Is AdRev support working for you these days?

For AdRev authors.
I usually get an automatic email reply when I fill the contact form, saying the request was received and then in max 24h I get an answer from AdRev people.
Now for the last two support requests I didn’t get any email. I wonder if they’re having technical issues.
Are you experiencing the same?

For me is working as usually :wink:

Seemingly and unfortunately, no replies from them since Oct 3.

I was told this “We are currently in the works of revamping our submitted links sections on our site. So in the meantime any videos that need to be manually claim please send in an email.”

You have to add the timestamp too, is a new thingy

1 Like

Thanks! They could have put a note on the page though :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Yes man, they are cryptic af. almost like a 3rd world country PRO :sweat_smile:
but mail support is fast tho. credit where is due :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Hi folks, i’m experiencing the same issue, until today Oct 21 the problem still going. but i’m with Lucafrancini they should have posting some warning about that.

1 Like

What do you guys usually talk to them about? Just clearing videos or what?

1 Like

I contact them when a customer has some troubles like he still sees a copyright claim even if he submitted the request via the form, or if a customer wants to have the channel whitelisted.

But mostly we talk about weather, good food and cryptocurrency :smiley:

1 Like

lol nice. My customers usually never have an issue. My issue that I am having is that AdRev is only finding the same tracks over and over again. I know for sure that some of my other 60-70 tracks have been used illegally but AdRev isn;t finding them forever. I emailed them once about it and they said it takes time. Is your experience the same? Thanks!

1 Like

Same here. Still the same old tracks get detected, while the rest remain invisible for some reason. And I’m with them since 2017.

Mostly we talk about Luca Francini and Kabbalistic Village. They complain, I listen :slight_smile:

Same thing here, they only find them old tracks but none of the new ones. I even managed to find a video using one of my new tracks and when I send it, they asked for the timecode to find it :man_shrugging:
Nowadays, when you send a video for whitelist you have to add that timecode, so it seems that things are changing but no for good

I’m getting most of the claims on old tracks, probably because they are out for a lot of time, but I get some from the new tracks too, especially if the video made a lot of views in a short period of time, so maybe there is some kind of priority.

1 Like

This requirement is actually due to recent changes at YouTube, who now require that all copyright claim disputes are accompanied with timestamps. I believe this is to prevent arbitrary copyright claims being slapped on videos by bots, etc and demonstrates that an actual manual claim is being filed - so it’s actually an improvement for the YouTube community, in some senses.

This is my understanding too. My newer tracks don’t generate as near the income I get from my older tracks, despite having just as much, if not more exposure on YT and in the wild.

A bit of speculation, but it seems AdRev are actively ‘managing’ our older catalogues to ensure claims are generated on that, whereas the more recent material only triggers claims only on content with high viewership.

1 Like

Same here! I even started to think about moving to Identify. I have few times lower earnings from AdRev in the last months. When I’ve asked them few weeks ago about this, they gave me typical “incredibly fast but vague answer” that since my tracks are royalty free, they do not collect “my publishing” (sync royalties?) but only “for sound recording” (performance royalties?). Too vague and unclear for me, but I have to talk with Identify if they can make a better deal or something.

BTW google your name in the google “video search”, the name you have registered in AdRev submission author field and you will find more videos than AdRev shows you in their website.


Very interesting… though it raises more questions than it actually answers.

The article you linked to makes a clear distinction between ContentID, a fully automated scan and match system, and “manual claiming” which is available to some (big) content owners.

The article also say that only the manual claims will require timestamps.

Now, let’s put these pieces of information together with the so called “royalty-free policy” YouTube supposedly set up sometime in 2016, as well as with this:

which is something a lot of us have experienced as well.

Would it be crazy to think, that maybe we “royalty-free” authors have simply been booted out of ContentID, due to YouTube’s policy and AdRev has since been merely managing manual claiming for us?

This is of course wild speculations based on no evidence, but it would explain a lot of what we’ve experienced as a group. It would explain why they closed their doors on us, why earnings and detections have stagnated or shrunk over the years, despite having more content registered and used.

I may be way off here, but it’s clear that something fishy has been going on for the last three or four years regarding AdRev detections that have gone way down compared to results prior to 2016. I’ve been looking for an explanation and hoping for a positive evolution, but all I can do is speculate.


From AdRev client update September 2019:

Please Note: We will no longer be able to accept recordings of non-unique public domain or classical recordings. Moving forward, anything delivered to AdRev must be 100% unique from any other recording (from a fingerprint perspective), and every track will be subject to AdRev approval before going live in YouTube Content ID. This is not an AdRev rule, but specific to YouTube’s new Content ID requirements , which you can read in full here. Please let us know if you have any questions on this policy, and thanks for your compliance!

And the excerpt from the link above:

Content that is sold or licensed at scale for incorporation into other works must be routed for review.

For example, matches against the following content types must be routed to manual review before claiming:

  • So-called “royalty free” production music libraries typically licensed for use in game, film, TV or other soundtracks.

So maybe recent lower efficiency of AdRev is the effect of this claim manual reviews = maybe they manually review only the biggest claims? So unclear.


There’s a strong possibility that this is now what’s happening, especially considering it’s now only possible to join AdRev through review and approval. Trimming the fat and focussing on their existing and approved client catalogues - all whilst conforming to YouTube’s ever moving goal posts.

I personally try not to get too hung up these days on how these music businesses operate, as they will always put their bottom line first and always find ways to maximize profit, with minimal emotional regard for it’s users.
It’s just the nature of the game and I see it everywhere - especially within in our industry.

All that said, in my experience I’ve had a good working relationship with the folks at AdRev over the past several years and have always been responsive to my enquiries, so personally not looking to jump ship, despite never really knowing exactly what’s going on behind the curtain. It’ll be the same situation with whatever company we choose to join up with.

I completely missed that email. Interesting. So things have definitely changed it seems.


Yep. But. Identify/Haawk wrote me mail few weeks ago that they found my catalog on AJ and they asked me if I would like to join them. I suppose they have made manual research on Royalty Free stocks and asked many authors for this. I suppose I’m not the only one invited. Especially that few days ago I’ve received another identical mail even though I’ve responded to the first mail.

Conclusion? Somehow Identify finds royalty free composer profitable enough to make a manual research. Or maybe it was only a test from their side? Maybe someone could mail them and ask how it works with royalty free music in their service comparing to recent AdRev drops? I can do that in the future, not now, so much to do, so little time.


Same here, what I care about the whole Content ID process is that claims still show up and that they can be easily removed by me or customers with a license. If I can earn something in the process is nice.
By the way, earnings have increased a lot for me in the last months

1 Like