Anyone got their stuff registered with adrev?
I applied at the beginning of the week but haven’t heard anything back from them.
I’ve heard rumours that they’re not taking on composers now and that they don’t tell you and just leave you hanging.
Anyone have experience with this?
Strange… Why wouldn’t they just say it if they aren’t accepting composers?
I registered with them about a month ago. Everything seemed to be working fine, but then, out of the blue, my account became inactive. After some emails to try to figure out what had happened, I received an email saying “unfortunately, we cannot work with your library. Please find another aggregator in the list below: https://servicesdirectory.withyoutube.com/directory”
For now, I lost my interest in Content ID, maybe later in the game I’ll think about it again.
From what I’ve heard from friends and many people in forums, these days they usually only take composers with a substantial amount of streams.
I got in last year after one of my tracks had been stolen by an aggregator for one of the biggest TV Networks in the world and was registered illegally with content ID. They broadcasted a show featuring my track (full length, no background use) to almost a quarter billion people (not a typo) and it received about hundred million plays on YT. Only heard about it because of a client who received a copyright notice on one of his videos featuring said track. “Fun” fact: they actually stole the track directly from exactly that clients video - you could hear the notes of a following track they didn’t fade out properly, because they overlapped with the tail of my last chord…
Well, a long following story short - after that, I got in…
There are so many misconceptions about content ID, especially here in the forum. The way it is right now, it’s basically irresponsible to not register your tracks, simply because of this gigantic loophole in Google’s system. Who comes (registers a track) first, gets the money and can claim whatever they want. Therefore, if some people think it’s a hassle having to do these tiny extra steps of clearing claims BEFORE publishing a video, it’s complete nonsense.
Getting your existing videos demonetized out of the blue because someone fraudulently registers a track of a composer the client bought a license for, without even knowing if they can ever clear the claim - well, that’s a real problem. Technically, when it’s about a lot of money, you could always go to court. And would most likely win. But only after you invested insane amounts of money in lawyers, and pay all the costs in court. And generally, the jurisdiction is the biggest problem. Needless to say, not worth it at all, so better hope they at least remove your track from the system where they registered it with, so your clients can continue monetizing their videos. But in case that video received a lot of clicks during that time - the money is gone. Those aren’t things that happen occasionally to a small amount of people. They happen daily.
I’m still guilty myself - I don’t register all of my tracks there, usually only high-profile tracks, not the ones I have here. Simply because I don’t have the time educating people all the time about why they are so wrong about thinking it’s better to not buy registered tracks. And because some non-exclusives don’t allow music that’s registered. But I’m going to change that soon.
They at least should know better, but obviously they don’t. And will learn it the hard way.
That was a long one 
So, I can only give you the good advice to register your stuff, there are plenty providers out there.
For your own and your client’s sake.
Well thankfully all my “bigger” tracks are all registered through publishers but it’s the AJ ones I’m trying to get registered.
If I don’t here back from adrev within the next week I’ll go with the company audiomachine uses (as they seem keen to take on new clients).
Indeed!
Not registering your music is irresponsible, both to you and to your customers.
If buyers are not happy with having to deal with ContentID registered tracks, let them deal with illegitimate claims and see what they prefer.
If a platform does not allow ContentID tracks, then they are working against you and ironically, they are also working against their customers. By doing so, they are actively sabotaging our work environment and turning it into an unfair and lawless mess. You should give them the finger and take your music elsewhere.
AJ is probably the place where your music may have the greatest and widest exposure. Thus, the music you upload to AJ is the most at risk of being stolen (used in a video without a license, or registered in someone else’s name). Therefore, AJ music should be your priority to register.
As a long time Content ID user, I find both big pros, and big cons.
I don’t register all tracks anymore (see below why), but the older ones I have registered bring in very good money, more than AJ marketplace sales in fact. When I was a student, I lived on less.
There are different types of customers. Here are just a few examples:
• Small businesses - corporate type videos. They usually don’t even get 1,000 views on their YouTube videos and don’t even care about monetization.
• Photographers/videographers who make cinematic videos. They look a long time for that perfect track for each video, and don’t care if it costs more than others. They do, however, try to grow their YouTube channels and want to monetize. For them, it’s OK to deal with a claim when they upload, as long as the music is right.
• Then we have the daily YouTubers. The vloggers and other big channels. The people who actually make A LOT of money on YouTube and call it their full-time job.
They HATE Content ID music. Why? Because they rely on monetization and most of the views happen within the first 24 hours, mostly very soon after each upload. They absolutely CANNOT have their monetization (wrongly) turned off for even 2 hours.
These are the guys who might need 15 tracks per week, every week. And there are lots of them. Unfortunately, buying a CID track might mean losing $1,000… Suddenly a very expensive track.
It’s not a big problem for them if a claim happens after a year from someone else. By that time, that video doesn’t make them any money anyway.
The underlying problem is the CID (specifically AdRev and the others regular people can use) system. A video redirects its monetization instantly upon detection. We, the owners, have no chance of deciding BEFORE that happens whether the use is legitimate or not.
If we could do that, it would look very different, because the customers wouldn’t have to worry about demonetization if they had bought a license.
Who’s to say when the illegitimate claim will come? It could already be falsely registered when they upload and they get the claim when it hurts the most, without any way to fix it before it’s much too late.
I agree with you that there many issues with the system as it is now. The ideal way to me, would take the form of a “license certificate” box in the YT upload page, so that no claims be made against licensed videos. But many things need to happen for this to become a reality.
