YouTube Music Key

[Art Munson]

Hi; Has anyone else been approached about signing up for this?
I am wondering if joining AdRev http://cid.adrev.net will cause problems with libraries that are using my music.

Thanks!!

[Desire_Inspires]

The site said “The money really adds up: We’ve monetized over 30 million videos to date,
and this year alone, we’ve paid out over $10 million to our rights holders!”

So $10 million dollars divided by 30 million videos equals $0.33 per video. That is the average payout.

But of course some videos make a lot more than others. Many probably make nothing with a handful making a lion’s share of the money and some others bringing in smaller amounts.

Does this make any sense for composers to sign up? Not to me. Where is the money?

[Mark Lewis]

I am wondering if joining AdRev http://cid.adrev.net will cause problems with libraries that are using my music.

If you are distributing your music non-exclusively through several libraries then yes it most definitely will cause a problem.
The thing that AdRev does not tell composers and other music libraries is that the music needs to be exclusive to one entity, one library or publisher.
It is completely against youtube contentID policy to enter non-exclusive music into their database.
You can see for yourself right here on the youtube contentID signup page
https://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
To qualify for Content ID, you must own or control exclusive online streaming rights for the content you submit in the territories in which you assert rights.

This is the part of the agreement that I guess AdRev leaves out of their pitch to composers and music libraries which ends up causing a huge hassle for everyone else.

[ENW1]

AdRev claimed copyright infringements on several of the audio tracks on my YouTube page. I emailed YouTube that they were my copyrights & it was me, playing the guitar parts in my own studio. The AdRev claim disappeared.

Don’t know why this occurred. I’ve been careful to stay out of libraries with Youtube Content ID agreements that I couldn’t opt out of. I found some negative online chatter about AdRev. They might be legit but it all added-up to give me a “stay-away” feeling.

[ENW1]

Found one of my YouTube videos blocked today…

THE YOUTUBE NOTICE:
“This video contains content from AdShare MG for a Third Party, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”

The YouTube site says AdRev is making the claim. What-the-hell is wrong with this company? They make absolutely no effort to verify copyright claims.

I wrote the music, recorded it in my studio, AND registered it with the Library of Congress. This easy to verify before making false claims of copyright infringement.

This company is begging for a Class Action Suit.

OR…
Is this just a way to force us to join AdRev? Hmmm…

[ENW1]

Wow. Five minutes after I contested the claim with YouTube, the video was up & running again.

It’s gotta be an automated response from YouTube. They must be getting tons of complaints.

[Mark Lewis]

@ENW1
From what you posted it actually looks like AdShare MG was making the claim on your music.
Did you have your music in the AS library around 2011?
Many of the catalogs that were inadvertently uploaded to AdShare MG are somehow getting re-claimed on youtube. They keep saying they have removed that music from the youtube contentID database but they obviously haven’t as many of the composers who were around at that time keep getting their music reinstated with AdShare MG.
It is a major hassle. AdShare MG is apparently just lying to everybody when they confirm a composer’s music is removed. They blame it on an intern or something that keeps reinstating these composer’s music catalogs into youtube contentID but why is it even an option for an intern to be able to do this when they have confirmed over and over again that the music from these composers has been deleted from the database.
Pretty dodgy if you ask me.
This is exactly why it is good for composers to test their catalogs on youtube for false copyright claims like this.

[ENW1]

Hi Mark:

Thanks for the response. I just found 7-8 more claims on my videos via AdShare & AdRev. I’m not sure the 2 companies aren’t related.

Yes, I’ve had tracks at AudioSparx for years (non-exclusive). I’m aware of the intern story. This year, I got a tiny bit of revenue from AudioSparx Internet Royalties. It seems to be just one tune. Lee said he’s issued a takedown notice. They’ve always been a decent company to deal with.

I’ve been cautious to NOT enter into any agreements authorizing YouTube Content ID. It just seems that “guilty until proven innocent” is a sleazy approach to the problem. Shouldn’t they verify ownership at the Library of Congress before filing fraudulent claims?

I guess I gotta start a new private YouTube channel to test tracks. It’s a few hundred tracks. Gonna be a pain in the butt.

[Mark Lewis]

AdShare & AdRev. I’m not sure the 2 companies aren’t related.

They are definitely not related.
Your AdShare claims will all come down when Lee puts his request through.
If you feel like posting the info on your false claims from AdRev I can help you figure that out.
ContentID posts lots of info now on the copyright claims (usually) and there are lots of ways to use that info to figure out what is happening and who to contact.

Lee said he’s issued a takedown notice. They’ve always been a decent company to deal with.

Lee is great. He is responsive and very helpful.

I’ve been cautious to NOT enter into any agreements authorizing YouTube Content ID.

There are many libraries that will enter your music into youtube contentID without asking you and without letting you know what you might have earned.

It just seems that “guilty until proven innocent” is a sleazy approach to the problem. Shouldn’t they verify ownership at the Library of Congress before filing fraudulent claims?

That is really the most unfair and frustrating part of this whole situation. That the copyright owner of the actual music is guilty until proven innocent.
That is the part that really p****s me off.
There should be some sort of vetting for music that is uploaded but there is absolutely none.

[ENW1]

Thanks Mark:

I may take you up on that offer. I want to first see the results from contesting the false copyright claims at YouTube.

I’ve read that AdRev can be difficult. Their Home Page has a BIG link for contesting false claims. They must get hundreds of complaints. Why should they want to resolve anything? It’s extra work & they lose money. I plan to…

1. Contest present claims at YouTube.
2. Load everything up to a new private YouTube Test Page & see what happens.
3. Attempt to determine the culprits.
4. Decide on a course of action. I may contact you then but I expect this will take time.

Found this link via Wikipedia. Sounds like a lot of work.

http://www.marketingdock.com/copyrights/dealing-with-copyright-infringement.php

Happy New Year.

[Author]

Posts