whole, and the individual voice actors and music artists have their own claims.

 

However games and software have a shelf life, they can not be played without the original hardware, and sometimes original operating system they were designed to operate under, which means that video games (as a whole) should be released from copyright protection once the game is no longer available for sale, while the individual parts that were licensed (eg sound track, voice acting) would remain under copyright of the contributing artist, and they could then put that back out to commercially benefit from it even if the software is defunct.

 

For things like Wikipedia, or databases like phonebooks, census, and all the private data Google and Facebook snarf down, that should be held under a personal claim (like the gameplay above), if someone publishes your private data, you should have the right to make that data disappear from compilations, be the sole benefit (eg fine, but give me $500) or only be released to the public domain after your death.

 

Ultimately, if there was a way to just have the money earned held in escrow until a license is agreed to, that solves the problem and removes the incentive to steal, from both the uploaders and other copyright holders. One doesn't need to agree to a license for the content to exist if you're okay with not monetizing it, but if you're explicitly uploading content to be monetized, then you should have access to that copyright clearing house, just like all the other copyright holders.

 

Plus if it makes it easier to find the real source, that invites other people to license the same source material instead of just stealing over and over. Incidental use of copyrighted material (seconds out of long videos) is a problem, and only a petty copyright holder would go after that on principle. So what likely is happening is that the people in the legal department of large music companies like Warner/EMI/Sony, etc are not actually familiar with what they have the rights to, and they could fire large portions of their legal department in exchange for sales people who could just negotiate fair licenses in the first place.

 

 

 

None of this is necessary, what is necessary is a combination of getting rid of the guilty until proven innocent mindset around copyright and especially where that allready exists, engaging in positive reinforcement. Right now if you let copyrighted material exist on your platform the copyright holders can bring hell down on your head. But that has the effect that you have to treat any allegations of infringement extremely seriously which creates systems that are open to abuse and there's nothing in law to actually stop such abuse. In effect the law sides too much with the people making the claim because it assumes they will never be nefarious in their use of it or related systems.

[yolosnail]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Example: Nintendo owns the license to Mario. If you draw Mario, you own that drawing, not Nintendo. At least, that's how I would hope things work. If it worked in reverse, someone could copyright drawing trees and no one could ever draw trees again. At least knowing how retarded our court system is.

 

My reasoning is that, if you are drawing a character that someone else created, you're always going to get something ever so slightly different than the original. Even if you're trying to make an exactly perfect copy, it's not going to be perfect without the aid of some kind of tool.

I mean, I would like to think that would be infringing on their copyright.

If you took that picture of Mario that you drew and stuck it on a t-shirt and started selling them, would that be ok?

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

None of this is necessary, what is necessary is a combination of getting rid of the guilty until proven innocent mindset around copyright and especially where that allready exists, engaging in positive reinforcement. Right now if you let copyrighted material exist on your platform the copyright holders can bring hell down on your head. But that has the effect that you have to treat any allegations of infringement extremely seriously which creates systems that are open to abuse and there's nothing in law to actually stop such abuse. In effect the law sides too much with the people making the claim because it assumes they will never be nefarious in their use of it or related systems.

The problem is that copyright holders are using the tools meant for taking down PIRATE material, or monetizing "mashups" to take down or rob incidental use cases, like where some song is playing in the background of a video of cats or toddlers. Three strikes rules means that you could easily have your entire channel taken down for having three sequential videos from the same day from different copyright holders.

 

The way things work right now, it would be preferable to mute or cut the "offending" piece of video to keep the monetization on, while that disputed piece is either licensed or swapped with something else. Allowing people to just straight up license the material without needing any middle-men would solve that, and copyright holders that say no to everyone, will quickly find that there are indie copyright holders that are much more willing to license videos. And if someone wants to put copyright material as a hate-video mashup, that copyright holder can just straight up deny it.

 

But the point here is that as things stand right now, it is impossible to legally license film and music anyway if you don't live in the US and speak English and have a lawyer.

[Taf the Ghost]

42 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem is that copyright holders are using the tools meant for taking down PIRATE material, or monetizing "mashups" to take down or rob incidental use cases, like where some song is playing in the background of a video of cats or toddlers. Three strikes rules means that you could easily have your entire channel taken down for having three sequential videos from the same day from different copyright holders.

 

The way things work right now, it would be preferable to mute or cut the "offending" piece of video to keep the monetization on, while that disputed piece is either licensed or swapped with something else. Allowing people to just straight up license the material without needing any middle-men would solve that, and copyright holders that say no to everyone, will quickly find that there are indie copyright holders that are much more willing to license videos. And if someone wants to put copyright material as a hate-video mashup, that copyright holder can just straight up deny it.

 

But the point here is that as things stand right now, it is impossible to legally license film and music anyway if you don't live in the US and speak English and have a lawyer.

As a note, Twitch VODS disable audio in the spots where it gets hit by their Copyright Claims. Somehow, YT can't manage that. Which means they've chosen not to.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, yolosnail said:

I mean, I would like to think that would be infringing on their copyright.

If you took that picture of Mario that you drew and stuck it on a t-shirt and started selling them, would that be ok?

Seems like a grey area to me. Because while the image in question is undoubtedly inspired by or derived from someone elses work, it is also still an original work in some way shape or form.

 

Again, trees. Based on the logic that if someone else did it first, then someone could arguably copyright trees and sue.... well, every TV series or movie ever made, or painting for that matter.

[wanderingfool2]

I do think it is about time that YouTube did something like this.  Just this change will hopefully cut down on a lot of the false strikes (that isn't to say it is perfect system), but it does take away a lot of the financial motivation of monetizing tons of channels with baseless claims.