Letting the copyright owner decide what to do when there is a match, could be a interim solution. It could also make AdRev rethink their position on “royalty-free” authors, as the added workload generated by Youtube’s alleged royalty-free policy, would then rest on the author. But how would we as authors manage it? How do we know which videos are licensed or not? Of course there are the obvious ones, but what about the others? Do we look up the contact of every video uploader and ask them to show us the license? How feasible is this?
Despite its many flaws (which I do not minimize, I completely understand the timing issue in regards to revenue streams), I still think that ContentID is the way to go (well it’s our only option anyway). With the copyright regulations coming our way in the next few years, it will become even more crucial. Youtube may even make it a mandatory thing to “declare” all the assets used in a video, and thus finally make the “license certificate” box happen.
Well, any author working with YouTube users as customers should have their tracks and test them on YouTube to see what the customer sees.
It isn’t incredibly likely that a thief would register your track exactly when a customer is uploading, but of course, nothing is impossible. 
Anyway, like with most things, it’s a trade-off. Is it worth losing certain customers in order to monetize illegitimate use? Or beat the thief to registering?
Only you can decide.
I look at it as a business. What will make me the most money? Most CID matches make very little, so does the chance of an illegitimate viral video with 20 million views weigh more than keeping most buyers happy? The thing is, if the track is registered when the video is uploaded, it’s very unlikely it will become viral because the uploader will do something about it. The biggest chance of catching videos like that is by having a track registered AFTER those uploads.
Or is it more profitable to market to the biggest music buyer market of them all, and just accept that the music will also be stolen and used without a license? You are eliminating another type of viral spread by having your tracks in CID. The illegal use spread! Something that can actually be very beneficial (and has been for many artists). 100 million ears hear the music and some of those ears belong to people who do things the right way.
Is it worth not being able to use certain libraries?
In my opinion, no right or wrong here, just different perspectives.
Well, that would certainly be interesting, and also the end of YouTube as we know it. Before long, only corporate friendly channels would remain, and the “wild west” masses would move to the next platform.
Indeed, a matter of perspective.
I’d rather see it as is it worth it to lose some sales in order to create a stable regulated and fair environment that down the line will benefit all parties. It’s not about a “gotcha thief!” attitude, but about something we can build upon so we authors have control over our assets, while buyer have a standardized process to clear use of copyrighted material.
Is that really how it happens, though? Historically, when regulations came about in the Wild West, did people there leave en masse to hypothetical freer lands, or did they thrive in the now regulated environment, much more than when all there was, was lawlessness?
I do hear your points though, and I don’t think you are in the wrong here, as you said it’s a matter of perspective.
Bit of a cynical view that all youtubers that aren’t part of a big business, are thieves that will hightail it out of there if any kind regulations are introduced.
Actually, if a copyright claim is disputed or cleared with a license, any revenue that was generated whilst the claim was active is forwarded back to the YouTube account as normal.
So, provided the YouTuber gets the claim cleared with their license, they don’t lose any revenue. This is something I’ve always made a point of mentioning to users if and when they need a claim released.
Should also mention here, YouTube users have 5 days from the YouTube notice to clear claims and get the revenue, which is held in escrow by YouTube whilst the claim is under review.
Any claims cleared after the 5 days, YouTube start holding the revenue on the date the claim dispute is made. This is shown as ‘adjustment earnings’ in our AdRev accounts I believe.
@Flumen
It isn’t incredibly likely that a thief would register your track exactly when a customer is uploading, but of course, nothing is impossible.
I don’t think that this is really the issue that we’re facing. As described earlier, there are people out there stealing your music and registering it with AdRev. You won’t even notice until one of your customers gets a copyright notice and tries to clear it with your receipt. Now you have an angry customer AND it’s your job to convince AdRev that the music is really yours. However long that process takes (if you succeed at all), your customer will have to wait for you to get it done. And honestly, I don’t see how you can prevent that from happening again unless you register the track yourself.
It’s really not only about squeezing money from YouTubers who don’t buy Sync licenses. It’s about making sure that legitimate customers can trust the license they paid for keeps them out of trouble. To be honest, I wouldn’t buy anything on AudioJungle if there was a chance that the music I license pops up a copyright notice AFTER all the time I invested in editing my video.
I think our biggest problem is that YouTube is not considered broadcast/syndication. Which is crazy! They hold 80% of the video streaming platform market. People watch more YouTube videos than traditional media.
I don’t see anyone leaving YouTube, either.
No other platform offers the amount of viewers, the streaming performance, the ad revenue, etc. People go where there’s an audience and where the money is.
That is good to know, thanks!
This is what it says:
“If you choose to dispute within the first 5 days of receiving it, we will hold revenue generated on that video from the first day the Content ID claim was placed. If you choose to dispute a Content ID claim after 5 days of the original claim, we will start holding the revenue on the date the dispute is made.”
I assume it would be the same with an AdRev claim, but it’s not clear.
So, for active YouTubers, that’s good, but for people who buy music, upload and forget it, more than 5 days may pass…
I have seen estimates that up to 70% of all YouTube videos infringe on copyright. My own experiences tell the same story. Sports highlights, clips from tv shows, entire nature documentaries, concerts, and we’re not even talking about music yet.
If all of a sudden only vloggers remained, there would still be viewers, sure, but large quantities would move to the next platform for their free TV.
You don’t think that removing 70% of YouTube would affect the audience?
They should get a copyright claim notice email from YouTube as soon as the claim is generated.
So in this situation it could be argued it’s then the uploader who’s responsible in showing their license, granting rights of use. After all, that’s exactly what the license is for!