Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The thread about infringement assistants pretty much cements the face of WH+ and it looks pretty much like this:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fcdn.higherthings.org%2Fimgs%2Fuploads%2Fmyht%2Fcatechesis%2Fhypocrite.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Yeah all the people that said they wouldn't be going after creators on YouTube are going to be eating a lot of crow.

People called my cynical for saying they'd do exactly this, but I've been around long enough to know what corporate is like.

All that good will roundtree created is gone now.

You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

GW just make mistakes, you know just like every small hobby company does unlike the multimillion corporations that spend thousands on lawyers and know what they are doing

A mistake would be a bot flagging it.

This was a manual report somebody made the choice to file that claim.

Humans make mistakes.

Especially those employed by GW.

 Jidmah wrote:
Humans make mistakes.

Especially those employed by GW.

Doesn't absolve GW of criticism...
also doesn't absolve them of their behaviour torwards animators which would fall also under fair use.

Frankly this whole thing with MWM is imo a testing of the waters in regards to how far they are allowed to go with that nonsense.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Humans make mistakes.

Especially those employed by GW.

Doesn't absolve GW of criticism...
also doesn't absolve them of their behaviour torwards animators which would fall also under fair use.

Frankly this whole thing with MWM is imo a testing of the waters in regards to how far they are allowed to go with that nonsense.

Indeed. Humans do make mistakes, but that doesn't mean, and certainly doesn't prove, that this wasn't a deliberate and calculated act. I fully accept that it also doesn't mean it was, but the fact remains that it happened, and GW should be critiqued for it.

A very deliberate act can also be a 'mistake'.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?

I'd ask, does it matter?

A copyright strike on YouTube can often mean any revenue for the video ends up in the pocket of the entity that raised the strike. If you or I had two days worth of wages paid to someone else - especially when they'd caused that to happen, I'm not sure we'd primarily care about the amount involved - we'd be livid simply that it did. At the very least, we'd expect whatever amount was taken was paid back. I have no idea whether MWM can expect that in this situation.

I don't think the amount involved is the most relevant aspect here. Though I'd be casually curious as to what it might be myself in fairness to you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?

For a video that's a review of a product it should be whatever the views dictate. Just because you're reviewing someone else's product, doesn't mean you're not entitled to monetisation. That's one of the reasons reviews are protected by Fair Use.

On the other side of this, it's worth mentioning that YT should have continued to track revenue for the video even while demonetized and should now pay that to the creator since the copyright strike has been removed. Often videos that are demonetized will still have ads running, it's just that YT doesn't pay the creator for them. Not sure if that was the case with this video as I didn't watch it in the 2-day period it was demonetized.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

Literally zero.

YouTube still monetises the clip, holds the money in trust, and if the claim is withdrawn pays it like they always would have done.

There is so much FUD about how YouTube's copyright systems work.

 The Phazer wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

Literally zero.

YouTube still monetises the clip, holds the money in trust, and if the claim is withdrawn pays it like they always would have done.

There is so much FUD about how YouTube's copyright systems work.

That is how it works if the monetisation is claimed by a separate entity, not if the video is demonetised completely. Videos only make money during a content ID claim when both parties want it monetised. GW apparently asked for the video to be demonetised, so no money was made while the claim was resolved if that was the case.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en-GB&ref_topic=9282678


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.

How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?

How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?

However much they are legally entitled to by the contract they enter into with Youtube when they add monetisation to their videos. Why would it be any less?

Enjoyed all the content they've put out so far.

But they will need to put up far more content if they want to keep my subscription. One animation and a batrep per week plus a painting tutorial is not nearly enough content to justify the price base.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment as they've only just launched, but they need to amp this up if they are going to charge what they are charging,

Compare this to other streaming sites like Netflix, Shudder, Prime its not currently worth it.

The animations they have put out are fantastic though imo

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


That is how it works if the monetisation is claimed by a separate entity, not if the video is demonetised completely. Videos only make money during a content ID claim when both parties want it monetised. GW asked for the video to be demonetised, so no money was made while the claim was resolved.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en-GB&ref_topic=9282678

This is the correct distinction, it's a little bit unclear which it actually was, though. Midwinter clarified it was a copyright claim, not a copyright strike, which would normally imply that GW had asked for the revenues to go to them. But he also said it had been demonetized, which would imply the latter, though it could also just have been from his point of view - i.e., he wasn't getting the money - rather than that the video itself was fully demonetized.

But you're absolutely correct that if the video was fully demonetized, he will have lost whatever revenue he would have got during that period permanently, he won't get it back because it was never generated in the first place. So GW would have cost him that money, and if that is the case, he really ought to demand they compensate him for the damage they wrongfully caused.

Pickled_egg wrote:
Enjoyed all the content they've put out so far.

But they will need to put up far more content if they want to keep my subscription. One animation and a batrep per week plus a painting tutorial is not nearly enough content to justify the price base.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment as they've only just launched, but they need to amp this up if they are going to charge what they are charging,

Compare this to other streaming sites like Netflix, Shudder, Prime its not currently worth it.

The animations they have put out are fantastic though imo

I have to agree with this. I'm finding myself wishing there was more content added on a weekly basis and I'm actively looking forward to new stuff, but when I can get through every new video in an evening while cooking, eating and doing the dishes, that's really thin.