It’s Official: YouTube Affiliate Channels Subject To New Copyright Claims

Our biggest story of the week has concerned the recent wave of ContentID claims against gaming YouTube channels. We initially reported that the changes would be tied to a new monetization review system for multi-channel networks that was set to debut in January. The story changed on December 10th, however, when thousands of videos across were flagged by ContentID.

The result has been chaos. Twitter has exploded, response videos are popping up en masse, and some creators are halting production on their videos as they try to figure out which claims are legitimate and which ones come from patent trolls or unrelated third parties.

In the latest development, YouTube has released an official statement that helps clear up the situation a little bit. The site has confirmed that the recent explosion of copyright claims is indeed related to a new system that will subject affiliate partners of MCNs to ContentID scanning. As a reminder, “affiliate” refers to most network partners, while the other category, “managed”, refers to channels where the network itself has taken a more active role.

Here is the unedited statement, in full:

“We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.”

This statement confirms what most creators already knew about the situation, but some troublesome elements are still unexplained. Why are so many claims coming from third parties with no apparent ties to game publishers? Why did YouTube enact this change much sooner than the January date it initially told Maker Studios? More philosophically, why would game publishers want to tear down a system that provides incalculably valuable exposure for their products?

We hope to get some more answers from YouTube soon. In the meantime, a video from YouTube gamer DPJ gives a nice overview of the ContentID system, explains what creators can do to fight against unjust claims, and shows off some impressive sniper rifle skills to boot.

Source: http://www.tubefilter.com/2013/12/11/youtube-official-statement-contentid-claims/

It was predicted that the game companies wanted to centralize viewing game content through their services and partners by a popular cod you tuber, I guess this is it?

The reason some of the flags come from companies that have little to do with gaming is simple: licensing.

For instance, this morning Ubisoft said that some videos featuring it's games were flagged by a company called 'idol', since it has certain distribution rights for some of their music.

yea Boogie did a video about this last night. I really hope this doesnt hurt Teamfourstar to much.. I need more DBZ A

US fair use considerations:

the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism or comment (subject to):

Reviews and Let's Plays absolutely have merit as COMMENTARY and CRITICISM

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

OK it's commercial, but the commercial value is from the COMMENTARY and CRITICISM, not the mere reproduction of game footage

the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Footage, even a LOT of footage, doesn't amount to substantial reproduction of the copyrighted work. Because gaming is an interactive medium and you're only seeing one playthrough, and even a thousand playthroughs wouldn't actually be the game. And also such showing is necessary for the COMMENTARY and CRITICISM to take place.

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Either zero (because it's not a reproduction), or in fact net positive (the exposure). The reproduction of game footage is no substitute for purchase and certainly does not devalue it.

The COMMENTARY and CRITICISM may well devalue the product, but that's not the part that we're considering for fair use.

--

Conclusion: All of these Youtube videos are (probably) fair use even with the monetisation. The companies shouldn't have the final say on whether a video stays up.

Nope, this doesn't seem to be it. The little I've managed to read about this indicates that many game companies are actually trying to help the LP'ers and have nothing to do with this system. If anything, this is Google acting on its own.

I really wish we got an alternative to Youtube. So much about Youtube sucks these days.