YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
from the wut? dept
We've long had discussions about how wide open for abuse and error YouTube's copyright and demonetization practices are. Between the hamfisted method by which the accused is treated as guilty from the get go, to the impossibility of doing large-scale policing like this in a way that's even moderately good, to the avenue for abuse that all of this creates, the fact is that YouTube's stance on copyright is a mess. The end result of all of this is that creators on YouTube operate in constant peril of having their accounts suspended or video revenues taken by others with the recourse for fraud and error being convoluted and lengthy. For a site that is in the business of content creation, that's a real problem.
And it's a problem that can get quite ridiculous, as evidenced by one recent streamer who had two videos demonetized over claims by a third party that she infringed its copyrights... on the numbers "36" and "50."
did you guys know you can copyright the number 36 pic.twitter.com/dnja297R73
— Anne Munition (@AnneMunition) January 24, 2020
by the way, also got copyright claims for the number 50 lmao pic.twitter.com/MhWcMD9l8i
— Anne Munition (@AnneMunition) January 24, 2020
Now, if you're wondering who in the world is claiming trademarks on these two random numbers, it appears to be a company in the YouTube content creation business as well. Why they think they own the copyright on those two numbers and can use them to siphon the income of innocent YouTube streamers is anybody's guess.
The claim, made by media company Fullscreen, was simply over the number “36.” There wasn’t anything else to do with what media they were trying to protect, or any timestamps, just that the number “36” was not AnneMunition’s property.
Fullscreen describe themselves as a “social content company for talent and brands” on their company website. They are owned by Otter Media, a subsidiary of WarnerMedia, who doesn’t hold the license for The Witcher 3, or any trademarks related to the number “36.”
This is problematic for AnneMunition’s YouTube channel, because while claims are active, Fullscreen takes all monetization for the video. While the videos are over two years old, with both having very little views, they still leave a stain on her YouTube record.
Now, I fully expect that YouTube will get this corrected fairly quickly, as there is nearly zero chance that there is anything remotely valid about this copyright claim. But that really isn't the point. For YouTube's system and process to so clearly favor the accuser, particularly given how much error and abuse there is in all of this, is not sustainable. At some point, content creators will simply have had enough and go somewhere else. That might be far off on the horizon, but it's going to come eventually if some kind of change isn't made on YouTube's part.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anne munition, copyright, numbers
Companies: fullscreen, twitch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And here, in one story, lies the problem with automated copyright systems and the DMCA: Abuses run rampant and go unpunished while the victims of that abuse suffer the most consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Only Way To Fix The System
The only way to get people to agree that the system needs fixing is by filing copyright complaints against everything. This is right out of Alinkskys rules for radicals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Only Way To Fix The System
Agreed. But care to bet whether the perjury clause of the DMCA being 'unenforceable' somehow manages to be enforced if someone files a false DMCA against a big corporation's website or YouTube channel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today is the 24th......
....uh, and Ima claim copyright on "24", so, uh, pay me!!!
(smh)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today is the 24th......
I think Fox (now Disney) would like to have a ward with you about that number...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today is the 24th......
While you're at it, try doing the same thing with the numbers 42 and 47.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today is the 24th......
You are thinking small...
I’m claiming copyright on “2020”, “2021”, “2022” and “2023”...
Over those four years I’ll rake in enough troll income to afford enough evil lawyers to successfully defend my claim to “42”... which as we all know is the answer to “life, the universe and everything”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm claiming copyright on the number 2020
Too late. The International Olympic Committee has already claimed trademark on any phrase which utters the words "Tokyo" and "2020".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm claiming copyright on the number 2020
Ahhhh, but they didn’t claim copyright, did they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the copyright maximalists will follow them and force use of a similar system. As without automation, the level of publishing that occurs on YouTube and other sites is not possible. Unless some teeth are added to DMCA and similar laws, or copyright is significantly weakened, this problem will continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've followed at least one content creator that hopped around from one site to another as each one went down and finally just gave up and went to YouTube. I think content creators by and large have decided they're stuck with YouTube, at least for the time being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the problem us the mindset that you can only have one provider at a time. Why not use YouTube but try gathering new users in other places at the same time? It requires more admin but means you're not dependant on a single provider which is a bad idea in any field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Often the problem is that the creator is a one man band, and need to devote their attention to content creation, and the to the fans giving them an income. Adding administration time, takes time away from the stuff that actually drives their income. Posting their videos to a back up site may not take that much time, but unless they also devote time to promoting that site along with their main site, it becomes little more than an online backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well it's certainly not easy, but people make a choice. If they've chosen to depend on a single provider, the complaints that the single provider is bad for doing things they don't like carry less weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it obvious?
