[Dario FF]

TimmiT, on 05 February 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

SEGA's Twitter has finally responded, and has confirmed that eLicense is doing this independently. They're also trying to stop these claims from going out now: https://twitter.com/...404946108710912

Great news that it's solved!

However, I'm gonna remain a bit skeptical and think SoJ had something to do with this if this post is actually true. I would just think Ohtani might be confused from that reply (after all he was writing in English), but if he actually heard something it'd explain the sudden radio silence until the other parts of Sega were sure of what was going on. The company might've also jumped the gun on the claims as well without Sega's overview.

It's not like we should care but I still advise anyone to start muting/replacing music in the future if they intend to monetize their work for other reasons just in case.

EDIT: Well this reply makes me more comfortable.

Quote

Regarding eLicense, this company is not working on behalf of SEGA in any capacity. We are issuing a Cease & Desist to eLicense and reaching out to YouTube directly to work on resolving this problem.

eLicense is acting independently and Sega intends to take the necessary action to prevent this from happening again.

Please help us in spreading the word wherever you see it online, feel free to link back to this post. Thanks all for reporting and documenting this issue!

That doesn't sound like the usual kind of reaction against a collaborator that screwed up so I'm gonna assume Ohtani was confused.

This post has been edited by Dario FF: 05 February 2015 - 02:04 PM

[TheUltimaXtreme]

This is all excellent news. Checking my YouTube now, my claims are fine and those videos are re-monetized.

It always helps to take a second look, doesn't it?

[Overlord]

This entire incident is an example of why the DMCA is a completely bullshit rule, by the way.

[Blue Blood]

Kudos to everyone here who disputed this bullshittery, and kudos to SEGA for stepping up to the plate. Really glad, and kind of surprised, to see that it's being dealt with so quickly after people started to kick up a fuss.

[Covarr]

So it is precisely the same shit as Streammer. I wish I were surprised.

What YouTube needs is a way for copyright holders to use content ID while still allowing people with ID'd content to monetize. I'm imagining a world with such a system:

• As it is, if Sega wants to let you monetize, let's say, Sonic 3 Let's Play footage, they have to not even have that game in their system, which leaves a hole for fraudulent claims. If they could automatically identify and be associated with that content while still allowing monetization, this hole would be closed.
  
• ID'd content can be monitored. Using the same example, even if they're letting the uploader retain full monetization, Sega still has the ability to gain see sorts of their content is being viewed. This can provide valuable marketing data, letting them know which games of their are currently more popular, how recent sales have affected YouTube gameplay uploads, etc.
  
• When you view a video featuring a song in Content ID, next to the description there is a link to that song for purchase. Sega could make some money if they had links to soundtracks there (or maybe to the game itself, if it's in the Play Store, because it probably still has to go through Google), even without ever touching the in-video monetization.

See, as I see it, the system as it exists isn't just bad for consumers. It doesn't give studios the freedom or control they need, either. I cannot see why Google has not seen fit to offer such a thing; I know if I ran a game studio, I'd hop on board that immediately, even if only to protect my game from fraudulent claims.

[DigitalDuck]

Covarr, on 05 February 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

What YouTube needs is a way for copyright holders to use content ID while still allowing people with ID'd content to monetize. I'm imagining a world with such a system:

• As it is, if Sega wants to let you monetize, let's say, Sonic 3 Let's Play footage, they have to not even have that game in their system, which leaves a hole for fraudulent claims. If they could automatically identify and be associated with that content while still allowing monetization, this hole would be closed.
  
• ID'd content can be monitored. Using the same example, even if they're letting the uploader retain full monetization, Sega still has the ability to gain see sorts of their content is being viewed. This can provide valuable marketing data, letting them know which games of their are currently more popular, how recent sales have affected YouTube gameplay uploads, etc.
  
• When you view a video featuring a song in Content ID, next to the description there is a link to that song for purchase. Sega could make some money if they had links to soundtracks there (or maybe to the game itself, if it's in the Play Store, because it probably still has to go through Google), even without ever touching the in-video monetization.

See, as I see it, the system as it exists isn't just bad for consumers. It doesn't give studios the freedom or control they need, either. I cannot see why Google has not seen fit to offer such a thing; I know if I ran a game studio, I'd hop on board that immediately, even if only to protect my game from fraudulent claims.

Er... I'm fairly sure that already exists. At least, I don't monetise videos but I have some content ID matches with which the video remains without advertising.

The problem is that most choose to make money themselves instead, because they're businesses and of course they'd want more money.

[AngelComa]

Yeah, I figured since the start of the thread that elicense was acting alone. This has been happening with other companies as well and doesn't look good for any of them. I hope YouTube really looks at 3rd party companies claiming (basically bullying kids out of cash) videos that aren't theirs.

[TheUltimaXtreme]

That's entirely an established system already. In terms of copyright for content, companies are usually fairly relaxed on the prospect. It's when you start to use the content and act as if it was your entire doing that they'll get up in arms, and even then, that will usually need to be caught and thrown around before confirmation.

