| Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 6:06 PM | "Your video may include content that is owned or administered by these entities: Entity: eurozeitgeist Content Type: Audiovisual content" http://www.youtube.com/user/eurozeitgeist They brand themselves as a Google channel. So are they legitimatel |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 6:12 PM | I still can't figure it out. Apparently it's a partnership between Zeitgeist and Google? Who the hell knows, I just hope someone is sitting in front of a computer somewhere that will take care of it for me. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | gbcali | 11/2/11 6:50 PM | The adf•ly link on eurozeitgeist's channel page makes me suspect they're not legit. @ugleeee - what's the url of your video? |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 7:17 PM | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzHCDknFbDU Ads have been off and on the past couple hours but judging by the impressions on adsense the revenue is not going to me. The only reason I thought they were legit is that multiple outlets linked to them in |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 7:25 PM | All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 7:26 PM | I can't contact them through their channel because you have to be a friend to contact them. I don't know what to do and frankly I'm getting nervous about this. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | gbcali | 11/2/11 7:40 PM | The video is obviously shot and narrated by you and it's not even slightly an audiovisual match to anything on eurozeitgeist's channel. This looks like a major failure of the Content-ID system to me. Fyi, the adf•ly link goes to a YT account "termi |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 7:43 PM | So what should I do? Can you help me? I know some of you guys have 'powers' to escalate things to Google representatives. I would really appreciate some guidance here. I'm a nervous wreck. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/2/11 8:30 PM | This is an absolute nightmare. I keep thinking I must be dreaming this. Everything I read says that once your Content ID dispute has been reviewed and the other channel reaffirms ownership that there is no way to get your video reinstated. This ca |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | gbcali | 11/3/11 2:39 AM | escalated to staff |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 5:03 AM | Thank you very much gbcali. The other thing I was wondering is if an unscrupulous individual with Content ID would purposefully reupload copies of popular videos knowing that content ID would flag them (when applying for content ID they apparently g |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | darklordofdebate | 11/3/11 8:38 AM | Just to chime in here as well so I can subscribe to the topic, this sounds like a situation where a lawsuit is your best option. Unlike most YouTube users, you actually can claim monetary damages on your video and since this defendant is a profession |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 8:48 AM | I'm way ahead of you. I've done both of those things, I just want to give partner support every opportunity to rectify this without me having to spend money I can't afford to (I flat out can't afford the $1500 attorneys seem to want up front). I me |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | Teresa_ | 11/3/11 9:14 AM | Having content ID myself, I am inclined to believe they uploaded your video private and have claimed it through content ID. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 9:20 AM | That's what I think happened. It's the only way that kind of content could be matched, in my opinion. You would think this would be kinda cut and dry if they just looked at their account. I'm sure I'm not the only one they have done this to. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | Teresa_ | 11/3/11 9:43 AM | If it was uploaded on their channel, there should be a link to alert them. Do you have an attributions link to prompt them to release the claim? |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 9:49 AM | I disputed it and they re-affirmed that they owned the content. Now I apparently have no recourse and they are getting revenue from the ads on the video. gbcali escalated it, so hopefully someone is looking into it. I've also contacted partner sup |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 11:43 AM | The EFF doesn't seem to want to help directly (they are trying to refer me to someone who will do the work pro bono) and Youtube Partner support says they stay out of copyright disputes. This is an absolute nightmare. I can't believe it's as easy a |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | darklordofdebate | 11/3/11 12:18 PM | That's too bad EFF can't represent you themselves (I would have thought this would be the type of case they'd be interested in), but I hope they can at least refer you to someone. If I was already a lawyer I'd love to represent you myself, but unfort |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ytPaul | 11/3/11 1:28 PM | Issue is resolved. Looks like you may need to re-monetize the video, but I think you should be free to do that now. Let me know if you can't or have any problems with that. |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | ugleeee | 11/3/11 1:42 PM | Can I have your address so I can come over there and kiss you? Thank you ytPaul, I really appreciate it. I re-enabled monetization but I'm paranoid that it will be rejected so if you can please not completely abandon the thread until after it goes |
| Re: Did an official Google Channel Content ID me? | darklordofdebate | 11/3/11 3:56 PM | I am very glad this situation was resolved. But I have to wonder if it was only resolved in this case because (1) the user in question was a partner and therefore deserving of special status, or (2) the user was clearly contemplating legal action and |