Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID

Home Forums Copyright Questions Copyright Violation, AdRev, YouTube Content ID

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 191 total)
  • Author
  • #20104

    Many libraries already have youtube contentID integrated in some way so I’m not sure where all this grievance anger and denial is coming from.

    I think some composers feel that they are being denied vast sums of revenue, by not participating in content ID, which is an illusion.

    As the stats show, 500K views will net about $70, after everybody gets their cut. Further, most YT videos, get nowhere near that number of views. Most don’t even hit 500. So, then the composers cut is something like $.07. You can more than $70 from a single decent RF sale.

    With respect to integrated Content ID, I say sure. If I had the time, I’d crank out a separate catalog of dozens of cues to sell on Rfish @1.99, so that I don’t miss out on my $.07 in YT royalties.

    The problem still comes down to composers wanting every piece of music in every library and every business model. IMHO the shotgun method is not as effective as a focused effort.

    “Dave” mentioned composers making thousand of dollars per month from content ID. It’s what lawyers call anecdotal evidence. You need to know the facts, the how and the why, before you conclude it is a relevant fact.

    I recall reading an article, a long time ago about Scott Schreer, content ID and Audiam

    What the average writer needs to understand is that Scott Schreer, is one of BMI’s most performed writers, he has over 1,700 cues, many of which are high-profile TV themes, which are just the kind of thing that amateur YT video makers like to snag to put into their videos. Who doesn’t want to make a YT video of their kid’s backyard football game with the NFL on FOX theme right?

    Amateur vid makers also like to use their favorite pop tunes as background music. This is why major labels use Ad Rev (it was designed for them). It makes economic sense for record labels and composers of well known music to pursue revenue though content ID because of the volume of their music which is being pirated.

    But…does it make sense for the average anonymous library music composer? (not counting would be pop stars). Probably not. But, the desire or need to find another revenue stream is a strong motivator, which may make struggling writers vulnerable to the pitch.

    Yes, some people will make a lot of money from ContentID, but mostly likely not individual composers of production music. (not including composers who use the system and make their own YT vids)

    The “grievance and anger” directed at libraries that do not allow content ID are misplaced.

    Art Munson

    Yes, some people will make a lot of money from ContentID, but mostly likely not individual composers of production music. (not including composers who use the system and make their own YT vids)

    Great comment MichaelL and (as usual) well thought out.


    I agree that not upsetting or confusing the customers will give you a big competitive advantage. I don’t participate in content id and monitor my youtube channel for any claims and they do come up. They are junk claims that I have to dispute. If I don’t stay on top of them, I worry that I will have an upset and confused customer. The fact is content id and digital fingerprinting is something that needs to be addressed because if the policy is we don’t have composers that participate in that program and then a claim that is junk comes up your customer is going to be even more mad. If you have it set up to deal with that then that is great, and if it’s working for you then that’s even better. Here is where I am coming from.

    I think it really needs to be a 50/50 split between libraries that ACCEPT content id registered musicians that they inform customers that they licensed the music legally and the claim is nothing more then showing a purchase receipt. They have the proof, and to spin it in a positive way. Then the musicians need to stay on top of the claims too to make sure the customers don’t have to deal with junk claims.

    Maybe I am wrong, and time will tell. I do think that if you have a music library embraces the fact that some musicians choose to put music into content id to protect the music from theft that they will be more competitive long term over the libraries that have content id music that doesn’t address it. There are some VERY good musicians that have their music in that program. Don’t forget that. If the library informed the customer that the music was content id registered and they’d have some steps after the purchase to clear a youtube claim, but did it in a positive way. The customer would have the power to decide whether or not they wanted to do that. If they didn’t find that to be a hassle they’d buy it, if they did think that was a hassle they wouldn’t.

    Make no mistake though, I don’t participate in that program, because I think it’s a plus to customers to not have that hassle. Where I am coming from is as a musician that has music alongside others that do participate in that program, it would be a huge benefit if the libraries showed which music was content id and which music was not. Just the same way as they show whether it’s pro registered or not. I’d like it to be in a way that doesn’t bias so that we are both on equal ground so the customer can choose based on an informed decision. That is where I am coming from, and is my two cents on it. What I mean be big competitive edge is the library that handles content id the best will have the edge.

    That could be not allowing composers in that participate in that program. It could be embracing composers that do, and explaining it to the customers. All those different variables and business decisions that are directly influenced by content id. The library that handles it the best will ultimately have a big competitive edge. Only time will tell what the best option is, but it is the fork in the road time, and all the libraries need to figure what path they are going to take.

    By ignoring it and making customers mad at stock music libraries and musicians it hurts everyone.


    Mark, I just want to let you know I respect you and your library. I didn’t mean it to come off like the way you’ve decided to address it as a negative. You’ve made your stance and decided what way your library is going to handle content id. That is a great thing. The comment was more for the libraries in general that haven’t chosen a stance. I have chosen not to participate in content id, and you have chosen not to participate in that. We are both on the same side of the issue, and hopefully time will tell that we made the right decision.


    @Muscosound….who entered your music into contentID, so that it’s generating false claims?

    Was it ripped from Soundcloud, or did someone buy from an RF site and then monetize themselves?

    Sometimes this business is real PITA!


    Knock on wood, so far no one has entered my music into content id. What I am getting most is false positives. I had one recently last week that was claimed by adrev which I was able to listen to the music that was claimed. To my ears it wasn’t even close. I disputed the claim and it was resolved like a day or so later. I’ve had a few adrev claims but luckily it is nice working with them to get it disputed. They are fast.

