Content ID, Claims, and Monetization

[mmuser]

Hi everyone,

I must admit I don’t fully understand how Content ID works. This came up after a question from a client who is interested in purchasing my music directly, for YouTube use, and I’d really appreciate your insights.

Here are my main questions:

1. In my Identifyy account I noticed that for May, there are over 3,000 claimed YouTube videos. Do these videos represent unauthorized use of my music, or could some of them also be from users who have legally purchased a license?

2. If someone has legally licensed one of my tracks, receives a Content ID claim, and disputes it with proof, once the claim is cleared, does 100% of the monetization go back to the user (with nothing remaining with Identifyy) — meaning that Identifyy only collects revenue from unauthorized uses of our music?

3. Is it possible (or advisable) to whitelist a YouTube channel in advance, if I know the channel owner has purchased a license, so that they won’t receive copyright claims in the first place?

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

[Art Munson]

Great questions — these are things a lot of composers run into once they start using Content ID. Let me break it down step by step in plain terms, with specifics for your case using Identifyy.

1. Claimed YouTube Videos (3,000 in May)

The number you’re seeing doesn’t automatically mean 3,000 people “stole” your music. Content ID simply scans videos for matches to your tracks. Those matches can be:

Unauthorized uses — people who ripped or used your music without a license.
Licensed uses — people who *did* buy a license, but whose videos were still flagged because Content ID can’t tell the difference between a paying customer and a random uploader.

So yes, that 3,000 count almost certainly includes both groups.

2. Licensed Users & Disputes

When a licensed user disputes a claim with valid proof (like an invoice or license PDF), the claim is released. Once that happens:

Monetization reverts 100% to the uploader/channel owner.
Identifyy (or any Content ID admin) only earns revenue during the period the claim was active, and only if the dispute hasn’t been resolved yet.
After release, Identifyy doesn’t keep anything — they only collect on unlicensed/unauthorized uses.

This is why some libraries that allow client use on YouTube provide “claim release instructions” so buyers don’t panic when they see a claim.

3. Whitelisting YouTube Channels

Yes, you (or Identifyy support) can whitelist specific YouTube channels. This means:

That channel’s uploads won’t be flagged at all by Content ID for your music.
It’s a clean solution if you have direct buyers (like your client) who need hassle-free use.

Pros:

No claims, no disputes, no extra communication with the buyer.
Builds trust with your clients.

Cons:

If that channel misuses your music outside the scope of their license, you won’t catch it via Content ID.
Some composers only whitelist for trusted, long-term clients rather than one-off licenses.

✅ Best Practice Recommendation for You

Keep Identifyy running for protection and revenue on unauthorized uses.
If a direct client buys a license for YouTube, ask for their channel URL and request Identifyy to whitelist it.
Provide buyers with a short FAQ: “If you see a Content ID claim, don’t panic — this is normal. Here’s how to dispute with your license info.”

That way, you cover both bases: automatic enforcement for unauthorized users, but smooth sailing for legit clients.

[mmuser]

Thank you so much once again, Art — such a clear and incredibly helpful explanation!

Regarding the third question: Identifyy replied to me that whitelisting is “not recommended,” but they didn’t say it’s impossible. They recommend “simply removing the claim from the video using the purchased beat”. I should point out that their answer referred to a single-video case. In a situation like mine, with a client who appears likely to purchase several tracks, I think (as you also pointed out) the balance tips in favor of making whitelisting worthwhile.

As for the first question: Based on the information you shared, I would assume that a portion of those authorized users are people who don’t really care about monetization and therefore never bother disputing the claims — just a hypothesis on my side.

Thanks again for sharing your experience and breaking it down so clearly — it really helps a lot!

[Art Munson]

@mmuser You are quite welcome.

[Alan]

great post, Art. Can you give me any insight on this email I got from Identifyy last year?

“We had to remove your asset:
“Title”
It was generating erroneous copyright claims. This is against the strict guidelines of Content ID. YouTube has communicated that any type of claims like this need to be removed from Content ID.
We are doing our best to represent your copyrights within YouTube’s guidelines, so please ensure this does not happen again.”

I was completely shocked and didn’t know how to respond.

After several messages I got this
“Hi Alan,
YouTube has the final say in what is eligible for monetization. For reasons unknown, the song and channels were terminated.
If we had more information, we would provide it, but YouTube has the final say on this matter. It is possible the song got in the hands of someone else, circumventing YouTube’s policies, and for that reason, they deemed the song “ineligible for monetization”. The reasons they provide in general are unclear. All they ask is that we honor their decision and remove the song.
Thank you for understanding.”

The track still shows with about 40 videos, but I used to have thousands. I’m stumped.

[Art Munson]

@Alan: From my new friend ChatGPT :-). It gave me a long winded reply which I asked it to pare down. I read it over and it makes sense to me. Something we all have to look out for those of us that have been around for awhile with a lot of music in various non-exclusive libraries. This hasn’t hit me yet but it may.

Here’s what Identifyy’s message means in practical terms:

Your track was removed because YouTube flagged it for generating **erroneous copyright claims**—meaning Content ID was detecting your music in videos where it *actually wasn’t*. When enough false matches occur, YouTube requires Identifyy (or any other Content ID partner) to take the asset down to stay in compliance with their rules.

This doesn’t mean there was anything wrong with your account. It simply means that this particular track triggered Content ID confusion. The most common causes are:

* The track is also available in **non-exclusive or stock libraries**
* The same audio exists **under multiple titles** (retitles)
* Parts of the track use **popular loops or samples** that appear in many other songs
* There were videos online using the music **before you registered it**
* Another composer’s track had **similar audio elements**, and Content ID couldn’t tell them apart

YouTube has gotten much stricter over the last few years, so when a track produces too many incorrect matches, Identifyy is required to remove it. It’s not a penalty; it’s just part of YouTube’s compliance process.

If you want to avoid this in the future, the best approach is to only upload tracks to Content ID that are exclusive, fully original, and not distributed in multiple places. Tracks that are non-exclusive, retitled, or use widely-shared loops can easily trigger false positives.

[Alan]

Thanks so much, Art. I never participated in CID until a couple of years ago in response to the non-exclusive libraries taking bigger cuts. Then I put all my non-ex in identifyy.

It was amazing. The track in question was used on channels that plays old game show reruns from the 70s and 80s. Thousands of videos that earned me low 5 figures. Then click, it stopped and I never understood why. This was very helpful information.

[Art Munson]

@Alan. Yes, we have some of those high paying game sites. Hope they don’t go away.

[Author]

Posts