I worked for many years (hundreds of hours) locating, remastering and uploading content for a fan-based YouTube channel named ‘R.E.M. Archive’. I did 99% of the work and was happy to do this for the huge fan base. I believe the channel existed for about 6 years or so.

I had to use the Wayback Machine in order to find an example screenshot of a video description.

A few weeks ago, I checked the email address associated with the channel and found this email from YouTube.

I followed a link, provided in that email, to fill out an appeal form. I, simply, stated that I’d be willing to make any/all adjustments to make the channel compliant with their policy.

And this was the response I received.

I’m not even mad. I will not fight them. This is utter horse shit.

    • Chris Remington@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      …you were taking their archive content and reuploading them.

      You were impersonating the YouTube channel tied to this fan group.

      These are bold statements. I’m not sure where you are coming from. How are you coming up with these accusations?

      • MJBrune@beehaw.orgEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        From the data you provided. I also put a qualifier on that which you cut out: “It sounds like” which means I am just working from the data you provided and the quick Google on the term you provided. The end result is that there seems to be another YouTube channel with an active website that is almost exactly the YouTube channel name you had. It seems like YouTube saw this and removed your channel as an imposter of theirs.

        Did you know of this other channel? Did you have contact with them? Were you uploading content similar to theirs, potentially the same archive footage from different sources?

        • TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          Dude, “from the data he provided” is a screenshot of a concert video from Nov 9, 1998 in Stockholm Sweden which (based on a quick search and look through their website) the “REMVideoArchive” site/channel you linked hasn’t uploaded. Neither was an official channel, the one you linked says in their about section that they’re a fansite that archives R.E.M. footage. Don’t accuse somebody of impersonating someone or stealing their work when you have zero evidence of it, that’s absolutely wild that you would do that.

        • Chris Remington@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          I wasn’t aware of ‘REMVideoArchive’ until you pointed it out. I’ve taken a quick scan of their channel and website and it appears that we shared very similar content. Maybe that group reported me to YouTube or maybe not. I have no idea since YouTube did not make any attempt to explain any details other than the screenshots that I provided. Again, I’m not upset. I’m just confused.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.orgEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            I don’t feel like we can even place blame for this on YouTube because they are just dealing with the situation as they would thousands of other accounts flagged as imposters. It seems clear that they saw this information and maybe you were reported, maybe the automated system of “REMVideoArchive” vs “REMArchive” got triggered as too close and they picked the one with the most metrics/presence.

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    You can appeal this bogus appeal outcome; but prepare to go to battle on Twitter with TeamYoutube and don’t expect to win…unless you can prove your channel was either “more official”, “not claiming to be official”, or "Not Official, not claiming to be, and you started your channel before they started theirs.

    Most of the time it’s not worth the effort unless you have overwhelming evidence.

    • Chris Remington@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Most of the time it’s not worth the effort unless you have overwhelming evidence.

      I completely agree. Hence why I will not be fighting this.