License final usage

For information, if youtube has set up content ID, it is legally to be in order with the legislation of intellectual property and copyright societies. Without it, youtube would have millions of lawsuits.

1 Like

I totally understand and agree with the above. Still, I think how the claims system works right now could definitely be improved and I try to see it from the creators perspective too.

Check this post for instance… 8 days already:


I think it’s faster to release when the author do the removal, and I think it’s better with Identifyy than Youtube Content ID…
I’m very surprised by all this delay, my experiences with the removal / whitelist were deeply better than that and really faster

1 Like

Yes, I think YouTube could do so much more to facilitate music licensing on their platform. At the moment, the claim/dispute process feels a little bit like you’re getting a bollocking for using shít that you shouldn’t, then having to vindicate yourself by means of appeal. Like getting caught with medically prescribed weed.

There should be a kind of cue sheet built into the upload process whereby you can provide all the details of any third party assets used (including PRO IPI and ISWC numbers etc.) and a facility to upload a copy of the relevant licence.


THANK YOU WormwoodMusic. As a company with signficant tax and legal compliance to contend to, my clients do NOT understand and are NOT sympethtic. We are fully aware of what a claim is, and what it means for a third party to threaten to monetize not-for-profit clients work for a few weeks. AdRev is particularly obstreperous, despite proof of licensing. Envato gave us the run-around.

It appears that those who own the intellectual property are in a better position to encourage Envato to sort this out with YouTube. To that end, I passed on the few reasons my clients raised, similar to your reason for avoiding this platform. Despite the rude reception, I care because I have a backlog of purchased, NOT USABLE licenses from a beloved creator.

His country is at war and he is not in a position to assist us with whitelisting.

No one is asking to use your work without a license, but rather the way Envato content apparently triggers THIRD PARTY (non-YouTube) claims. Our last one lasted over a week, despite providing a proof of the license. And during that time they informed us that THEY could monetize our work. I’m passing on reasons my clients (who have their own raft of legal counsel) don’t want to use Envato. Please don’t infer my company engages in copyright infringement.

Sorry, I should be more clear in my posts, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Music authors protect their copyright by using third party content ID services. There are several reasons why content ID is important for us. Not just Envato authors either, but this also applies to authors from most other professional music libraries as well. This situation isn’t by any means caused by, or exclusive to Envato.

The main reason that I use content ID is that if you don’t protect your own music this way, then you leave yourself open to the possibility of someone else registering the music for themselves. Once that happens, it is a massive headache to regain control of your own work, which then also becomes a huge problem for any content creators that have legitimately used the music, since the author of the music no longer has any control over who can use the music.

@pinkzebra does a way better job of explaining this than me, so I hope they don’t mind me posting a direct quote from their website:

"Content ID and AdRev have been around for years, and they have become an accepted and standard part of the music licensing equation for many composers as well as for YouTube content creators.*
For a long time I was reluctant to register my music with Content ID out of concern for the people who were already actively using my music in their YouTube videos. It turns out that my previous decision to stay on the Content ID sidelines allowed unscrupulous people to capitalize on that vulnerability.
I went through a period of time where my AudioJungle music portfolio was under repeated attacks by people who attempted to fraudulently register my music with Content ID with the intent to illegally collect advertising revenue from YouTube videos using my music. I fought back each time, claiming my rights as the composer and copyright owner of my music, but the process was messy, costly, and prolonged.
Each time I fought these illegal attacks I was left with a helpless feeling that my customers had been harassed in a situation that I had no control over and to a degree that was unknowable to me. In addition, I had lingering doubts about whether the fraudulent situations were ever truly resolved completely. And I felt outraged that my ability to have full control of my music was unrightfully taken from me.
I decided to register my entire music portfolio with Content ID (AdRev) to maintain control of my music. In doing so, I am able to better serve my customers and prevent the fraudulent harassment of my customers by individuals with malicious and illegal intentions.
Thanks for your support!"

Asking authors to forgo their content ID copyright protection isn’t really going to fix the issue that you are experiencing. Google/YouTube could do a lot more to help. As I said in my previous post, they need a complete overhaul of how content ID is managed and integrated into their platform. But since they have their own music library that they want you to use, it is unlikely that they would take steps to facilitate music from rival libraries. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll see an overhaul of the YT claim/dispute procedure any time soon.

Envato has no say in what YouTube or the content ID service providers do, so they’re not in a position to help much. You mentioned that your main issue is with AdRev registered tracks. One thing that Audio Jungle does do to help is that it encourages its authors to declare which company they are using to provide their content ID. I would always recommend that YouTube creators use content ID protected music for the reasons that I mentioned above, but if you are having particular issues with AdRev being slow to release claims, then you have the option to only use tracks that use a different service, like identifyy for instance. If you find that identifyy registered tracks are easier for you to work with, then you can simply include the word ‘identifyy’ in your AudioJungle search term and the results you see should all be identifyy registered tracks (and no AdRev ones).

The clearance procedure directly through identifyy is typically quicker and more reliable than using the clunky YouTube dispute procedure. You simply fill in this form: Whitelist — HAAWK
It works well for me. Usually, when I make promo videos, I include YouTube uploads as a part of the service to the client, and I schedule the video release a day or so after the upload so I have time to clear the claim before the video goes public. This does mean the client giving us their YT channel login details for the upload, so I know that’s not always possible, but in cases where I don’t have control of the upload process, I always make sure that they understand what content ID is and how it will need to be processed using the provided licence. I explain that this is a standard part of the YouTube upload procedure and is simply the process of the correct copyrights being cleared for use. — Although as I mentioned before, YouTube’s wording in the claim/dispute procedure isn’t very friendly, which is why I suggest they use the Haawk (the parent company of identifyy) clearance form whenever they can.


Thanks for the detailed explanation which I will screen shot to send to the creator. Haawk is easy - AdRev acting on behalf of a (major) studio, is quite another animal. Appreciate your time.