Advertisement

A YouTube spokseperson confirmed that content sweeps have intensified this week, but did not address my questions about whether the video service was aware of the widespread concerns of gaming YouTubers about the changes.

"We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs," the spoksesperson said, referring to YouTube channels that are tied to bigger multi-channel networks. "This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid."

Advertisement

YouTube has a system for allowing its users to push back against Content ID claims, but gamers who could use that system tell me that it is severely flawed.

"As soon as you receive a content ID notification, it immediately comes into effect, there's absolutely no disputing it," a gamer named Nathan who runs a small channel called Analog Reviews told me. "The monetization feature is immediately removed from that video and it's impossible to ever add it again. There is the option to dispute the claim but Youtube can take months to get back to you. When they actually respond, they're generally not helpful at all."

Advertisement

Some YouTubers also fear that disputing a claim could get their channel killed on YouTube. A Content ID match alone doesn't penalize a channel, but disputing a content claim and having that claim rejected can result in a copyright violation notice. A few of those and you lose your channel.

The best way to dispute a Content ID claim, it turns out, might be to go to the press. The Analog Reviews review of Tomb Raider got hit with a claim by... Tomb Raider.

Advertisement

I asked a PR rep for Tomb Raider publisher Square Enix about this one and was swiftly notified that the studio behind the game removed the claim—a claim, it should be noted, they never actively made, since YouTube's bots made it for them. The rep said that each Square Enix studio sets their own policy regarding what kind of videos and monetization they'll tolerate on YouTube. The standing Tomb Raider policy suggests that Analog Reviews' Tomb Raider piece might have technically crossed a few lines, but not in any severe way that seems outside the bounds of a standard game review.

Advertisement

Analog Reviews has had many other reviews flagged. These are reviews that Nathan has spent hours putting together, editing footage, scripting and delivering voiceover, all for not much money.

Most of the time, it seems to Nathan, the claimant seems to have rights to music in the game. It's unclear whether that's a proper objection, though, given that the music itself is part of the game or licensed to it. But as soon as the content ID match is made, Nathan can't make more money. For a blocked Last of Us review, he figures he's only made $50 but can't make more until this is resolved. "I realize it's not a lot of money but it's more the principle of it. If that video were to go viral in the future or if we continue to grow as a channel, it has absolutely no potential to make anything now."

Advertisement

Some of the content ID matches that gamers have been hit with are baffling. YouTuber NukemDukem (real name Doug), for example, is still wondering why his video of Beyond Two Souls got flagged by content supposedly claimed by Hearst Magazines UK and BAFTA:

Advertisement

Watch the video yourself at the listed timecodes and see if you can figure it out.

"I did not change the video," Doug told me. "I have no idea what they are even claiming maybe they took a screen shot and put it in their magazine and claimed it? I disputed the claims because it was a press review copy given to me by Sony. No responses, by either Hearst or Sony (I just e-mailed Sony 3 hours ago)."

Advertisement

One of the best explanations of this week's content ID fiasco was posted to the Force Strategy Gaming YouTube channel. It shows just about everything and may lead you wondering whether footage of a game that is used in part of a longer YouTube piece should really be claimed in its entirety by the firm that has rights to the game's boss battle music.

"We don't really bring in that much money from monetization but when we spend about 10 hours playing through a game to record footage and then another 10 hours writing a script as well as editing the video, having someone take 100% of the ad-revenue is a slap in the face," Nathan from Analog Reviews told me. "I don't see why publishers would be doing this, considering a review is just more exposure/advertising. I would also be completely fine with the studios maybe taking 20% but 100% is ridiculous for having relevant game music in the background or showing a piece of gameplay that happens to be flagged."

Advertisement

It seems that some game publishers might actually agree with him.

Some publishers, such as Paradox and Ubisoft, are already on the record about supporting gamers' ability to post footage of their games to YouTube. IGN spotted a statement from Ubisoft that addresses this week's incidents in greater detail:

"As you're probably aware, many YouTubers this week have suddenly been hit with various copyright claims related to in-game audio. In June last year, Ubisoft set out its policy opening the door for channels to make videos using game content and to monetise bespoke content.

"If you happen to be hit with claims on any of your Ubisoft content, it may be that some of the audio is being auto-matched against the music catalogue on our digital stores - it might show up as being claimed by our distributor 'idol'. In such cases please take the following steps and we can get it cleared for you.

"Hope this helps, thanks for all your support over the past year and for all the amazing videos! Look forward to working with you in a very exciting 2014!"

Advertisement

Ubisoft's mention of idol music is key. It seems that a lot of these Content ID matches are tied to automatic claims by companies in charge of large music libraries. Ubisoft is in the position to tell their music partners to let this fly. But, until they do, YouTubers won't be able to run ads and will see their own business hurt. I've heard from YouTubers who have been waiting months for claims to be cleared, even after they've been told by claimants' lawyers that they'll do so quickly.

There are certainly arguments to be made that people who create games and music should make money off of the use of those games and music, especially if someone else is. But many YouTubers make convincing arguments that they're adding to the conversation about games, performing traditional criticism of games that you've seen in print for years and that they're even giving games free advertising. They find YouTube's way of policing content lacking. It certainly raises a lot of questions. And so I'll be following this story, I'm sure, for days and weeks to come.

Advertisement

To contact the author of this post, write to stephentotilo@kotaku.com or find him on Twitter @stephentotilo.