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Here's an idea.

 

Make them actually prove copyright violation before taking action. Allow them to file a claim, that will be held as "pending" and not have any effect on the video or channel in question. From that point in time, the alleged rights holder has 90 days to prove actual copyright infringement 

 

Maybe build in a fast lane (meaning they get manually reviewed by Youtube, before most other things) for youtubers claiming content violations against other channels. Like back when a rando new channel would upload all of LTT's videos in an attempt to make some money.

I get the concept, and trust me I do hate the guilty until you have made enough noise about your innocence that is the current setup (mostly I think due to copyright laws and the early days of the billion dollar lawsuits)...the only thing is a system where you have to prove a copyright before action is taken creates a swing in the other direction as well (piracy of music becomes a lot easier to profit off of).  Really there will never be a perfect system though

 

25 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Seems like a grey area to me. Because while the image in question is undoubtedly inspired by or derived from someone elses work, it is also still an original work in some way shape or form.

 

Again, trees. Based on the logic that if someone else did it first, then someone could arguably copyright trees and sue.... well, every TV series or movie ever made, or painting for that matter.

There will always be the grey areas unfortunately.  The way I look at copyright (and it varies by different types of works), is that it should be partially determined by weight of the work,  content, and novel concept.

1) Weight - Was the use of a work an integral part of the work (or did it contribute to the work in any way).  [After all, a streamer playing music in the background is quite different than having it the predominant noise while streaming]  This would give small audio clips, where it is more of an incidental noise a lot less value.  With that said, if your kid dances to music it puts a lot more weight on the music as it contributes a lot more to the video.  Wight also being, does it detract from the original copyright work (ie...how likely is it that it causes financial harm)

2) Content - Similar to weight, but it should be how much of a copyrighted clip is actually used and how similar it was to it

3) Novel concept - If you tell 10 people to draw trees, and if they all draw pretty similar things then it shouldn't be copyrighted...just like the recent million dollar lawsuits against song writers, they are being sued for cords that have existed for hundreds of years...to me it isn't novel (but the overarching sound can be...if that makes sense).  So in cases of Mickey Mouse, Disney would own any likeness to it (yes it is trademarked...but to be honest, copyright and trademarks are very similar)

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Problem is that Youtube serves corporations first because thats where the money directly comes from (for advertising) and they want to stay in compliance with (often dumb) regulations as well.

 

So whenever action is taken against vulnerable youtubers, its always guilty until proven otherwise.

 

I hope competing video hosting sites make it up so that youtube reaps consequences for its stupid ways.

If youtube really kowtowed to the other advertising corporations like we think they did, they would be banning everything that wasn't Family-Friendly original content (YT would be reduced to cat/toddler videos and people doing makeup and cooking tutorials.) Look at how that worked out for every other website (It didn't. See Tumblr)

 

There has to be a line between "you're ripping me off" that is clear, and "oh 3 seconds of whatever the current hot rock/pop/country song is" 

 

Like an example I'll use along with GTA IV/V is Saints Row 3 and 4. In Saints Row III, during the penultimate part of the game, "Holding out for a Hero" is played.

 

 

And it's not just incidental (eg you could mute it, but it's not like in other parts of the game, it's actually part of the mood, and has specific loops for how long you are in the mission.) So if let's say the video was claimed by both the developer and by the music company, for your gameplay, what's the better option? Mute the audio, thus taking away any dramatic tension, or cutting it, thus the video ends up skipping the entire mission? In both cases the video's purpose is basically ruined.

 

Yet who is going to pay to license something just for a LP of a game that they already own? No, it's more likely that we might see the end of LP's for games that have sound tracks, and instead developers will be encouraged to create "replay" files (like ghosts for your best time in a racing game) so that only people that own the game can replay it with whatever you added to it. Which doesn't actually solve the problem, and really destroys discoverability since no developers other than a few MMO's have ever committed to keeping online features available two years after release. Just look at how quickly Nintendo shuts things down.

 

Like I'm sure music studios, if not gamedevs themselves would love to wipe all the LP/walkthrough/playthroughs from Youtube so people would buy the games instead of watching them, but I strongly feel that would have the opposite effect, for example that video above from Saints Row III? Watching someone actually play that game is what made me buy it too. So if the audio had been cut from it, I might have wondered what's so great about it.

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

The problem is that copyright holders are using the tools meant for taking down PIRATE material, or monetizing "mashups" to take down or rob incidental use cases, like where some song is playing in the background of a video of cats or toddlers. Three strikes rules means that you could easily have your entire channel taken down for having three sequential videos from the same day from different copyright holders.

 

The way things work right now, it would be preferable to mute or cut the "offending" piece of video to keep the monetization on, while that disputed piece is either licensed or swapped with something else. Allowing people to just straight up license the material without needing any middle-men would solve that, and copyright holders that say no to everyone, will quickly find that there are indie copyright holders that are much more willing to license videos. And if someone wants to put copyright material as a hate-video mashup, that copyright holder can just straight up deny it.

 

But the point here is that as things stand right now, it is impossible to legally license film and music anyway if you don't live in the US and speak English and have a lawyer.

 

But thats the point, fair use clauses allready cover most of the falsely claimed stuff, and most of the rest are cases of the law not quite having caught up, (in effect they really should be fair use under the terms fair use was put into law for, but the law as written didn't quit account for some situations). The issue is that it's currently on the head of the person engaging in fair use to prove fair use. They're guilty until proven innocent at the moment.