 So on Tuesday, when I got up around 12.30 to start my editing process for that day's video, I noticed, I think it was literally 12.36 that I had a copyright claim on one of my videos from The Infographics Show. Let's talk a little bit about what happened and a few misconceptions that I've noticed people had when I talked about it in public about the copyright system on YouTube. So first of all, let's get this out of the way. This has already actually been resolved. The Infographics Show released their copyright claim almost a couple hours after. Essentially, I noticed it at, I got, I literally set my alarm to get up because I needed to do my video editing at 12.30. I noticed at 12.36 that it had been claimed. So that was six minutes after I woke up. And then I managed to get the, I think it was about 10 minutes after that when I finally noticed. And then about eight minutes later, I had my dispute in. So the copyright claim system on YouTube is sort of complex, but then it's a fairly streamlined system. And there's a difference between what's a copyright strike and a copyright claim. A copyright strike on my content would take it down and would give me like a, literally a copyright strike where if you get three of them, you're out. If you get three copyright strikes within a short period of time, uploads are disabled on your channel. Your channel is essentially dead. That's can be solved because those copyright strikes can be disputed. So, but while they're active, you're just down. So anyone can do that to another channel, which is a bit effed up, but it is how it is. However, what I was dealing with was a copyright claim. I've never had a copyright strike on my channel because I have been fairly careful about what I do and don't do. I keep expecting it's going to happen with one of my dank memes videos because I'm going to use an image and then, but apparently still images are still are being, are not getting processed through the automated system too well. And that's another important thing, the automation of the system, because there are, you know, maybe millions of hours, I don't know how many hours of YouTube content is uploaded every day, but it's, it's a lot too much for any human run system to actually properly police. So there's an automated system. It detects content that is owned by somebody else and then flags it. And the automated system works for everybody who uploads content past a certain point. I have access personally to the content ID system, but everything I create is creative comments. So, so far, nothing I've needed to use it for. What happened was the automated system caught that I had used infographic show stuffs and the infographic show apparently through the content ID system and its automated searches and there's probably some sort of automated system outside of the normal content ID was set to claim anyone who used their content. And I noticed this immediately. I figured the problem was that their system is not set up for creative commons content. Most of the stuff they put out is, you know, full copyright. Therefore, it's protected properly. Well, protected, the creative comments stuff is protected, but it's protected in a different way. But creative commons, as long as I release it under the proper licensing, that is to say creative commons license with the share like attribution elements, then I'm good to go. No matter how much of it I use, I could technically just repost it and I would still be okay. That's not what I did here. So what happened was I got a copyright claim from these people and when the infographic show made the claim, what happened was they were claiming the money from the video. All ad revenue was it for about 18 minutes. All ad revenue for about 18 minutes went to the infographic show and then I put the dispute in. And YouTube, whenever there's a dispute in on a copyright claim, actually keeps the money in escrow until it's resolved between the two parties. So from that point on, it was just a matter of me putting in, you know, hey, created a creative commons video derived from other creative commons content. I'm pretty sure I'm fine. And two hours later, it was released. And as I said, the issue was probably more that the infographic show's system was set up for non-creative commons content. So I believe they fixed it at this point. We'll see one way or the other. But this is the kind of thing that can come up with the different, and this any automated system is going to have this problem because there are exceptions that the automation doesn't take account for. So when you upload 20 regular copyrighted or 200 or 2000 copyrighted videos and you want to make sure those videos are protected, you can't go through the entirety of YouTube's back catalog and check for all 2000 of your whatever. So you have an automated system set up. The problem is with an automated system that errors. And the problem is that the system is automated and also absolute. So copyright strikes and claims are just like in. If you claim something, that's it. Mistakes happen, obviously, because the system is automated and it's not a human being making these decisions. Although to be fair, a human being could still make these mistakes. A human being could have looked at those videos because the part that was claimed was about a four minute section towards the end of the video where it's really not a fair use argument. Like if it was normal copyrighted content, because for about four minutes I just make faces about the content rather than stopping it and commentating on it. And that's the part that got claimed, actually. So the system is pretty good for like, oh, okay, this is a legitimate reaction content. And then there's the little, but I didn't care because it was, as I said, it's creative comments content that I was working with. And a lot of people, I saw on a couple of the people I talked to about this saying that, you know, this is a big company bullying a smaller creator. And that does happen. That's not quite what happened here. I don't want to, I don't have an axe to grind against the infographic show. I think this was just an honor. I personally really do believe this is just an honest mistake. The bullying of a big channel or, you know, someone or whatever is when lawyers come into it, because obviously I couldn't afford a lawyer. If they were to say, if they were to go through the copyright system and just say, we think we still own this, prove that we don't, then I'd just be hosed. There's, well, not hosed. I just would have to give up on my, my quest to make sure that the content is owned by me and not by somebody else and that the ad revenue goes to me and not somebody else. And that's where bullying actually comes in. But the dispute, the YouTube system up to the point where you get lawyers involved is fair to all content creators. Like, I can make my dispute and everything goes from there. And then after that, they have to go, well, okay, you guys will figure it out with lawyers, I guess. So anyway, I just wanted to cover this because I know I mentioned it on my Twitter and the Infographics show actually tweeted at me about the mistake that they made. Let's read the exact comment that they, or the exact tweet that they sent me. Yeah, because I tweeted, hey, hey, guess who just copyright claimed my video on the Infographics show. You know, the one where I do a reaction video to, or I do a reaction to a video explicitly released under a Creative Commons license. And then the Infographics show goes, I was just alerted to this tweet, the claim was created because the content ID on the channel was set to monetize instead of track as you don't usually deal with Creative Commons. I've since fixed the issue and it won't happen again. So this is one of those things where the first time it happens, and I don't know if they have a history of this, I don't pay too close of attention to what they're up to. I only know what I've encountered. So I don't know if they have a history of this. But if it comes up again, then we have a problem because then it's not a mistake. Well, even if it is a mistake, it's a willful mistake. So deal with that kind of problem. Regardless, as I said, I just wanted to go over what happened in case anybody was still wondering exactly how it got resolved. It's finished. It was within two hours, my dispute was approved and the claim was released. I've actually had this kind of thing happen before with some earlier content I did where I put in non-commercial music. It was under Creative Commons no commercial clause, which was fine for me in the beginning because I wasn't monetizing any of my content. And I actually made sure not to monetize those videos, but somebody put them in the Content ID system to be detected to force me to not monetize them, which was unnecessary and also a little bit overbearing. So I actually removed, I believe I used the YouTube tools to edit those sections out so that you may find gaps in some of the very earliest videos I did. Anyway, I mean, that's my only experience with it. I've never had a strike on this channel, and I don't expect to. It could still happen. I mean, you know, I could imagine a world in which that happened somehow, some way. Anyway, thank you very much for watching. If you enjoyed the video, please hit the subscribe button and then hit the notification bill after that. So you're notified when I upload new videos. It's very important that you hit that subscribe button. And then after that, if you'd like to support the channel even further, you can head on over to patreon.com forward slash D Sumerian and pledge at any level like everybody here on the screen already has, including Dr. Jay Redacted and Vivi, who both pledged at $100. It's nice to know that I'm not alone out here. And I'll see you all again on Tuesday.