CONTENT ID Update (AdRev no longer accepting authors?) Alternatives? Identifyy?

Hi all,

I know that this is a well-known topic in this forum but I guess it is in real need of an UPDATED run since the music licensing industry has changed a lot in the past 2-3 years.

I wish I had started my portfolio here registering every single track with content ID. I did not. I do regret. But better late than never and I feel that the time has finally come and I am really serious about it now.

I think that “adRev” is the biggest and older YouTube partner for that, am I right? I know most of the biggest authors here use them. HOWEVER, I think they are NOT accepting any more individual musicians anymore. See this link and scroll down to see https://cid.adrev.net/ Am I correct in that? If so, what is the best alternative then? I know some people using “identifyy”. Does anyone know it? Is it good and easy to use it? how easy and quick is it to clear claims?

I am trying to read all about it in order to be better informed as this is a big decision to make. Today I found several videos on YT using my tracks and I have a very strong feeling that they are using it illegally. It’s a horrible feeling. After all, we are here working really hard, every day to create the best content we can.

Experienced authors in this forum, I would really appreciate any help and advice you may have.

Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

3 Likes

Received payment from identifyy yesterday :wink:
I’d recommend them

3 Likes

HI @ShymonMusic thanks for the reply. Do you confirm that adRev is closed for us at the moment?

I tried to register on Sep 2018 without a result. Who knows maybe they are accepting new RF authors now?

1 Like

Indeed AdRev no longer accepts registrations from so-called RF authors. Though some authors have managed to slip through. Maybe it depends on how you present yourself…

2 Likes

I’ve tried to register in AdRev not so long ago, but have no luck in that.

Now, I’m trying to submit my tracks with identifyy, thanks @WavebeatsMusic for the link!)

2 Likes

Hi guys, thanks for you input. Ok, I just created an acount with identifyy (https://www.identifyy.com/) and will register one track today. If all goes well I will do it for other tracks too. it would be great if we could share our experience with this service not only to help us but also others in the future, ok? thanks a lot

1 Like

Have you received message from identifyy with list of questions?)

1 Like

no i haven’t have you??

Thought I’d better chime in and point out that Identifyy also do not accept royalty-free music, as mentioned on their FAQ page here.

In fact, quite a few of the more popular fingerprinting services are no longer allowing RF or Creative Commons licensed material to be submitted. They seem to be focusing more on distributed listening music and label catalogues these days.

On speaking with AdRev about this issue a while back, I was told it’s simply due to changes at Google/YouTube’s end - which I assume is YouTube looking to minimize copyright claim complaints on licensed music. This probably explains why YouTube have been heavily investing in their own ever-growing internal audio library and striking up deals directly with select music libraries. How things change.

1 Like

Hi @Alumo, I just saw that too as I was reading the FAQ in their website. However, quite a lot AJ authors are already using their services and they say it’s quite good and reliable. I honestly am not 100% sure. I will go ahead though and upload one track to test. wait a few days and see what happens. I might also contact them and explain the situation.

i just got an email with a few questions. It came after I submitted the first track. I will answer their questions now and wait a few days (or even a couple of weeks) before I register any other track. Just to try their services first

1 Like

That’s definitely interesting to hear and will be good news if they are still accepting RF composers.

It’s worth mentioning that AdRev also have a large number of active RF composers on their books (myself included), but it’s new RF composer submissions which are probably under scrutiny.

That said, I guess it’s still up to the service’s discretion who may and may not join - based on, popularity, catalogue size, potential earnings, etc.

Worth getting in touch directly with them on Twitter here or even their CEO Ryan Born (who ironically originally founded AdRev back in the day).

Off course, thanks

From the wording here, “must not contain”, it seems to me, “royalty-free” is referring to loops, construction kits, or any music snippets that you did not compose/create yourself, which you can’t use in a track you want to register.

This makes perfect sense for the audio fingerprinting technology, as those would produce loads of false positive.

It doesn’t say anything about so called “royalty-free music”, which we supposedly sell on here. This royalty-free status has very little actual signification. And there is no real reason for treating our music separately nor for refusing us access to this technology, other than ill informed discrimination.

4 Likes

Yes, re-reading it, you’re absolutely right about this referring to submitted track content, so apologies for any confusion.

I do think this apparent discrimination however (or rather selective approval) is in direct response to significant changes at YouTube’s end over the past year or so.

Since the whole YouTube ‘adpocalypse’ fiasco, along with a myriad of other well documented issues regarding copyright, artist royalty payments, Article 13/17, etc, Google/YouTube has really started cracking down to fill all it’s little loopholes and minimize it’s responsibility in certain areas. The big, ongoing expansion of YT’s own ‘copyright free’ audio library (Google have been outsourcing artists to create music to put into their library, whilst retaining the copyrights) and continued top-hit promotion of ‘contentID free’ subscription based libraries on Google Search is telling enough.

This has no doubt directly affected third party monetization platforms reliant on YT/ContentID and as a result it seems the bigger CID platforms are becoming much more refined and selective on who they take on board as clients, in order to streamline their businesses, whilst fully appeasing YouTube.

It seems the massive influx of mass, generic and licensable RF assets over the years has become deemed ‘high-risk’, being subject to more disputes, copyright/ownership issues and generating more user complaints, which of course YouTube is wishing to keep to a minimum.

As I mentioned previously, it does seem the focus from established CID platforms is now on more unique, independent consumer music and existing published, rights managed catalogues, including RF. I understand this to being the main reason for these changes.

4 Likes

On the other hand such a massive number of tracks with problematic copyright verification and royalties tracking makes such institutions like EU want to repair the system. Youtube will have to deal with it sooner or later OR it will lose monopoly in such a huge IT market as EU. It can ban temporarily RF in CID but it can not ban usage of it, especially when subscription models grow so quickly.

3 Likes

So… identifyy or AdRev, what are we saying???

Please excuse my naivety, I’m new to all this, but does it monitor all uploaded music or just YouTube?

Thanks

Though they say they also work with Facebook, I’ve only seen results for YouTube at AdRev.

AdRev does not take new applicants from AJ. Identifyy seems to be open to us for now, so…

Interesting podcast featuring Ryan Born and the whole AdRev story:

https://arkona.io/blog/2018/07/19/the-ability-to-pivot-a-home-run-exit-story

1 Like