|
YouTube runs the ContentID system on everything uploaded. After it finds a match, copyright owners can do four things: - Ignore the claim. - Take a percentage (including 100%) of ad revenue. If the video wasn't monetized before, it's forced on, with 100% going to the creator. This is what most sane companies do nowadays. - Start the takedown process. Video goes down, user counter-claims, etc. Usually done by giant companies on properties they don't want anybody ever seeing. So, anime and old Disney Channel Original Movies fall under this system. - Manual review. Copyright owner gets an email, and can choose one of the above. Used by a lot of small creators as a way to keep tabs on who's uploading what, and making sure that nothing gets out of hand. In your case, Danaru, it's likely the copyright owner has it set to manual review, saw you were uploading something, and then ignored it because they were fine with it.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
I was aware that Copyright Notices do not necessarily mean a takedown of the video. The holders can take all the ad revenue for themselves, which can be acknowledged by the uploader, and the video will usually run fine. What I was trying to say was that independent film/movie reviewers on Youtube have an extremely low chance of making money off of their videos if they use the ad revenue system because ContentID will detect the footage/audio that isn't theirs. Therefore they turn to non-Youtube ways of making money (directing their audience to Patreon, relying on personal website donations, etc.) Case in point, film criticism channels like Red Letter Media, YourMovieSucksDOTorg, and Every Frame a Painting are all highly successful on Youtube and can continue doing it because they get funded from viewers personally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
I doubt many people consider Youtube the platform of choice for making money because Google has made it pretty clear that it's on the side of big business. Every policy on Youtube is heavily skewed in favor of corporate copyright holders, which are either companies that pay to have content created or companies that buy the rights to created content so they can profit from it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but as far as those companies care, any money going to anyone else is not going to the companies, which means less profit. Google has the leverage to be more consumer-friendly, or even just friendly to their user base, but that's not who has the majority of the money, so that's not where the profit for Google is. However, if your goal in posting content isn't to make money through the same vehicle based on views, then Youtube is one of the best sites for getting the videos online and seen everywhere but Germany, and as has been said, there are other ways to get money for those videos in more predictable quantities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Game Grumps recently had an issue where Youtube was being lovely about copyrights due to them singing a few lines of songs once in a while. If DISNEY lawyers have trouble with Youtube, it's not a good sign for the smaller one-two person operations. On the other hand, there's pretty much nowhere else popular enough to get any kind of exposure, so it comes down to Patreon or getting lucky and dodging copyrights. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
 This person doesn't even have a picture of the god drat game in their dumbass thumbnail pic and the title of the game doesn't even get first billing. 53,000 views.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Danaru posted:Game Grumps recently had an issue where Youtube was being lovely about copyrights due to them singing a few lines of songs once in a while. If DISNEY lawyers have trouble with Youtube, it's not a good sign for the smaller one-two person operations. Wait you can get slapped for singing a song? I thought the whole "1 second of Nintendo footage means your entire 2 hour video now gives 100% ad revenue to Nintendo" thing was dumb, but singing a song yourself is grounds to get a strike?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Leal posted:Wait you can get slapped for singing a song? I thought the whole "1 second of Nintendo footage means your entire 2 hour video now gives 100% ad revenue to Nintendo" thing was dumb, but singing a song yourself is grounds to get a strike? Try singing "Happy Birthday" on a monetized video and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
How do they even find personally-sung lyrics? We're not at that point yet technically, are we?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Didn't Disney send cease and desist letters to daycares that painted their characters on the wall? Disney is really protective of their brand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Didn't Disney send cease and desist letters to daycares that painted their characters on the wall? Disney is really protective of their brand. DoctorWhat posted:How do they even find personally-sung lyrics? We're not at that point yet technically, are we?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
I don't think the tech is so much good at finding things like midis so much as it is aggressive and ruthless to the point of generating droves of false positives. Actual genuine matches don't stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Speaking of Game Grumps, I think their Bloodborne playthrough is different enough from their usual stuff to be enjoyable since there's some competency involved. Also the game glitched out while they were trouncing the first boss and they got stuck in a wall till they died and I find that funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Try singing "Happy Birthday" on a monetized video and see what happens. It's still unclear as to whether or not Warner Brothers's copyright is valid, but they're collecting royalties anyway and just expecting lawsuits to be too much of a hassle for them to lose copyright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
