Recording - March 2015 - 72

YouTube Content ID:
Friend or Foe?
Guest editorial by Michael Nickolas
YouTube's Content ID is a program
that allows copyright holders to
"identify and manage their content
on YouTube." Here's how it works:
uploaded videos are scanned, then
compared to a database made up of
files that content owners have provided to YouTube. Content owners have a
choice of what happens when a video
containing their music is identified.
The choices are: mute audio that
matches their music, track the video's
viewership statistics, block a whole
video from being viewed, block a
video from being viewed on certain
platforms, or monetize the video by
running ads against it. No matter the
choice made, in all cases the video
gets a Content ID claim.

You've probably noticed by now that
I keep using the terms "content owner"
and "copyright holder". YouTube
(owned by Google) states specifically
that "only content with exclusive rights
can be used as references." Only copyright owners or their exclusive appointed administrators have the right to
enter reference tracks into the Content
ID program. But companies are entering non-exclusive content into the
Content ID program when they have no
right to do so. It is being done without
the copyright holders' knowledge, and
this practice is causing major
headaches for certain branches of the
music business.
Here is how the scenario plays out for
a composer. You write a group of tracks
and submit them to two non-exclusive
music libraries. A customer with a video
destined for use on YouTube shops at
Library One and purchases a license to
use your music in his or her video.
Meanwhile, without your knowledge and
without the right to do so, Library Two
has entered your tracks into the YouTube
Content ID system. This turns your perfectly legitimate licensed content into

everything to deal with false Content ID
claims at least five different times. All
were because music libraries entered
my music into the Content ID program
when they had no right to do so.
Is it because they are being greedy
and know full well what they are doing,
or do they just not understand who has
the right to monetize? In some cases,
the offending music library used a
third party go-between company to act
as administrator between them and
the Content ID program, making matters even more difficult to resolve
quickly. Was the library misled by the
big go-between company?
How much money is there to be
made from monetizing a video? That
depends on several things. It's not all
about how many views a video gets,
but also how much advertisers pay.
Obviously, the more ad revenue that
big companies can divert via copyright
claims, the better for them. The internet is full of posts by YouTube uploaders complaining of false copyright
claims, copyright claims against public
domain music, copyright claims
misidentifying music, and lengthy

YouTube Content ID is a new way to make money from your music!
What could possibly be wrong with that? Let us count the ways...
Monetization is a popular choice,
and arguably the reason most artists
and record companies are entering
reference material into the Content
ID database. A new way to make
money off of music! Choosing the
monetization option means that anytime it is determined an uploaded
video contains music registered in the
Content ID database, it is populated
with ads, which generate royalties for
the copyright holder.
So what could be wrong with using
the Content ID system? Let us count
the ways, to paraphrase Shakespeare.
For one, according to forbes.com,
"The system has dramatically more
false positives than legitimate claims."
As a composer, I've been bitten more
than once by the Content ID system,
but it isn't false positives causing the
problems in my case, it's accurate
detections. How can accurate detection
of my music cues be a problem for me?
It comes down to the legal language of
who owns what part of my music.
72

RECORDING March 2015

the audio equivalent of a rotten well
cover hidden under leaves.
The customer of Library One
uploads to YouTube... and the video is
flagged with a Content ID claim
accusing them of using copyrighted
material. The video is populated with
ads, and revenue is diverted to the
copyright claimant. The customer
that purchased the license for your
music is either confused, furious, or
most likely both. He contacts Library
One and complains, asking why they
licensed him a track that he doesn't
have the right to use. And in the end,
Library One contacts you, saying,
"Hey, your track is causing a Content
ID claim-make it go away. Now."
You can see this is a hassle for all
involved, and it happens more than you
might imagine. Think about the amount
of content available in music libraries.
Some have tens of thousands of tracks,
representing hundreds of composers. I
have only around 250 tracks in nonexclusive libraries, and I've had to drop

time periods passing before false
claims are released. People go so far as
to accuse third party companies of taking money that doesn't belong to
them, calling them "copyright trolls".
So beware! The Content ID program
isn't going away. Google will need to
do a better job of screening and educating participants of its service. And
you, as a composer, are going to have
to be diligent and reach out to the
people non-exclusively representing
your content. Ultimately it's your
responsibility to make sure they are
not wrongly representing your material in the Content ID program.

Michael Nickolas (nickolas@recording
mag.com), when not custom songwriting
for the educational market, creates tracks
for music libraries; last quarter's domestic performance statement showed his
music was used in 352 episodes of 74 different TV shows. To learn more, check out
www.studionineproductions.com.

http://www.forbes.com http://www.studionineproductions.com

Recording - March 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - March 2015