Thanks, for the response, I think the switch is a very big process and might not even be possible due to contracts but I will find out more and see if its worth it. Thanks again.
2 Likes
Agree with you on your point that prioritizing biggest Content ID administrator is the logical step, but not how you did it. Actually, this is kinda forced and very annoying advertising of their service, and with no option to choose other, it’s unfair towards authors. There is million reasons why we choose one or another company, and Identify not in my wish list because of very bad reputation among authors in my community. But turning off from search system those, who made their choice before this news is kinda unfair. Let’s see how things will go in upcoming months. Hopefully, there will be no blocks for other competitive services to participate in your new initiative. As for now - you left us in very tight time span with almost no option. Switching from one service to other is very painful process, because we have obligations due our contracts. It’s also very painful to move 1100+ tracks from one CID service to another. Hopefully, other companies will jump to this train soon. As for now - again, no one asked authors about how it’s possible to change CID during few days, when most of our contracts arranged in yearly terms. Why care about this? 
6 Likes
I have been with AdRev for years with them handling all things ContentID. I will not be using Identifyy as their reputation reported on this forum is bad. I shall await to see if AdRev works with your new tool but I think it is unfair if I am at a disadvantage if I do not choose the default administrator, Identifyy. I understand that this covers most of the tracks in AudioJungle but this is a little short sighted - IMHO.
Totally understand wanting to have all the content ID providers included but to be able to do that it would have required long delays while waiting for all the providers API’s to become compliant with our systems. That would mean continual customer frustration and possible subscription cancellation. We believe its better to launch in stages and add new providers as they become available.
1 Like
This seems reasonable and I am looking forward to getting Adrev included in Claim Clear!
3 Likes
Authors frustration is out of this equation? They are providing you content for our customers. Or not? I know, this is not your personal opinion, huge things involved, but why not to ask authors too? There is a lot of top authors who not involved with Identify. So taking us more time to adjust systems of our CID companies is a huge sign of respect towards those who contributed to your content.
3 Likes
Same. But we don’t have a saying in this, as usual.
Honestly guys (the ones using other CID services), not being in the tool’s orbit might end up having more pros than cons, I think. Of course we should have been informed waaaaaay earlier but this very briefly and undetailed presentation of the new exciting feature, with its channel whitelisting option, might end up crushing our CID incomes.
Let’s wait and stay communicated.
4 Likes
@KingDog @BenLeong
These two questions are of the utmost concern to me, and I’m sure many others.
Here’s an example why: There’s a news channel which has been using one of my intros consistently for quite some time now. In January 2025 alone, they used it on 529 separate YouTube videos, and in a typical month they are responsible for roughly 20-30% of my ContentID earnings.
My assumption is, they don’t file the necessary documentation for each and every video because that would require a dedicated employee whose main (if not only) task would be to fill out Elements forms and respond to copyright claims perhaps 20-30 times a day or more. And since their videos typically include paid promotions, it would appear they are comfortable trading off possible YouTube monetization vs. the cost of employing someone full-time which would ultimately cost them several times more out of pocket.
Obviously, I have absolutely no problem with things just the way they are. But if Claim Clear ends up disrupting the status quo and grants them a white-listed channel moving forward, the immediate and primary effect will not be a reduction in “complaints from prospective and current customers” but rather a HUGE decrease in earnings. Why would I, or any author, want that?
12 Likes
What will stop a buyer from buying a subscription - asking to add his channel to the white list, download all the necessary tracks for 10 years in advance and cancel the subscription after a month? Why would he renew it? Your agreement with Identifyy sounds like you are no longer providing tracks, but selling inclusion in the white list
6 Likes
Will Envato force authors to switch to Identifyy?
How will it be verified that this music was used in this video and that it was downloaded the required number of times and the required number of unique licenses were generated?
I think it will be an author-trust-based system.
No. Authors are free to choose whatever content ID platform they like.
2 Likes
What about the other important questions we authors have about this? Come on now!
We’ve been asking for an integrated solution to claim management for the past ten years. Now that it’s finally coming, you won’t even take the time to explain to us authors how it works?!
ContentID is a complex topic tat is not easy to navigate. Having clear processes that are well understood by all parties is essential. Without this transparency, all this new feature is bringing is another opaque layer that further muddies the water.
ContentID backend earnings is the only reason why (some) authors have agreed to give up on their upfront earnings and join Elements. Now, if this feature is jeopardizing the stream of revenue, it’s a deal breaker plain and simple. Authors will have to consider wether they’ll earn more with Envato or with ContentID, and act accordingly.
This announcement should have been backed with a relevant article detailing the technical aspects and implications of the feature. Having failed to do so is a yet another fail.
5 Likes
@BenLeong , @KingDog , I have a question that’s been raised above but not so specifically:
BY FAR, my best CID reports came from games that were streamed by streamers/gamers. This comes from the fact that it’s the developer who owns the license but not the content creators that stream themselves playing the game. What happens in these specific cases with the new Claim Clear tool? Do streamers need to subscribe and get proper licenses too?
I’m sure this is a relevant question for many authors here, so I would really appreciate it if you don’t overlook this comment. Thanks! 
3 Likes
I’m following up on the question I asked six days ago, as I haven’t received a response yet and believe it’s relevant.
1 Like
That shouldn’t be a problem 
1 Like