COLD OPEN Contrary to any misinformation you may have
heard, YouTube didn't change any copyright policies last week... but they did make a
slight adjustment to their Content-ID system.
I want to explain how the system works, why it *doesn't* suck, how to deal with it, why
it doesn't just affect gamers, and most importantly: what single quick fix could correct the entire
system instantly.
INTRO Hi, I'm Jonathan Paula.
I apologize in advance, but this video will be a long, and exhaustive discussion on Content
ID.
Those in a rush can find a full script for this video in the description, and I'm including
the topic-timeline above, which will hot-link you directly to the different topics I'll
be covering in case you'd like to skip ahead.
If you only have a minute, I suggest you watch the "Conclusion" section, where I discuss
the BIGGEST thing I want you to take away from this video.
And it goes with without saying: if you find this video informative or helpful in any way
- please click the LIKE button, FAVORITE this video, and SHARE it around.
It is crucial more people under these issues, so let's begin.
BACKGROUND This is a complicated issue with many nuances,
but I am in an extremely unique position, as a content-creator who utilizes fair-use
material often, as an owner of a multi-channel network, and as someone who has personally
won over 500 separate copyright claims.
I've been an independent YouTube Partner since the program first issued invites in January
2008 - In those seven years, I have been very fortunate and appreciative to earn my full-time
income from this site.
But the recent changes to YouTube's Content-ID system are jeopardizing my livelihood, as
well as countless others on the site.
CID ORIGINS The Content-ID system, which was born out
of necessity to handle and resolve lawsuits from companies like Viacom, utilizes sophisticated
scanning technology to automatically match potentially infringing videos against a visual
or audio reference file that exists in its database.
Hollywood movie studios, record companies, game developers and even some top-tier YouTube
partners like myself have access to YouTube's "Content Manager System", or CMS.
These CMS accounts are the people who have the ability to input assets, or "reference
files" *into* the Content-ID database (which is actually just YouTube itself).
When I upload a new episode of "Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This?", or when Universal
Music releases Taylor Swift's new single... we have the option to apply what's known as
a "match policy" for "automatic claims".
Each asset owner can actually adjust the percentage of audio or video that needs to be featured
to trigger a Content-ID match.
They can also route these matches to a human agent for review, to reduce any false-positives.
For game developers, the tools are already in place to detect an audio-only policy on
their assets, which would easily exclude the vast number of lets players on YouTube, who
provide their own commentary - just like it would be very easy for movie studios to do
the same allowing film reviewers to continue their work unimpeded.
Game developers CapCom, Blizzard, and Ubisoft were quick to apologize to many YouTubers
who were "falsely-tagged" by their match policies last week, but honestly: it was their own
fault.
If they had paid attention to what policies they had enabled on their content, nothing
would have been matched at all.
Setup your policies appropriately!
Scan only for audio, and route matches for manual review before any further action is
taken.
Ignorance is not an excuse: pay attention, instead of causing a lot of undue stress.
BENEFITS When used correctly, Content ID is a powerful
tool that can be very beneficial.
By and large, it's actually a great system that protects millions of songs, movies, games,
TV shows, and other work - keeping the revenue and ownership in the hands of its rightful
owners.
I love that I have a team of robots protecting my huge library of 2,500 videos from anyone
who attempts to steal my work and profit from it - in fact, Jogwheel's videos are routinely
stolen and re-uploaded about 15 times a week.
MATCH POLICES When potentially infringing material is uploaded,
and Content-ID makes a match, CMS-owners have three options how to deal with the video:
"Track", "Block", or "Monetize".
Some companies may have no issue with you utilizing their game footage, or background
music - and only want to track your content, to see how successful it is.
A musician, like my friend Rob Scallon may encourage his audience to download his music,
and sample it in their videos - The "Track" option would provide him with useful analytics
on how many individuals took him up on that offer, without penalizing them for it.
Whereas FOX Broadcasting may see an entire episode of Family Guy as a particularly egregious
upload, and they'll block the video - making it unwatchable to everyone on YouTube.
But by far, the most common policy is to "monetize" the content.
The infringing material remains on YouTube, publicly viewable to the world, but instead
of the uploader earning revenue on the video, the earnings are given to the CMS-account
that applied the ownership policy in the first place.
Now, you'll notice I didn't say the "proper right's holder".