In this case, eLicense has labeled content that already existed as their own. Whether SEGA already threw a stick in that pond to lock down the content does spark the curiousity.

As it stands, eLicense is dead in the water after this, I would hope. There's a massive goof here, and it isn't too impressive.

I'm actually still trying to deal with an old copyright claim which involves the use of Capcom music. A TF2 video of mine played on the VS Saxton Hale X10 server has the medic boss, and the background music consists of the Theme of Gouki, from Street Fighter IV. I disputed it long ago, but never got any news. I found it was STILL claimed, and have since re-disputed it and gone to contact Capcom regarding use of content like this: music used incidentally that ultimately has no conflict with the original content's sale or movement. I'm not some OST ripper who uploads 320kbps songs to Youtube. That ACTUALLY conflicts with the sales of some things like the individual track for the Theme of Gouki because it may actually stand to compete with the original because of the quality it's in.

Capcom and SEGA are examples of the bad side to Youtube's copyright claiming. Easily abused and always being targeted by someone. There's not really any 100% clear indicator of it... Especially with Capcom slamming any videos regarding the Street Fighter V press release content that should only be sent out if it's meant for content to be made about it. There was no NDA, no clarification to not upload it, but people did and Capcom's axing it.

Stuff like this needs to be really thought out and handled precisely to avoid more of these incidents. As it stands, I just hope I don't get a copyright strike.

[Covarr]

DigitalDuck, on 05 February 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Er... I'm fairly sure that already exists. At least, I don't monetise videos but I have some content ID matches with which the video remains without advertising.

I'm well aware that non-monetized videos can still be content ID'd. What I think doesn't exist is the ability for it to be ID'd but the uploader can still monetize, either in full or in part. As far as I'm aware, if Content ID catches something, either the owner makes the money or nobody does.

What would also be really nice is a revenue sharing program built right into YT monetization platform, kinda like what Nintendo's trying to do lately. This way, companies trying to make a quick buck off Let's Play videos (legitimate rights owners) could still do so, but it wouldn't leave youtubers dead in the water entirely, and also not involve having to go through the rights owner with needless (and sometimes ridiculous) additional contracts.

[Kiddo Cabbusses]

Also, another useful function YouTube has is "Restore Original Audio", so now I can bring back all those tracks I had removed from my uploads. :D

[Paraxade]

Minor update: I only ever got two elicense claims somehow, but now they're both gone, so I'm now 100% elicense-free!

[TheUltimaXtreme]

Covarr, on 05 February 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

As far as I'm aware, if Content ID catches something, either the owner makes the money or nobody does.

That's my argument, except it's "I make money, or I hide the video so you have a wasted claim.

Covarr, on 05 February 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

What would also be really nice is a revenue sharing program built right into YT monetization platform, kinda like what Nintendo's trying to do lately. This way, companies trying to make a quick buck off Let's Play videos (legitimate rights owners) could still do so, but it wouldn't leave youtubers dead in the water entirely, and also not involve having to go through the rights owner with needless (and sometimes ridiculous) additional contracts.

Except with all the fees eventually calculated, the theory is you only get a potential 1/5 of the cut you worked on in a single video, and in Nintendo's stupid case, you must present the game in a positive light, and it must be one of the predetermed titles.

I'd be fine with it except for, again, 1/5. Without Nintendo's involvement, just keeping Google's chopping, your possible MCN overlord, and Paypal fees, you get about 1/3. Personally, I'm more acquainted to 1/3 over 1/5. You can argue that's negligible, but work solely on YouTube, doing a lot of Nintendo, and that costs you REAL quick.

Nintendo does say they take less for Nintendo predicated channels, but that's what, 1/4? The channels already taking on that Nintendo dedication are making a lot less so suddenly. I pity guys like Dazran303 and cobanermani456 who get most of their profits from Nintendo games and Sonic (and this Nintendo exclusivity deal that brought our last two Sonic games). I know Dazran got his community just for being the only Machinima Respawn producer on the Call of Duty Wii market. He really cornered that.

I don't think we'll see a perfect network any time soon. I know newcomers to the MCNs like Seananners' new JETPAK or The Big Moustache are on the scene, but I don't know how they are. They offer higher CPM, but I need analytics and it's too early to see that yet.

[Effexor]

Hey, all my claims are gone now. That was pretty fast.

[OKei]

Kiddo Cabbusses, on 05 February 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

Also, another useful function YouTube has is "Restore Original Audio", so now I can bring back all those tracks I had removed from my uploads. :D

In my case, I "acknowledged" three content claims against my Sonic Adventure AutoDemo video before all this elicense word spread out (I assumed it was legit until Sega said otherwise). I still had to dispute the claim yesterday morning before I could restore the original audio, but luckily the claims were removed later into the evening.

Just thought I'd share that.