36 is the ASCII code for "$". And 50 is for "2" since stealing once isn't enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOW to fix and sudit//
Now how about a company that Verifies CR, and who owns what..
Pay to be listed and pay to Read the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOW to fix and sudit//
How do you make that work at the rate that Videos are being uploaded to YouTube, which is more that 500 hours a minute, and given that most videos on YouTube are relatively short, that is of the order of 1500 videos a minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOW to fix and sudit//
"Pay to be listed and pay to Read the list."
So, the way to fix this is to add barriers to disincentivise small content creators?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOW to fix and sudit//
Close, but we take time to Look up the claims..
So that those making the claims have to WAIT for the company to find the data..
It would also force the corps to List and show the CR, and who they have given permission to control the product.
It wouldnt be on every submission to YT, it would be as they get notices and we have to look up the Data on the CR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
I've heard YouTube creators battling this problem. Scammers are using this to temporarily divert funds. And they get to keep all they got. YouTube doesn't try to get the payments back. I would love to blame this all on bad federal law, but YouTube is more at fault for allowing money to be diverted without proof from the alleged copyright holder. It would be easy for YouTube to hold all disputed funds in escrow, until the issue of ownership is resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
This. Youtube should demonetize the video and NO ONE gets any money until it's resolved. Between this and the other crap they pull, Youtube is becoming a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
Better still, they should put any money earned into escrow, and then give it to the winner of the dispute. Even better than that, YouTube should fix their dispute resolution system, allow for fair use (even if a determination needs to be made in a court of law) and then remove the content from ContentID if the disputer is found to be wrong. Multiple violations would remove all the disputers content from ContentID. This might work under US law, elsewhere maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
You are assuming the point isn't at least as much to put as many barriers as possible to making content outside of the reach of the legacy gatekeepers, to quash "unauthorized" use of IP, or just to flex their legal muscle (because an indefinitely drawn-out dispute generally favors the richer, more powerful party), than to actually claim the money generated by the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YouTube allows content providers to upload samples to automatically compare uploaded content to their "property." The obvious missing step is for YouTube to have public domain content uploaded and whitelisted to prevent fraudulent claims, but then, they have no incentive to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its not that simple, as something built from the public domain gains a new copyright, just copying that is infringement. Also, I can seethe RIAA going ballistic if YouTube allowed that, claiming that it would allow their copyrights to be stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is that simple since substantive new copyrightable elements are required or there is no standing to sue for copyright violation. Any verbatim reoccurence of public domain material does not give course to a copyright claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The example given was a substantive new work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but that’s missing the point. The issue is that verbatim public domain content (e.g. a photo of the Mona Lisa and nothing else, a copy of a scene taken from the original recording of a public domain film, a snippet of a public domain sound recording) should be excluded from any material submitted for ContentID. The stuff around the public domain material would presumably be copyrightable in their own right, and this wouldn’t exclude new performances of public domain material (such as a recreation of a scene in a public domain film or a cover of a public domain song) from the ContentID filter.
There might be a blind spot where the item would be a compilation or mash-up of several bits of verbatim public domain material with nothing original other than the arrangement, but those have weaker copyright protection, anyways, so I’d be willing to consider that an acceptable sacrifice in favor of having far fewer instances where stuff that is clearly in the public domain gets claimed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"something built from the public domain gains a new copyright"
Something new built from it, but not the original. If I re-edit Nosferatu with a new soundtrack, that doesn't give me any copyright claim on the original, just the version I created.
"I can seethe RIAA going ballistic if YouTube allowed that, claiming that it would allow their copyrights to be stolen."
They go ballistic if you play the music you own in the wrong setting. They go ballistic if you stream a single instead of buying an album. Maybe it's time people stopped caring what they respond to and just do what's best for everyone who's not them, or giving credence to their false claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget that being a recording of a performance creates its own copyright. Distinguishing between two performances of the same work my be very difficult for a computer, especially as fuzzy matching is required to avoid simple edits defeating the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would create a copyright on the recording, not the composition. But yes the problem is accurately telling the difference with no false positives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion, that isn’t really something that should be left to an automated filter in the first place. An automated filter shouldn’t really be checking which performance it is and err on the side of the older one if it can’t tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Manual deamination of copyright status is even harder than manual moderation, requiring even more knowledge from the person making a decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That should be determination, although I do think the RIAA and MPAA should be deaminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... when do smaller (i.e., actual) content creators get their stuff scanned into Content ID, so later claims by a gatekeeper corp are registered as obviously bogus by the system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It all gets scanned. That's not were the problem lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? It seems that this should obviate a lot of the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because capitalist dictatorship, of course. Big corporations will do anything to get people into servitude for profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sesame Street's gonna go bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First they came for the language
A couple of years ago i was notified by Scribe to remove a photo posted 10 years earlier, with several others, for violation of Scribe's Terms of Service agreement. The photo was of pelicans flying over a beach.
