# Youtube demonetizing composer channels



## Greg (Mar 9, 2019)

Warning you guys, if you post your music on youtube do NOT use a static image in the background. You must start uploading unique visual content as well due to the new guidelines. 

I have been posting my original music there for 8 years and today they removed the channel from the partner program completely because they don't feel that the content is original and claim it is "reused"

https://www.youtube.com/user/thesecession

I believe that youtube doesn't want to monetize music at all unless there is an engaging visual component. Advertisers are likely not happy to have visual ads on videos that users are just listening to and not even looking at. Or putting on to play in the background.


----------



## Nils Neumann (Mar 9, 2019)

Greg said:


> I believe that youtube doesn't want to monetize music at all unless there is an engaging visual component. Advertisers are likely not happy to have visual ads on videos that users are just listening to and not even looking at. Or putting on to play in the background.


Seems more like you don't have the rights to the pictures you used?


----------



## damcry (Mar 10, 2019)

The consequence of their new « Youtube Music » ...


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

Nils Neumann said:


> Seems more like you don't have the rights to the pictures you used?


Could be for a handful of videos, but other composers have had the same issue with just posting their album cover art


----------



## dzilizzi (Mar 10, 2019)

So, a slideshow of images would be better? I’m an amateur photographer, so I have lots of pictures I could put up. All mine. No stock photos. 

Will YouTube allow the same slideshow with different music? Or is that maybe why the album covers don’t work - same picture for multiple videos?


----------



## J-M (Mar 10, 2019)

Soundcloud's quality is terrible and now it seems that I have to make a darned video for every song to keep Youtube's overlords happy. Can't have nice things anymore...


----------



## ein fisch (Mar 10, 2019)

Would it be ok to just use a .gif?


----------



## erikradbo (Mar 10, 2019)

Wait, so is it that they remove:
1. All vids with static background?
2. Vids with static background where the image isn't considered original content i.e. reused but still yours 
3. Vids where the static background image is someone elses but free to use under creative commons
4. Vids where you use a copyright protected image

#4 is and should be the case, but what about 2 and 3? If I have my own photo but have used it elsewhere. Or is it really as bad as #1?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 10, 2019)

poetd said:


> They're not removing them so much as demonetizing them.
> It's not just composers this is happening to, it's across the entire youtube content creator spectrum.
> 
> To keep earning from youtube uploads you need to meet an ever growing list of requirements:
> ...



That sounds fair.

Some videos will be made for making money and others will be made for recreation.

We have to remember that YouTube is owned by Google, who is a part of Alphabet. This company is here to make money. 

You still get to upload videos to their servers for free. If you cannot monetize your videos, it is no big deal. You still get to share your art with the world for free.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 10, 2019)

poetd said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> But also a sad indictment on the world in some ways when a child doing no more than unwrapping toys becomes a millionaire via youtube videos when a composer who's sweated over a work of art for weeks/months even more can't make a penny from it.



*Why you hatin' bro? LMFAO!!*

*1.7 billion views later....*


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

Sorry guys I have no idea what we're supposed to do now, aside from well produced music videos with some sort of video content along with our original composition. Two steps from hell does the same thing, repetitive video content (just album art) but obviously the music is incredible and has added an insane amount of value to youtube not only from their channel but the thousands of people using their music in their videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TwoStepsFromTheMusic

I understand youtube can do whatever the hell they want with the platform but the instant demonetization with zero warning, zero evidence, and the generic template response is just an insane way to treat your content creators. The email gave no specifics about my channel, just some template garbage about "reused content"


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

poetd said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> But also a sad indictment on the world in some ways when a child doing no more than unwrapping toys becomes a millionaire via youtube videos when a composer who's sweated over a work of art for weeks/months even more can't make a penny from it.



I mean that is one of the less crazy examples. They still allow monetization on softcore porn of girls of questionable ages trying on underwear. Twitch streamers using text to speech in public harassing people and spewing racial slurs. Prank channels harassing random strangers. Countless videos of people being illegally recorded and monetized without their knowledge. Someday there will be a controversy that advertisers can't brush off their shoulders and pretend to be oooh sooo concerned about for a whole 7 days, then back to business as usual.


----------



## gregh (Mar 10, 2019)

giving away your labour for free to someone else for them to make money out of is being a sucker. If you spent the time and effort it takes to make a piece for youtube ( and associated follow up) getting out and meeting real physical people you would be healthier, happier and with no less money.

We have all been played.