And this is inherently Content's ID most public flaw, but not its worst: any CMS account can
upload content, and apply a match policy as their own.
And this process is unfortunately far easier than you'd think.
As a result, some companies - either by malicious intent, or more likely by an innocent accident,
have applied polices to assets they don't actually have legal ownership of.
Many less informed YouTubers have complained when they get an erroneous match from some
random company -- claiming they’re being scammed out of income.
In all likelihood, there was an overlap between policies, or some intern at Blizzard Entertainment
clicked the wrong checkbox.
But, if these false-claims *were* intentional?
Well, YouTube really needs to crack down on them.
With a site as big as this, with over 10 years of content uploaded every day... a few stray,
incorrect matches are not really a big deal.
To extend the example from earlier, Taylor Swift is not personally clicking the "flag"
button to remove cover-versions of her songs off the site.
Instead YouTube's Content-ID robots, under Universal Music Group's instruction are automatically
detecting these uploads.
MCNs Those inside a multi-channel network (MCN
for short), and CMS-partners themselves, were previously excluded from a majority of Content-ID
scans.
It was generally assumed, that if you were partnered with Machinima, or part of Sony
Pictures Entertainment, you weren't going to upload any infringing content - part of
an unconfirmed "Trust algorithm" YouTube placed on its larger partners.
Again, let me repeat that: partners inside an MCN were protected NOT because their network
secured permission from gaming companies, but because they were excluded from Content-ID
scans.
So many people, include dozens of top-level gamers on this site are under the misinformed
impression that networks provided them a service.
They didn't.
They typed their channel into a box, and by proxy of their "trust level", their partners
were seemingly protected.
Somewhere down the line however, YouTube introduced three separate tiers of partnership within
a network: "Managed", "Affiliated", and "Whitelisted" - if you're signed to an MCN, and not on YouTube's
top-500 most subscribed list, you're likely an "Affiliate" partner, and until recently,
that meant you were given the same amount of "trust" as whomever you were networked
with.
As a result, you would have been protected by automatic Content-ID claims... you could
still of course be hit with the occasional manual match - so while you may have been
able to get away with posting copyrighted material for a time, it didn't mean you were
safe, and it definitely didn't mean you were without legal fault.
CHANGES This all changed last week.
YouTube released a statement on December 11th explaining, "We recently enabled Content ID
scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs.
This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the
relevant content owners.
As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims
are invalid."
Meaning, if you're in a network, you're no longer protected.
If you're an independent YouTuber without a CMS-level account...
literally nothing has changed for you, except now everyone else is complaining about the
same issues you've been dealing with since day one.
YOUR OPTIONS When the system matches a video to one or
more policies issued by CMS-accounts, the uploader will receive an e-mail, explaining
what type of policy has been applied.
In this particular case, Warner Bros. applied a "Monetize" policy on this episode of Movie
Night.
So, while you can still watch that video, I am no longer earning revenue from it.
Obviously, this is better than having the video outright blocked.
Occasionally though, the system makes mistakes - like the aforementioned erroneous matches
from random companies, or by detecting content that isn't actually infringing.
Maybe you secured permission first, or your usage qualifies as fair use, or the person
issuing the claim doesn't own the rights to the content either.
These are valid, legitimate, and most importantly LEGAL defenses if your content is incorrectly
matched.
Luckily, YouTube has tools in place to dispute matches you believe to be false.
By clicking the link provided in that e-mail, or by visiting the "Copyright Notices" section
of your channel's video manager, you will see a link below the matched video that reads
"matched third party content".
Clicking this link provides you with an explanation of the match, a time-code link to the exact
portion of the video containing the allegedly infringing material, and the name of the claimant
who issued the match.
You now have two options available, "Acknowledge", or "Dispute".
If you believe the claim to be genuine, as in... you knowingly uploaded copyrighted material
without permission, you'd select "Acknowledge", which doesn't adversely affect your account
any worse than the match itself...
it simply solidifies the ruling, preventing you from disputing it again later.
But, if you disagree with the match, either on fair use grounds, or if you have permission
to use the content, you can file a dispute.
FAIR USE Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I won't provide
legal advice regarding fair use -- but generally, news reporting, criticism, reviews, commentary,
parodies, or some transformative use... are instances *I* would classify as fair use.
As for all you gamers and let's players out there, of which I count myself as one... the
argument for fair use is trickier, especially since there is zero legal precedent to argue
either way.