When asked why/what, the reply was that i also posted that the picture was taken with a 35mm Leiica, and a woman who worked for Leica (name provided) complained that i had not asked permission from Leica to use the word Leica in my posting (standard practice in galleries is identify the camera).
This was too absurd to argue the point. After years, i quit Scribe and Leica as a customer.
And i did not ask for Leica,s permission to use their name in this posting too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First they came for the language
For the record, this (both the photo and the post) would be a clear case of nominative fair use of the trademark. You’re just naming the tool used to take the photo; you weren’t pretending to represent Leica, passing off a non-Leica product as theirs, or passing off a Leica product as your own.
I totally understand why you didn’t bother to fight, but unless this was a recurring issue, I don’t know that I’d quit both Scribe and Leica over this without having fought over the issue. I don’t blame you for doing so, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one should be able to copyright a single no,
or a single word,
Will this company sue every publisher who has the no 50 in a book ?
youtube should have a group to select companys who abuse the content id system.And monitor all the claims they make,
the problem is youtube is the no 1 video website,
if creators go to another website they will get very few views.
Most gamers stream on twitch and put video ,s on youtube too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one is claiming copyright on one a single word under the law. The problem is YouTube's system of allowing a one word response for what is the alleged infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That is a good idea," said Tero Pulkinnen, "For if numbers could not be copyrighted nobody would ever have reason to do math."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, math is just playing with existing numbers.
If there were no copyright granted upon these two numbers then there would be no incentive to create new numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You say that like tp wouldn't argue for both idiotic statements...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyrighting numbers?
Some pizza joint in Toronto trademarked the number 967-1111.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is one allowed copyright upon an imaginary thing? If not then these folk will not be allowed to copyright imaginary numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The silly naming aside, I dare you to name any number that isn't imaginary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I dare you to name any number that isn't imaginary."
The answer is 42.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So what is its existence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to read Douglas Adams to find out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Douglas does not state any physical existence. He stipulates a meaning, but reality does not care about meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The meaning of 42 IS reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This conversation might have lead to my brain deciding to hitch a ride on a broken roller coaster, as it lead it a train of thought that began with the question, “Does reality have a physical existence?” Do not attempt to go into that rabbit hole! It’s a trap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"“Does reality have a physical existence?”"
Depends entirely on your interpretation of quantum physics.
Even boring old pre-bohr physics state that over 99,99% of observable reality is an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it doesn't have an i in it, it's not imaginary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have some friends in electrical engineering who’d like to have a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is actually a fascinating question into the philosophy of mathematics. I know of some people who think that only positive integers up to a certain value are “real” (ultrafinitism), some (like you) who think that all numbers are just imaginary constructs, some who thing all nonnegative integers are “real”, some who extend that to nonnegative rational numbers, some who extend that to quadratic numbers plus π and e, etc. It’s a very deep question that involves questions about, “What separates a something that actually exists and an imaginary concept?”, “What is a number?”, and, “What defines a number?”
It’s a very interesting thought, but I think it is far too complicated, nuanced, subjective, and ultimately inconsequential, not to mention being rather irrelevant to the main topic, to go into full detail here.
I personally think that, for the most part, numbers are fictitious constructs in the same way that words and the scientific concept of energy are, but that there are real world examples of just about all of them in some fashion. I also find the debate, while interesting in the abstract, ultimately rather silly and not really worth arguing over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, copyright is strongest for imaginary things. Fictional works generally receive stronger protection with more bright lines than nonfiction works, and facts can’t be copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well yes, but ... fictional works usually involve some typing, upon paper or in bits. Either way there is some physical thing that was done, can't say that for claiming copyright upon a number be it imaginary or not. Thoughts can not be subject to any sort of property laws even tho I'm sure some think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTR, I’m well aware that the idea of numbers being copyrighted is ridiculous, and honestly, despite the name, imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than real numbers. I was just playing along with the joke.