----------



## AllanH (Mar 10, 2019)

This is really disappointing and certainly raises the bar so high that few will ever pass it. Just looking at Secession Studios' channel, you have 236k subscribers. If that is not enough combined with all the music, Youtube must intend to demonetize all but the very big channels. That impossible to overcome.

I wonder what it does to the Content ID protection? I can see why Google if fighting the latest ruling at U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that went in the favor of composers.

Thanks for bringing this issue forward.

BTW - @Greg - I like your music and videos


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

AllanH said:


> This is really disappointing and certainly raises the bar so high that few will ever pass it. Just looking at Secession Studios' channel, you have 236k subscribers. If that is not enough combined with all the music, Youtube must intend to demonetize all but the very big channels. That impossible to overcome.
> 
> I wonder what it does to the Content ID protection? I can see why Google if fighting the latest ruling at U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that went in the favor of composers.
> 
> ...



Hey thanks so much! I don't think it has any effect on content ID. I believe I could even put claims on my own videos to monetize that way. The payout would be less than half of what I was bringing in the the channel though. Content ID pays the lowest royalty rate of any online service by far. But thats totally fair, adsense only makes google about 25 billion a year in profit


----------



## rgames (Mar 10, 2019)

I've seen this debate elsewhere and I don't understand the concern. People who make legitimate money from YouTube don't get it from advertising - they get it from sponsorships or driving sales to their merch or Amazon links. I bet that 100% of TSFH's YouTube ad revenue could go away and it would have near-zero effect on their viability as a business.

Even if YouTube demonitizes all your videos it is still there to provide a free platform where you can drive people to your merch (isn't it?). Alternatively you can pay someone for that service - it's not as though we have some basic right to have YouTube promote our music.

rgames


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 10, 2019)

“Even the most talented musicians struggle to turn their skills into a regular income, but 28-year-old Sarah Hughes has already bought her own house and paid for a wedding in the last year.”

Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-earns-13000-a-month-writing-youtube-jingles-on-fiverr-2019-3


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

rgames said:


> I've seen this debate elsewhere and I don't understand the concern. People who make legitimate money from YouTube don't get it from advertising - they get it from sponsorships or driving sales to their merch or Amazon links. I bet that 100% of TSFH's YouTube ad revenue could go away and it would have near-zero effect on their viability as a business.
> 
> Even if YouTube demonitizes all your videos it is still there to provide a free platform where you can drive people to your merch (isn't it?). Alternatively you can pay someone for that service - it's not as though we have some basic right to have YouTube promote our music.
> 
> rgames



My channel was bringing in $2k a month. Almost double my streaming and album sales. It's not really a debate, just warning other composers that put a lot of effort into youtube.


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> “Even the most talented musicians struggle to turn their skills into a regular income, but 28-year-old Sarah Hughes has already bought her own house and paid for a wedding in the last year.”
> 
> Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-earns-13000-a-month-writing-youtube-jingles-on-fiverr-2019-3



Thats amazing! Good for her, finding a niche like that is not easy.


----------



## rgames (Mar 10, 2019)

Greg said:


> My channel was bringing in $2k a month. Almost double my streaming and album sales. It's not really a debate, just warning other composers that put a lot of effort into youtube.


OK, that's a decent chunk of change and indicates that advertisers were bidding you pretty high. So that means they're likely to work with you directly. I see that approach used all the time and it's better than having YouTube take a cut - now it's just you and the advertiser, so they can spend less and you can get paid more. It takes a little more coordination on your part but should still be worth it.

In fact, that's probably why YouTube is making the change - it's not worth their while to link up advertisers and content unless it's a huge channel. They've passed the workload to you, but you'll get paid more because they're no longer in the loop. So maybe a good thing...???

rgames


----------



## InLight-Tone (Mar 10, 2019)

rgames said:


> I've seen this debate elsewhere and I don't understand the concern. People who make legitimate money from YouTube don't get it from advertising - they get it from sponsorships or driving sales to their merch or Amazon links. I bet that 100% of TSFH's YouTube ad revenue could go away and it would have near-zero effect on their viability as a business.
> 
> Even if YouTube demonitizes all your videos it is still there to provide a free platform where you can drive people to your merch (isn't it?). Alternatively you can pay someone for that service - it's not as though we have some basic right to have YouTube promote our music.
> 
> rgames


That's not entirely true, I make legitimate money from YouTube and it comes from Adsense revenue. We have other income streams through affiliate links as well, but no merch and YouTube is the bulk of it. It's not the most stable business by far, it's like surfing in the ocean, but it's been a fairly steady MOBILE income for years so no complaints from me...


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 11, 2019)

*Gotta get focused and seek out the money....

*


----------