    I just got another one like 3-4 weeks ago from what I believe to be a troll. I submitted a dispute and I just went to check to see the status and it’s been dropped. They had a month to respond to the dispute. I was going to name and shame them, but now it’s gone. It sucks because I am put into a position where I have to be on guard all the time, and YouTube really doesn’t make the situation better. It seems like the person that makes the claim has priority over the one defending themselves.

    All the music I have on Soundcloud/YouTube/Other Marketing Channels, has a watermark. It’s the best way I’ve found of trying to protect my music from theft.


    Just a side note on that on the false positive things, I don’t use loops or anything like that. Sometimes I use EZ Drummer, but even with that I change it up quite a bit. I create my music from scratch and the claims are total junk 100% of the time.

    I get A LOT of what I’d like to call content id trolls, that just put a claim on the music to see what they can milk in the ad revenue. Once I dispute the claim it typically resolves the dispute. Sometimes quickly other times they get a month per YouTubes policy to respond to the dispute. Long story short it’s a problem I don’t want my customers to have to deal with, so I have to stay very vigilant to keep everything clear.


    @Muscosound….I’m not sure I understand what going on. People are claiming that your music is infringing, i.e., claiming it’s their music, when it isn’t.

    That’s different that people getting copyright notices if you put your music into content ID. So these are just mistakes?

    Totally imperfect system.


    Yes they are mistakes. I will get a 3rd party copyright claim on one of my tracks. There in fact is no validity to the claim. The system misidentifies the music with a piece of music in the database. It’s almost like the threshold for identification is low. I will dispute the claim as not being valid because the music that is the basis of the claim is not correct. Typically that will resolve it, but it can take up to a month.

    Sometimes it feels like their is some trolling about that goes on where people or entities try to intentionally create claims just to see if they can get away with it. I don’t know if that is true, but I get that impression from time to time when I have to defend my music against a total junk claim. I’ve even had it once where the claim got dropped and then reinstated. So I had to go about it to the next step, which worried me because YouTube doesn’t defend me. If it would go further I would get a copyright strike against me, even though I did literally nothing wrong.

    Luckily, after I disputed it again and got a hold of the people with the claim it got resolved and it was dropped. I don’t know if that happens to other musicians often or not. I have a lot of music on YouTube with a decent amount of listens, so it might just make me a target. I am not sure.


    What A PITA, Michael!

    Guess I’ll set up a DMCA takedown template along with a bunch of legalese form letters.


    It’s like people are still in denial about it, like it’s not happening. It’s time to move past the denial, anger, bargaining, and all those stages of grief and get to acceptance. The library that accepts that it’s the way it’s going to be and works with it instead of grinding against it will really gain a big competitive edge.

    Muscosound, you did imply above in fairly strong terms above that everyone needs to accept contentID.
    I get defensive when anyone tells me, or a collective anybody, that they need to accept something.


    Ya it is a total pain, and it sucks because I’d like to push the content id free sales pitch a little more as a selling tool, but it’s a bold statement to say it’s 100% content id safe because of the false claims. Personally, I think customers enjoy knowing it wont trigger a claim, especially for the producers that are making an end product for someone else. Not only does it make them look bad, but it makes the musician look bad too if they knew it would cause a copyright claim and didn’t disclose that. A lot of the custom work I do involves a non-disclosure agreements, and I think that has to do with the production company wanting to appear like they created everything and didn’t source the music, along with other more obvious reasons. It makes me draw the conclusion that for stock music they would like to keep that same appearance that if you come to our production to make this project, everything will be taken care of by us.

    How bad would that look if a production company got paid some money for say an explainer video for a corporate client just to have a copyright claim on it and have a competitor’s ad running on their video. It makes everyone involved look bad, and is a great way to burn a bridge. I understand that for some customers that is not an issue, but for the ones that it is an issue it could be a very big problem.

    I also understand for some people it is easy to clear the claim and get the ad removed from like adrev, but at the same time for the ones that can’t have that hassle, or don’t want that for their end customer they have to be aware of what music is content id free and what is registered.

    My part in this is to stay vigilant for my music to be clear, and the libraries have got to make a stand on how they are going to deal with it. You can’t have a situation where some music is involved with content id, others is not, and it’s a crap shoot for the customers which one they will get. That is a terrible business move. If musicians are confident with the ease of something like adrev, or whoever, they should work hard to spin it in a positive way. Doing nothing and surprising a customer with that is bad, and even with the best customer service after the fact, it still can burn a bridge.


    Personally for me if I get a false claim I still get kind of a pit in my stomach, even though I’ve been through the process and know it’s a junk claim. I want it resolved immediately. I can only imagine how it would make a customer feel if they just paid the license and now there is a claim on the video especially when they expected not to have a problem. From my end it’s a HUGE priority to stay on top of the false claims just to have the issue not come up for my customers.

    I’d be curious to know if other musicians are monitoring their tracks on YouTube are getting false claims against their music too. If I had to make a conservative guess, I’d say for the about 300 pieces of music on YouTube, I get around 1-3 false claims per quarter.


    I see now. You are actually posting your music on youtube. I can see where that might generate some issues.

    I don’t want to do that. I’m only interested in in checking my music against YT’s database on a channel that doesn’t go live.


    As with AS, it would have to be opt-in, and for new exclusive content. Too much non-exclusive content has already been sold with the guarantee that it’s content ID free.

    MichaelL, I would just like to clarify that Audiosocket has implemented Content ID for their Non-Exclusive music as an Opt In (not just for new exclusive music) . I’m confused by how they pull this off, but in my opt in they clearly state that I am just granting them the exclusive rights to administer my music in the YouTube Content ID program and that all other media uses will remain Non-Exclusive (I am signed Non-Exclusively with them). This was what I was trying to say in one of my previous posts.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 191 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Forgot Password?

Join Us