Broooooo... That is and will always be the YouTube copyright system - the weird side is you can do that exact same thing and people use copyright strikes as weapons. Either to "steal your fish" OR take your net/rod so you can't catch any more (take the video's money or strike the channel into perma-ban) with impunity. The danger to false-claiming is a legal one, BUT considering the dispute system is ALSO tilted in the claimant's favour - meaning it gives advertisers strong-arm intimidation leverage by giving them the veto on their own disputes, disproportionately posing an existential threat to the channel without the defendant pursuing potentially expensive legal proceedings - they'll flatten your channel with no chance of appeal and make it almost impossible without large established audience to spark internal individual review of the case. That ain't changing unless one of the largest corporations in the world with a global throttle point convergence of intel and info somehow loses its influence... 🤷 Email them shirtless old men with no context 'til they go all "Telltale Heart" and repent from heavy conscience lol
2 months ago
| 1
Totally get the frustration, but here’s the thing: YouTube isn’t a court — it’s a private platform managing millions of copyright claims daily. The system isn’t perfect, but in a free market, YouTube has every right (and incentive) to protect itself from liability first. Why does the claimant get the final say initially? Because YouTube’s trying to avoid a lawsuit, not judge who sampled what in a decades-old soundtrack rabbit hole. If they had to deeply investigate every minor dispute with neutral third parties, it would slow the entire system to a crawl — or make the platform unusable. Also, false claims suck, but content owners (or people claiming to be) are YouTube’s real customers when it comes to IP enforcement. If YouTube makes the wrong call against rights holders, they risk takedowns, lawsuits, and lost licensing deals. That’s not “unfair,” it’s just how risk works in the market.
2 months ago
| 1
Its the YouTube system. Its completely messed up. I'll see if I can find it but I watched a video once where someone got copyright claimed by WWE even though they had no WWE content in the video. Turns out they had a 1 second clip of a package of M&Ms that WWE mistook for their logo. YouTube said the copyright claim was fair and just
2 months ago
| 5
youtube wants to stay out of copyright disputes. whoever makes a claim is always automatically assumed to be making it in good faith, which is heavily exploited for fun and profit. if you really want to fight it, you can take it to court (yikes)
2 months ago
| 1
The exact same thing happened to me when I used the digimon world night time music at the end of a Metroid video I made a few years back. Some rap group said it was a song they made yet obviously it wasn’t because well it was from digimon world. Anyway when I sent in my dispute I sent a google search where I found when they founded the group and also provided when digimon world came out along with a link to both songs and I won. Sadly the damage was done and my video got little to no views but hope this helps. Provide links to when said group started and when robo cop came out along with links to both songs etc.
2 months ago
| 1
Definitely Mitch
"Dispute rejected: The claimant decided that their claim is valid. The video restrictions will remain."
Am I missing something here? A video of mine was copyright claimed upon uploading for about two minutes of music. The song was the Robocop theme I've used in a ton of videos without issue, and the person making the claim isn't even the original artist; they're someone who sampled the song for one of their own tracks.
First, how can someone copyright my video for a song that a) isn't theirs, and b) that they stole themselves, and thus shouldn't have any right to it anyway; and...
Second, why is the claimant the final word here? It's got a real, "we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing" vibe to it. Whether the claim was genuine or not (it's not), shouldn't a neutral third party make the call?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the video isn't monetised, but I'm confused by this, and annoyed that some people can abuse this system.
2 months ago | [YT] | 27