Maybe I’m just not funny, or people are so used to my being rather serious that my deadpan humor tends to get missed. IDK. But yeah, imaginary numbers are no more protected than real numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the greatest gift I have seen for you guys
Can’t you see the gift available to you with a problem like this? You should see how a problem like this is the key to getting the gift you have wanted for years - for YouTube AND the patent/copyright legislative bodies to change their policies. This should be the kind of story you plant your flag on, because it is so ridiculously revealing of problems with YouTube and copyright. This is a story stupid enough to condense into a digestible bite to feed to media.
Just start banging the drum, guys. They’re playing YOUR song here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the greatest gift I have seen for you guys
If you're looking for a gift it should have arrived when a university tried to trademark the word... "The".
But the broken IP systems still exist because moneyed interests are conveniently sweeping this under the carpet even when mainstream media reports on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I'm missing something here?
What's stopping one of these people from pulling the same trick against the people making false copyright claims?
As a response, they should file a thousand frivolous counter claims against Fullscreen. Every week.
That should keep them occupied for a while.
That's what I'd do.
I'd give up my life as a content creator, and instead devote all of my free time toward making their lives hell.
And then post it all to YouTube in a series of videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And then post it all to YouTube in a series of videos"
And end up in a lawsuit you can't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The usual problem is that just the same as patent trolls. These companies make nothing and/or own nothing that you could interrupt. All they have to do is buckshot requests into youtube and free money comes out but if you squeezed them it would somehow turn out that they have as much blood/property/business as a stone and your demands bounce off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're a company.
You're not.
While fraudulent claims are given a pass when made by a company, YouTube would almost certainly start handing out penalties when they're made against a company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without any evidence of this ever coming up, that’s hard to say for sure. I mean, I’m not sure that YouTube even as a system in place for punishing those who submit fraudulent DMCA claims, period. And I have seen them give a pass to claims by individuals against individuals or small companies, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should copyright the the letters A,E,I,O and U and then monetize anything on YouTube that uses any of these letters in it's title or description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and sometimes Y.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube is honey badger
Youtube don't care about small semi-pro content creators. They're too busy converting the platform into a commercial VOD/streaming service. Content creators are competition, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't just random claims.
Employees INSIDE Youtube are allowing this to happen and taking massive (in terms of numbers - each one is a small sum) kickbacks from various copyright trolls, telling them who to target and when.
Youtube needs to start firing a LOT of it's staff doing this, or the entire thing is going to get swamped by a fairer competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm I've not heard this one before. Citation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To my knowledge, with very, very few exceptions, no DMCA claim gets manually checked before removing content, and it’s even rarer for ContentID claims. It’s almost entirely automated until someone disputes a claim. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, I have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone in YouTube is intentionally and knowingly allowing fraudulent claims to pass through, or that anyone in YouTube is being bribed at all.
I also doubt that YouTube is in any danger of being swamped by any competition in the next few years or so unless something drastically changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not saying that youtube is in danger from competition. I'm saying that small shop content creators are treated this way because a) YouTube doesn't really have anything to lose if they leave, and b) because they can and in most cases the small content creators don't have a choice.
Youtube's long-term strategy is clearly to professionalize, consolidate and control as much hosted content as possible, either under their own productions, buying rights from Hollywood, streaming cable channels and supporting the largest community channels. They're not interested in the long tail anymore.
Most of the new features in Youtube (Youtube Red, Youtube TV, etc) over the past few years have been directly monetized by fees, and their promotional efforts these days are geared toward the content produced in these pay-walled parts of the platform. A small content creator that suddenly goes viral is out of their control and draws views away from the pay-walled content.
This isn't a big competitor, but the one part of Youtube's history that they've kept is min-maxing via algorithm. If they're making more money on the pay-walled content, they'll drive views towards the pay-walled content, even if it means taking no action to remedy spurious DMCA, content ID or demonetization based on community standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop it!
Stop confusing trademarks and copyrights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy Strike
I had 2 of my Gran Turismo Sport race uploads claimed by V8 Supercars because apparently, I'm so good at driving games that they thought it was footage of qualifying for an old Bathurst 1000 race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would expect that WPBS-TV, as the New York State flagship of the Public Broadcasting Service, would hold copyright on the various letters which have sponsored episodes of Sesame Street over the last fifty years.
YouTube's use of those letters is clearly infringement. When will they be making a donation to public television to compensate for this tort?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh.. so Warner Media is kneecapping the competition
What's a giant media corporation to do against the people who would rather watch something they can relate to and enjoy for free, rather pay attention to they're own overblown offerings.
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]