In America, our fair use copyright law was written in 1976 - so while it covers film
criticism, song parodies, and news reporting...
telling jokes while you play Call Of Duty may not qualify.
GAMING Inherently, the unique value of lets play
videos are the personalities, not necessarily the gameplay footage: but until an actual
judge rules one way or another: tread carefully in this space, and attempt to secure permission
from the game developers whenever possible.
Almost ALL of the frustration and outrage last week came from gamers.
But why are they so upset?
Lets play exist within a grey area of the law, and the fact that your videos weren't
being tagged before was absolutely no indication it'd stay that way forever.
So while I take issue with people being upset and surprised by these changes, it doesn't
seem like good news for the gaming community.
Almost all uploads going forward will be immediately Content-ID scanned, and as we discussed, your
options for disputing are not as legally viable as other types of fair-use content.
But really, what it comes down to is that if you're not confident you can win a dispute,
you shouldn't be uploading to begin with... unless you're comfortable with not earning
revenue.
Practically speaking though, last week's change will scare many people off, and the community
will suffer as a result.
But for those who do have a legal right to their content, and are willing to defend their
work, hopefully they can stick around and continue producing awesome stuff.
DISPUTE Assuming you do have permission, or fair use
to your content, and you want to dispute, all you have to do is agree to the terms of
your decision, and briefly explain your reasoning.
For Movie Night - I simply quote the Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright
Act 1976, which very specifically allows criticism and commentary for film and television.
Once you've filled a dispute - the CMS-accounts attached to that policy will be notified,
and they each have 30 days to respond.
For blocked videos, just initiating the dispute process will restore your video, but only
on a temporary basis while the CMS-account makes a decision.
After you file a dispute, the link next to your video from the video manager page *should*
reflect that the claim has been "disputed", but in what can only be a technical glitch,
a number of these links - by my estimate, at least half, won't update...
so ignore this text, as it is notoriously inaccurate.
This is what the process looks like on the other side, as the policy-enforcer has the
option to "Release", "Confirm", or "Takedown".
There is no third-party arbitrator involved, no copyright lawyers, no YouTube, just you
and the company you allegedly stole from.
If they agree with your reason for disputing, they are bound by the honor code - and nothing
else - to release the claim.
Now, this next part is purely educated speculation on my part, but it would seem a number of
companies have automated this review process - far too often disputes are rejected, or
even released far quicker than a human agent could possibly review them, especially given
the volume they must deal with - and often with a remarkable level of inconsistency from
one ruling to the next.
Technically, this is completely illegal - but unfortunately, YouTube hasn't found a solution
to this.
Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be resulting in to many issues as of yet.
If a company does release the claim, your video is restored to its former status, blocked
videos become public, and monetized videos can be re-claimed on your end.
If you file a legitimate dispute, or if the claim itself was false...
you'll likely be successful in having your content released nine times out of ten, even
if it takes the full 30 days.
But what about that 10% that get "reinstated", well, let's talk about the next process, APPEALS.
APPEAL If your dispute is rejected, either because
the claimant disagreed with your reasoning, or because you simply didn't have a right
to the content to begin with, you'll get another e-mail with info about what happened.
Like before, you have the option to acknowledge this ruling, and live with whatever policy
has been applied.
If you are adamant that the claim should be released, you can risk a potential copyright
strike on your account (one of only three you'd be allowed before your entire channel
is suspended), and appeal.
The form is a bit more serious, and besides providing the claimant with your contact information,
you'll also have to include an in-depth explanation of your usage.
Based on my experience, all appeals are in fact reviewed by an actual human agent, which
is perhaps why you actually have a better chance at success than with the lower-level
disputes.
While this process can be scary, if you are confident in your rights usage, don't be afraid
to defend your content, and appeal any reinstated disputes.
If you win the appeal, the claim will finally be released, and your video will be restored
to your ownership.
But if the appeal is rejected, and you're hit with a copyright strike?
Well, you still have some options if you wish to continue the process.
COPYRIGHT STRIKE When your account receives a copyright, or
community-guidelines strike, your channel is no longer "in good standing" - the infringing
video is completely removed from YouTube, and some of your channel features like external
annotations, unlisted uploads, live streams, and even the ability to appeal future disputes
are removed.
Fortunately, these strikes automatically dissolve after six months.
But if you can't wait that long, you can file a counter-notification - which involves more
scary-looking text boxes, and sharing your full contact info again.
