Jump to content
Charon

Youtubes new copyright claims

Recommended Posts

A note for @Christhat somebody on youtube is monetising copyright material from Goldhawk Interactive, in case Goldhawk Interactive hasnt handed over that copyright right to somebody else.

Unbenannt.thumb.png.743785c22f8b60ddbd33048adc9531df.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone make a playthrough from the Game and shows how he / she is doing it to manage (like in many Games today) there is no Problem. Haven´t seen it yet, but many other Playthroughs from X1, X-Com, Motorsport Manager and much other games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---
It's not necessarily that the info here Youtube claims would be wrong;
The music indeed is by Aleksi Aubry-Carlson and he is allowed to sell the soundtrack:
https://aleksiaubrycarlson.bandcamp.com/album/xenonauts-soundtrack

He seemingly also has a Youtube-page with the soundtrack-uploaded 3-days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWOg7Yt0_hDgGCHTGgG04pw/featured?disable_polymer=1

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_ka0HEMZF-4JJ5BS75F34TabBiqzUed5H0

Of course whether or not the revenue gained via advertisements actually reach Aleksi is of course a different question, since this is all "Provided to YouTube by iMusician Digital AG"...

---

In this regard having the Youtube auto-tagging the music-source accordingly to "fingerprints" is something I personally have been wishing more would happen with "meme"-things
( E.G. so we wouldn't always need to manually look for random answers to "music-source"-questions and such )
(( and yes, I wish this could be extended further than just music in the future )).

---

Problem here again is just the usage of the "auto-guilty"-system where rather than just adding the meta-data publicly and so on, instead Youtube (also) decides to simply either restrict or even outright delete the content even if they have been uploaded for the archive-purposes.
Like why they couldn't just add the meta-data and leave the video up is probably something only us "(rural) common sense"-folks are thinking...

(( For the sake of clarification, "rural common sense" is a Finnish-expression to more practical(-heavier)-common-sense:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maalaisjärki ))

---
---

On a side-note:
While intriguing I personally never have been looking for the "Youtube-moneys" so having a video being "de-monetised" wouldn't be a huge issue for me
(after all, this would simply mean the money would go directly to Youtube to pay the server-bills and staff-salaries, right?..);
I've personally just have been into passion of making content and uploading things rather than making it be a livelihood.
Though granted, there was a time I was musing the idea of running a community around a registered brand and that way maybe have some income via advertisements.

As for Youtube:
I personally stopped "supporting" Youtube after I had "part 1" and "part 5" of the 1976 "Blue Bird"-upload (with Elisabeth Taylor and Jane Fonda) just suddenly being deleted by "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" around 2015 after being online since 2008;
there are still no other official DVDs or anything else relation that what the Russians outside-MGM-parties ("Ruscico") have put out, so at this point this was also a false copyright-claim...
Afterwards there are nowadays more outside-Youtube full-uploads of this movie, so I goes I was the required "martyr" in this case to help reinvigorate the knowledge of this movie
( at least if all the "thank for the upload I've been looking for this movie"-comments are any indication, alongside the (Russian-)DVDs (with also English-audio) now being much more available for purchase nowadays ).

---
---
---

 

Edited by Pave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pave said:

It's not necessarily that the info here Youtube claims would be wrong;

The point is that @Chrisgave youtubers all rights to make video content and publish them wherever they like. A third party showing up either means that Goldhawk has lost control over their assets, changed their oppinion or youtube has gone crazy. Either way, it interferes with the ability of youtubers to make money, which means less coverage, which means less advertisement, which was the point of the whole agreement in the first place.

Not necessarily suggesting anybody is at fault, its most likely just youtube gone crazy. This here is just a notice so @Chris knows about it ( as he propably has a lot of other stuff to do ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's me guys. I officially released X1's music of platforms such as Spotify, Deezer, etc.

I had the option to choose the youtube content ID for that, so i went for it after it was suggested. Turns out i had very little action over it and lots of youtubers started emailing me, so i had iMusician remove the youtube content ID on this album.

I was curious to see what revenue such an option could bring. But, i'll try that on a personal project, and not tracks that will end up on gameplay videos. So, no worries for Xenonauts 2's soundtrack ! ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 11:33 PM, Aleksi said:

It's me guys. I officially released X1's music of platforms such as Spotify, Deezer, etc.

I had the option to choose the youtube content ID for that, so i went for it after it was suggested. Turns out i had very little action over it and lots of youtubers started emailing me, so i had iMusician remove the youtube content ID on this album.

I was curious to see what revenue such an option could bring. But, i'll try that on a personal project, and not tracks that will end up on gameplay videos. So, no worries for Xenonauts 2's soundtrack ! ;-)

Having some sort of "auto-licensing"-feature indeed would be very interesting
( since in this case you seemingly still hold the ownership-rights for the soundtrack as opposed to having done this as a "Work-For-Hire"-contract ).

It's just unfortunate that currently video-uploaders themselves are pretty much completely "shafted" whenever there is even a slight hint of content that necessarily isn't fully made by the video-maker
( and of course the biggest extreme being the case some videos are outright stolen by a completely unrelated party ).

Like if there there was like sharing system in which per content-creator used in the video the video uploader would get a slight majority that would be fine in my views.
This would be of course if the uploader would opt-in to get their share; they could instead just let their own share go for the server-upkeeping if they'd choose to do so
( E.G. "Youtube-poopers" ).

---
---
---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i you get the content ID option within your youtube channel, you can customize it pretty well. But you can't get this if you don't have something like 100K+ subs. So the alternative is to use a service like Tunecore or Imusician, but there is little to no customizable options. If 'd have to wirte an email to whitelist a channel, everytime...

Too bad YT doesn't really care about the "little" ones. For the moment it is either "all" or "nothing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×