DialTheDude posted:I was aware that Copyright Notices do not necessarily mean a takedown of the video. The holders can take all the ad revenue for themselves, which can be acknowledged by the uploader, and the video will usually run fine. What I was trying to say was that independent film/movie reviewers on Youtube have an extremely low chance of making money off of their videos if they use the ad revenue system because ContentID will detect the footage/audio that isn't theirs. Therefore they turn to non-Youtube ways of making money (directing their audience to Patreon, relying on personal website donations, etc.) Ah, I see what you mean now, gotcha. Another thing people do is host off YouTube - Apparently, YT is actually pretty low in terms of video ad revenue! It's just that everyone goes there, so you end up with more money out of volume.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's still unclear as to whether or not Warner Brothers's copyright is valid, but they're collecting royalties anyway and just expecting lawsuits to be too much of a hassle for them to lose copyright. Aren't they in court right now over it? There are a bunch of people demanding they return all the royalties after someone realized their copyright might be for a different song entirely, or something like that. The schadenfreude would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Aren't they in court right now over it? There are a bunch of people demanding they return all the royalties after someone realized their copyright might be for a different song entirely, or something like that. The latest court meeting over it was supposed to be something like February 2 this year. I believe the main reason is that it's not entirely clear exactly who wrote what's been copywritten or when it dates back to, and that it's a gradual folk song evolution rather than a specific work by a specific person/group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Danaru posted:Speaking of TGWTG, this compilation of someone hired to help with sound production on Kickassia in a 4chan thread has been floating around for a bit. The whole thing might be bullshit, but it certainly goes along with other behind the scenes stories that have popped up over time. It is; Lupa says Kickassia didn't even have a crew beyond the cast, there was no sound guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
To be fair, that compilation also says there was no sound guy, because he never got to be one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:
Testekill posted:These people and their stupid goddamn mugging faces. What are you talking about. This is exactly how I pictured 8 bit Zelda back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
DarkSydePhil can now earn the money he so vehemently believes he deserves.quote:The most interesting tidbit coming from this report is that YouTube creators will be forced to participate in the program, otherwise all of their videos will be automatically set to private. This is probably going to make a lot of content creators unhappy, pending their interest in the program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Lunethex posted:
All 3 of the linked sources say this with this exact phrasing and none of them provide any proof except "sources say". Thanks, ace reporting job news sites, surely that's actually what your sources said and it's not just sensational wording. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Wait, so if a content creator refuses then their videos can't be found by searching? That's.... rather heavy handed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:I stumbled upon some dude spamming another LP forum and he was posting these images for his video thumbnails: Not gonna lie, trimming these down, any of these would make a good avatar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
If any part of that is true, we'd be one step closer in that transition from "YouTube" to just "Tube"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:How do they even find personally-sung lyrics? We're not at that point yet technically, are we? It's possible we are! We already have self-driving cars, Google and Siri are basically full on AI's by this point, as are most content matching online ads that will tell you to buy this thing you want because you bought another, similar thing on Amazon, so it's not impossible to think that Youtube's content ID machine is a very basic AI that's learning how to match content in more advanced ways with every new video it scans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:It's possible we are! We already have self-driving cars, Google and Siri are basically full on AI's by this point, as are most content matching online ads that will tell you to buy this thing you want because you bought another, similar thing on Amazon, so it's not impossible to think that Youtube's content ID machine is a very basic AI that's learning how to match content in more advanced ways with every new video it scans. But think of the computation required to search through every video and compare it to song lyrics to the point where it's obvious that it's a clear infringement. Even then, voice detection is still wonky with singing anyway; in fact, just talking seems to screw up Google's automatic subtitler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
They allegedly do it by analyzing the waveform of the video's audio track (don't quote me on that because it's totally hearsay, though it does sort of make sense I guess?), so if that's the case: if you do sing a song for long enough and it matches their system, it might just automatically flag it because their requirements are "matches the waveform of the song", not "the song was played in the video".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:They allegedly do it by analyzing the waveform of the video's audio track (don't quote me on that because it's totally hearsay, though it does sort of make sense I guess?), so if that's the case: if you do sing a song for long enough and it matches their system, it might just automatically flag it because their requirements are "matches the waveform of the song", not "the song was played in the video". The differences in waveform from singing a song and the actual song itself are pretty huge though. It's why phone programs like Shazam can't analyze a song just by someone singing it, or even from live performances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