Admittedly, I have much less experience in this area, but the result is the same if the
eventual ruling is in your favor: your video is restored to its original status, and all
copyright strikes are removed from your account.
Bottom line is: if you truly have a legal right to use copyrighted material in your
upload, and you're willing to fight back and defend yourself - it may take 75-days, but
you can come out on top.
The dispute process is nothing to be afraid of.
OVERVIEW Well, there you have it - that's the full,
long, and often confusing process of how YouTube's Content-ID system detects videos, and how
and why you should fight back.
It definitely has its issues however, and the absolute biggest is that it penalizes
users who LEGALLY incorporate copyrighted material into their content.
Whether you're a Let's player featuring an indie game title with explicit permission
from the developer, or reviewing the Anchorman movie while showing brief clips from the trailer:
the Content-ID system is indiscriminate in issuing claims based on whatever policies
various CMS-accounts plug into the system.
Of course, how could a series of complex scanning algorithms know how to differentiate between
what's cleared, and what isn't?
It absolutely can't, nor should we expect it to.
All the gamers complaining this past week that their popular lets play series was match-claimed
need to recognize this, and avoid disseminating misinformation in emotional rants.
It's these reasons why the dispute option exists at all, and since there is absolutely
ZERO risk to filing one out, there ideally, shouldn't be any problem outside of a small
inconvenience.
PROBLEM And while all content -that you legally have
a right to be using- can be recovered through the system, as I explained above...
the system assumes the uploader is "guilty until proven innocent."
During the dispute, appeal, and counter-notification arbitration process (which can last up to
75 days), any revenue earned from the allegedly infringing video is being awarded to the claimant,
NOT the uploader.
In what would be quickly fixed by a YouTube engineer, this is direct punishment to anyone
who works with any material potentially inside the Content-ID database.
When all the disputes and appeals are finished, my videos will all be returned to me, any
strikes removed, and channel features restored: but while I was waiting 30 days for MGM to
decide if my review of "Skyfall" qualified as fair use?
I didn't earn any money on that video I spent all week working on.
And for someone like me, who earns mostly all of his income via Google AdSense, losing
revenue on one video that I have a LEGAL RIGHT to monetize, even for one day is totally inexcusable.
But imagine it's not just one video... but 250, like the number of claims I received
this week.
And it's not just for one day, it's for an entire month.
And it's not just one channel...
it's every gamer, film-reviewer, news-reporter, and musician on YouTube - potential untold
millions of dollars lining the pockets of those who don't legally deserve it.
And in a completely separate problem, which is probably just a technical bug, YouTube
actually prohibits users from re-monetizing a video after a *successful* dispute.
Which means no one is earning revenue from the video, including YouTube.
This bug isn't as prevalent of an issue as lost revenue during the dispute process, as
it seems to affect only a small percentage of released claims... but it's a frustratingly
fixable problem too.
CONCLUSION YouTube's suggestion is simply to avoid copyrighted
material... but that's not a very realistic suggestion, is it?
My film reviews would be reduced to boring videos without any music, clips, or graphics...
news and pop culture vloggers wouldn't be allowed to include any images, and what of
the massive gaming community?
YouTube's #2 most subscribed user would have nothing.
Inherently, the Content-ID system works well... but when you strip revenue away from people
who play by the rules, follow the law, and go through your dispute system?
You're driving away creative people that make YouTube and its wonderful community possible.
YouTube: ALLOW THE UPLOADER TO RETAIN MONETIZE DURING THE DISPUTE AND APPEALS PROCESS, or
hold revenue in escrow until the issue is resolved, then award it to the victorious
party!
It's really that simple.
GOODBYE Well, okay - obviously the issue wasn't completely
simple, I mean, it take did take me 15-minutes to explain it all, but hopefully you understand
the nuances and intricacies of Content-ID much better, and can appreciate the frustration
myself, and many other YouTubers have been going through.
Please share this video with anyone and everyone you believe may benefit from it, I am optimistic
the issues I discussed can be addressed if enough people truly understand how it all
works.
And don't forget to comment, like, and subscribe, I will be reading and responding to any all
questions you have in the comment-section below as always.
Thank you very much for watching and listening, especially if you sat through the entire thing.
My name is Jonathan Paula, stepping down from my soap box for now, and I hope to see you
right back here in the very near future.