Victims of YouTube video editor – Contradictory Information

YouTube Creative Commons article by Ali Taha Alnobani

Written by: Ali Taha Alnobani

When you see youtube video editor for the first time, you think that you found it: be a partner, earn money with advertisements, choose from creative commons, mix, create, Etc…

Everything seems to be smooth and easy, as youtube says themselves:

"Creative Commons licenses provide a standard way for content creators to grant someone else permission to use their work. YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. These videos are then accessible to YouTube users for use, even commercially, in their own videos via the YouTube Video Editor".

Even they will put the attribution for you, don't bother yourself:

"Attribution is automatic under the CC BY license, meaning that any video you create using Creative Commons content will automatically show the source videos' titles underneath the video player. You retain your copyright and other users get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license".

Then you start: search on youtube video editor: choose creative commons and publish. That needs a lot of time, effort and money for the internet connection and hardware consumption.

Suddenly you will receive Warning from youtube : your video was blocked worldwide or in some countries. But you took it from damn creative commons, then you have to read infinite number of pages about copyrights and creative commons to discover at the end that you are a victim of false description and Contradictory information that you trusted at the beginning because you saw it at youtube site itself.

I received a warning from youtube that one of my videos which I created on youtube from video editor was blocked worldwide due to claim from the copyrights owner, and through a simple operation I found the channel that upload the video who chose to put it with creative commons license: in the description, just click on attribution under the creative commons license, you will be redirected to a page shows you the original uploader who put the video in creative commons and his account stay in good standing at time youtube warn me and others that their accounts became at risk and could be terminated or go to bad standing.

Why does youtube do this, they have other nice choices that don't harm any of their partners like the following suggestions:

If someone chose to put his content in creative commons, I think youtube should prevent him from converting it to standard license, because those who used it when the content was CC will be in a trouble. Or he should be admitting all users during the period in creative commons.
YouTube should specify every creative commons content if is it for commercial use or not, then the search should be for two types: CC for commercial use, CC for noncommercial use, and YouTube should be responsible for that, especially when we remember the method of promotion that YouTube promoted the damn video editor.
YouTube should be clear and responsible to insure the first one who did strike, not to punish the second user who doesn't have any way to insure that he is dealing with the copyright owner or with someone who is doing a strike.
When YouTube receives a claim about a content taken from YouTube editor I think should punish the first strike maker who put the content in creative commons without having the right to do, then should delete the video from the account who took it from video editor and transfer the video earnings to the claimer without punishing the second user who didn’t do anything wrong except trust in YouTube information.

Again: why does YouTube do this? I have one answer:

YouTube's first interest is to upload a large number of videos every moment to use them as a platform for advertising and achieve more profits, and also its advantage is to close the most possible number of channels in order to seize their little profits regardless of the truth and justice.

Then why to have a clear terms for use of YouTube video editor?! YouTube in this way will have a very large number of poor people working for it for free without any rights and under a very high risk of termination of services without need to explain anything.

I'm disappointed

```