With enough training data, you can get some pretty good accuracy using MFCC features w/ double deltas. By pretty good, I mean "around 50-60% accurate", which is pretty poo poo if you're trying to get a consumer application like Shazam to recognize something, but is pretty decent if your response is to forward it to a team of human drones to review it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Gamesfreak13563 posted:The differences in waveform from singing a song and the actual song itself are pretty huge though. It's why phone programs like Shazam can't analyze a song just by someone singing it, or even from live performances. If content holders gave YouTube the vocal tracks for songs they could do a pretty damned good job though e- also yeah they almost assuredly do MFCC and probably some other magic to pull out important audio GNU Order fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
GNU Order posted:If content holders gave YouTube the vocal tracks for songs they could do a pretty damned good job though Wow, I was unaware we'd progressed that far in audio tech. Is it heavy handed though to take a cut of profits if someone sings ten to twenty seconds of a song?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Gamesfreak13563 posted:Wow, I was unaware we'd progressed that far in audio tech. MFCC has been around for a pretty long time, and all it really does is extract and amplify frequencies which would match human speech. And yes it's heavy handed but if it cuts down on people singing along to game soundtracks then I embrace it with open arms
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Gamesfreak13563 posted:Wow, I was unaware we'd progressed that far in audio tech. It's probably like one of the hyperspec imaging things where algorithims make it possible to see things not apparent in the raw image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Testekill posted:Wait, so if a content creator refuses then their videos can't be found by searching? That's.... rather heavy handed. rip Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Testekill posted:Wait, so if a content creator refuses then their videos can't be found by searching? That's.... rather heavy handed. I think the article says it sets the videos to private. Which doesn't mean a video can't be found my searching. It means it can't be found period. Not even with a link. The only one who can view it is the one who uploaded it. Also: As far as I understand it there's not much of a downside to it unless you wanna use youtube to make the mad cash. Which is hard with ads anyway unless you get a shitton of traffic. You don't have to set up a ten dollar paywall so people can see your content. Not even about once a month like some forum I know. That part is optional. IGgy IGsen fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
The subscription thing isn't forced so I don't really see a problem
Andrast fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Andrast posted:So are there any reports about this from a real source? Youtube's interface and its new terms and conditions as well as several pages on their help platform https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3249165?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4352012?hl=en Can't find the terms and conditions now for some reason. Unless there's something I'm missing that pretty much confirms what the article says. Maybe someone else can find the conditions. I don't know how to access them. Even the E-Mail that notified me of them doesn't directly link to them. IGgy IGsen fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
This is basically just youtube trying to bring in the Patreon money and I do like the prospect of paying tenbux per month to get rid of ads but I still prefer Patreon since they don't take 45% of the cut and it's a whole lot broader.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Gamesfreak13563 posted:The differences in waveform from singing a song and the actual song itself are pretty huge though. It's why phone programs like Shazam can't analyze a song just by someone singing it, or even from live performances. Take a look at Soundhound, it actually does this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
So, basically, it seems like the part that's being "forced" is that Youtube will offer ad-free subscriptions to viewers and the creators will have to take their cut of that fee instead of the usual ad revenue - they won't have the option to say that the ad-free fee doesn't apply to their channel. Which is pretty much the only way Youtube will be able to sell these subscriptions, so that makes sense from their perspective. I just imagine that this is going to decrease the revenue of the biggest creators, at least potentially, depending on how much ad money there is to go around per viewer. If one viewer is watching more than $10 worth of content with ads (the most likely candidates to be buying these subscriptions), then by paying the subscription fee, that decreases the total pool of money being paid out. And let's not forget that the companies buying the ads can't be happy about ad-free subscriptions being offered, so it's likely that Adsense payouts are going to decrease per ad in addition to the lower number of ads being served, because those ads are worth less to the companies paying for them. The numbers will tell, and they probably will end up rising in the end and I'm speculating over nothing, but this has the potential to be really bad. Or completely ignored by the general public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:43
|
|