I want to archive my shit here just in case Twitter or YouTube tries to remove it.
Tweet ||
I made a quick video about it when I discovered others had the same issue as I did, which I have a video on it on VarisTube, in the event YouTube gets pissy at me.
VarisTube
The general gist is that essentially every channel I visited made original content or transformed it to be original, so it isn't "Reused Content" as so YouTube claims.
I'm also well aware of bots bothering YouTube which probably do reuse content.
Which is why I checked every channel which has had this problem, and excluded those who didn't have this problem from my video.
So yeah, all channels I've covered are very much human, made original/transformed content, and have no discernible reason why they should be demonetized for "Reused Content" which cannot exist, due to the fact said "Reused Content" would have to be literally made by the creators before they made them.
This includes music, animation, gameplay, memes, and so on.
In fact, some of the ones I've listed have made their own videos trying to appeal to YouTube, discussed the topic
Note: Rayken made his own video, but deleted it after I started the thread for unknown reasons.
You might be wondering if I'm just trying to stir up drama simply to help get myself monetized for what I've made, which just so happens to be reused content.
I don't deny that I'm trying to get monetized. However, none of my videos actually reuse content without it being transformed enough to be original.
Tweet ||
Even better, they basically say that my Cyborg 009 videos are advertiser-friendly and are monetizable.
Good job making your bots, YouTube.
You either admit you never actually review content yourselves and would lead to the conclusion that you're actively screwing your creators out of their money, or you admit you fuckers reviewed my videos and considered them a-okay according to your quality guidelines.
Unless it just so happens my life experience, stories, voice, and personality happen to be a perfect copy of someone else who isn't Chris-Chan and also decided to commentate in the same essence, I highly doubt it's "Reused," and even then, if such a person and their content exists, I'd like to see it to prove that it is "Reused Content."
YT Post 1 || YT Post 2
I can generalize this that other clipping channels are also capable of being monetized, and even if Not Theo didn't become monetized/approved to be monetized, in some of his clips before he was monetized, ads were running on them as well, so you know.
Of course, he just so happens to be the only one I happen to watch a majority of clips from, alongside some from Cooksie, Low Effort Clips, Shondopilled, etc.
If I wanted to dig into a variety of VTuber clipping channels to see if they're monetized or not, I'm sure I'd find plenty.
Unless, of course, YouTube decides to retroactively remove monetization from all VTuber clipping channels, which would be quickly noticed by said creators and fans of said creators.
That includes their own revenue, because should ads still run on them even if they decide to not pay said channels...
It's self-explanatory, really.
Aside from that, I also add my own twists and such to my edits, but to humor the notion that my clips are "Reused Content," I opted to boldly assume my edits were never considered original.
So no, my clips of Tenma and other VTubers are not "Reused Content" as you'd think they are.
In conclusion, nothing I've posted actually is "Reused Content" and YouTube's just a little shitbag.
Of course, even if you were to insist that in spite of all that, that my channel "Reused Content," it doesn't apply to the other channels I've displayed, which lack said content.
Doesn't invalidate my position and points entirely, nice try, go fuck yourself.
If anyone can find more instances of this happening, where a creator was blatantly demonetized for a guideline which does not under any reasonable circumstances apply to said creator's content, even better if it's inapplicable beyond reasonable circumstances, please feel free to share it here.
I doubt I can get anything to change despite presenting this knowledge, but I'd like to see how far I can get.
Tweet ||
I made a quick video about it when I discovered others had the same issue as I did, which I have a video on it on VarisTube, in the event YouTube gets pissy at me.
VarisTube
I'm also well aware of bots bothering YouTube which probably do reuse content.
Which is why I checked every channel which has had this problem, and excluded those who didn't have this problem from my video.
So yeah, all channels I've covered are very much human, made original/transformed content, and have no discernible reason why they should be demonetized for "Reused Content" which cannot exist, due to the fact said "Reused Content" would have to be literally made by the creators before they made them.
This includes music, animation, gameplay, memes, and so on.
In fact, some of the ones I've listed have made their own videos trying to appeal to YouTube, discussed the topic
Note: Rayken made his own video, but deleted it after I started the thread for unknown reasons.
You might be wondering if I'm just trying to stir up drama simply to help get myself monetized for what I've made, which just so happens to be reused content.
I don't deny that I'm trying to get monetized. However, none of my videos actually reuse content without it being transformed enough to be original.
Clearly not, if YouTube states that they consider "Reused Content" as something they can't monetize, but are willing to monetize my Cyborg 009 compilation videos.
Tweet ||
Even better, they basically say that my Cyborg 009 videos are advertiser-friendly and are monetizable.
Good job making your bots, YouTube.
You either admit you never actually review content yourselves and would lead to the conclusion that you're actively screwing your creators out of their money, or you admit you fuckers reviewed my videos and considered them a-okay according to your quality guidelines.
Adding dialogue/commentary makes it unique, as per what they have written in their shitty feedback.
Unless it just so happens my life experience, stories, voice, and personality happen to be a perfect copy of someone else who isn't Chris-Chan and also decided to commentate in the same essence, I highly doubt it's "Reused," and even then, if such a person and their content exists, I'd like to see it to prove that it is "Reused Content."
Not Theo made a post about how he qualifies for monetization, despite the fact his channel essentially contains clips of someone else's content, aka Tenma Maemi.
YT Post 1 || YT Post 2
I can generalize this that other clipping channels are also capable of being monetized, and even if Not Theo didn't become monetized/approved to be monetized, in some of his clips before he was monetized, ads were running on them as well, so you know.
Of course, he just so happens to be the only one I happen to watch a majority of clips from, alongside some from Cooksie, Low Effort Clips, Shondopilled, etc.
If I wanted to dig into a variety of VTuber clipping channels to see if they're monetized or not, I'm sure I'd find plenty.
Unless, of course, YouTube decides to retroactively remove monetization from all VTuber clipping channels, which would be quickly noticed by said creators and fans of said creators.
That includes their own revenue, because should ads still run on them even if they decide to not pay said channels...
It's self-explanatory, really.
Aside from that, I also add my own twists and such to my edits, but to humor the notion that my clips are "Reused Content," I opted to boldly assume my edits were never considered original.
So no, my clips of Tenma and other VTubers are not "Reused Content" as you'd think they are.
Of course, even if you were to insist that in spite of all that, that my channel "Reused Content," it doesn't apply to the other channels I've displayed, which lack said content.
Doesn't invalidate my position and points entirely, nice try, go fuck yourself.
If anyone can find more instances of this happening, where a creator was blatantly demonetized for a guideline which does not under any reasonable circumstances apply to said creator's content, even better if it's inapplicable beyond reasonable circumstances, please feel free to share it here.
I doubt I can get anything to change despite presenting this knowledge, but I'd like to see how far I can get.
