whitelisting, content ID -do I have this right?

Having read virtually all posts on content ID back to mid-2016, (PurpleFog is awesome!!) I think I finally grasp what AJ is telling me to do in advance to prevent copyright notices (assuming I need to shield my client from such notices-but I won’t beat that dead horse). I’m not using a PRO clip. Please tell me if this is the correct procedure: I am supposed to anticipate a few days (?) ahead of the release of the product, put a (perhaps rough) copy of the video containing the music on the channel where it will be hosted, (say, YouTube and Facebook) wait for the notices to appear, clear them by providing AdRev (maybe someone else for FB?) with a copy of my license, and then take down the product until time for release, and replace that copy with the final one (but with exactly the same music). If there is a problem getting the notices removed, contact the author for help. On YouTube I should post the trial copy as unlisted (that means no one sees it? could I use my own channel instead?) and the release copy as Public. Then there is the alternative of whitelisting, which it seems I have to ask the author for that service. Correct me if I am wrong. I have not done any of this before so no one should take my word for it, and questions remain. First, does this work for FB? Does the trial version have to be on the client’s FB page or could I post it on my personal page for that pre-clearance period, and still have the same effect? Second, is whitelisting only for YouTube, or is there a similar thing for FB? (and did I miss what I am supposed to do if someone already did register the music?) Third, how big an ask is it for the authors to whitelist–surely it is not a welcome task? Is there a way to do that without burdening them? Lastly, if I transfer the license to the client, do they have to go through this same process again (or do I have to first transfer the license and then take these steps?) Should I even transfer the license? Do these notices keep cropping up?

Hello,

Thanks for the shout out :slight_smile: And thank you for having taken the time to try and do things right.

First, you don’t have to worry about whether the music is PRO registered or not. It has nothing to do with AdRev, and it will have no impact on you whatsoever, as long as you only use the music on platforms such as Youtube or Facebook.

Regarding the procedure, it’s not as complex as you describe it. There is no need to upload a first version to “attract” and “neutralize” the claim. That’s not how it works. Any video will trigger a claim, it doesn’t matter if another video was previously released and claimed as well. Even if it’s the same video content, they would count as different videos with different URLs, and they would triggered claims independently.

The correct process is simply to wait for for the claim to be generated and then clear it by attaching the license to the AdRev form.

If monetization is important, and your client doesn’t want to lose any monetized views, then the best thing to do is to publish the video as unlisted, and keep it as unlisted until claims are cleared. Once it’s all good, then you can go ahead and set it to public. Your client can do this, or you can do it, or you can ask the author to do it for you.

For now, the Facebook Content Manager is not as widely used as Youtube ContentID, so I can’t tell you anything about it. This will most likely change soon, though, so keep an eye out.

Regarding whitelisting, I don’t think it’s a reliable alternative. It’s not so much that it’s a burden for the author, though it could be for a high seller, but rather because it cannot be guaranteed, as claims from other registered material, would undo the whitelisting and trigger claims for all videos, potentially making much worse of a mess than dealing with each video separately. Second, unfortunately the use of ContentID has become a necessity in light of the massive pillaging of our music. Whitelisting basically is a way to undo that and pretty much goes against the whole idea, and it can lead to abuse.

And yes, you should transfer the license to your client as they are ultimately the licensees.

Hope it helps! Feel free to ask more questions if needed.

1 Like

Thank you for your extremely prompt and concise response. Monetization is not the issue. My client is a local social service nonprofit, seeking to preserve their reputation for integrity, which could be tarnished if they received public CID notices that might be misinterpreted.

I understand much better how the YouTube CID system works in the “unlisted” mode. I think you are also telling me that I should use the “secret” video mode in Facebook to accomplish the same non-public period to clear CID notices there.

Now I have to ask some real ignorant questions because the product is an animated logo to be used broadly. This concerns me:

“…as long as you only use the music on platforms such as Youtube or Facebook.”

Will the CID somehow detect and flag music used elsewhere, such as embedded on the client’s web site in an animated GIF? Or any other context you can imagine? Just due diligence, I have to ask. Am I missing something?

I do appreciate your patience. This is not my wheelhouse so I am particularly grateful for your advice and guidance.

I understand your client’s not wanting to tarnish their reputation. However, claims are not strikes, and they are not something to be ashamed of. A claim, simply states that the video contains copyrighted material. It’s in no way an accusation. Also, the claim is private, not public, only the owner of the YT channel can see it. The only thing that’s public, is the snippet that says in the description “Music in this video…” with the title and author name. Nothing shameful really.

CID is owned and operated by Youtube/Google. It only scans Youtube. So no, it will not detect and claim music used elsewhere.

Facebook has its own system, but as I said it doesn’t track music from Audiojungle as of yet. So I can’t tell you how it will work and how to deal with it yet.

This is the current state of things. But, I can’t say how it will evolve in the near future.

2 Likes

Thank you again PurpleFog, this is all good news and clearly explained. Hope it helps others as much as it has helped me. Just two more brief questions. I haven’t been able to find again the instructions for transferring the license to a client. Can you (or someone) point me in the right direction for those? And should the transfer be done prior to publishing in “unlisted” mode or can it be done later without triggering another notice?

No problem! :slight_smile:

In the context of Audiojungle, transferring the license to your client is not a specific process in itself. You can simply send them the license pdf, and that’s about it. You can do this at whichever point you see fit, or at your client’s request. The only thing that matters is that whoever wants to clear the claim has to provide a copy of the license to AdRev.

1 Like