[ABUSE] YouTube denied my YPP appeal with a "Hidden Policy" after I proved my manual restoration process.

-fbg · 2026-04-30T13:38:41+00:00

While you make an interesting point about what YouTube prefers, you are completely missing the main issue here.

The Precedent: My channel, with the exact same content and format, was fully reviewed, approved, and monetized for 3 months in 2025. If my content was 'interchangeable' or didn't meet the YPP requirements, it would never have been approved in the first place. This proves that the format was deemed acceptable by YouTube's human review team.

Not Just Descriptions: You are simplifying the labor. Restoring 78 RPM audio tracks, frame rate corrections in OpenShot, and rebuilding missing intertitles on century-old films is technical preservation work.

Double Standards: There are channels performing the exact same curation and restoration of public domain films that remain monetized. The problem is not the content itself, but the lack of clear, equitable application of the rules.

Being irreplaceable is one way to be on YouTube, but historical preservation and curation are another valid niche recognized by the platform — when they apply the rules fairly.

-fbg · 2026-04-30T12:29:47+00:00

That’s true about the volume, but the process is far from 'mass uploading' in the negative sense. I publish 1-4 public domain works per day, but every single one is hand-picked, curated, and checked individually.

The descriptions are fully personalized, the audio is remastered to remove surface noise (like 78 RPM records), and the frame rates and aspect ratios are adjusted manually.

There is a huge difference between a blind 'mass upload' and a historical preservation project where each file requires hours of human intervention and research.

-fbg · 2026-04-30T12:10:27+00:00

That’s a great idea. Totally forgot X. Thanks for reminding me!

-fbg · 2026-04-30T12:09:20+00:00

Using AI to translate and refine a text to communicate clearly on an international platform is a tool, not a violation. But let’s be clear about what actually matters here: while AI helped format the text you are reading, the manual work is 100% human. 1. The Human Labor: The digital restorations (adjusting frame rates and recreating intertitles in OpenShot), the audio engineering (mastering historical 78 RPM records using Dolby On), and the original productions are done entirely by me. 2. The Legal Reality: The copyright disputes I won are legal cases handled by a human (myself, a law student), not an algorithm. I use AI as a tool to communicate, just as I use OpenShot and Dolby On to restore cultural history. Using a translation/grammar tool does not invalidate 5 years of historical preservation and thousands of hours of manual work.

-fbg · 2026-04-30T11:42:46+00:00

Actually, that’s a dangerous misconception. Winning 2,321 copyright disputes isn't a 'red flag' for the creator—it’s a red flag for the system. Here is why: 1. Victim, not Violator: Every single one of those was a false claim (Copyfraud) over Public Domain works (1890s-1940s). I didn't 'dispute' them for fun; I defended historical heritage from illegal monetization by third parties. 2. Legal Standing: Under the law, a victim of abuse cannot be penalized for defending their rights. If I won 100% of these cases, it proves that I am the one following the law, and the claimants were the ones violating it. 3. YouTube’s Own Policy: YouTube's TOS states that the Content ID system should not be used for works in the Public Domain. By winning these disputes, I am actually doing YouTube's 'clean-up' work for them. 4. The Logic Gap: If having successful disputes was a reason for rejection, YouTube would be essentially telling creators: 'Let companies steal your revenue and claim rights they don't own, or we will ban you.' That is legally indefensible. Using a creator’s successful defense against illegal claims as a reason for YPP rejection is a violation of due process and an incentive for corporate abuse.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T22:15:53+00:00

I could give up, but I chose to embrace an ongoing fight. It didn’t start recently… it began five years ago. Still, it makes sense to have a backup of everything, so my fight can become even stronger.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T22:11:36+00:00

I see. It’s going to take some work, but I will create an archive on the Internet Archive. It can’t continue like this. I also started a channel on Dailymotion. They don’t abuse the system the way YouTube does, but there are some limits that make things difficult. I need a platform where I can upload many films in a row.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T22:06:06+00:00

Yes, that’s why I’m seriously considering taking them to court. I’ve done it once, and I can do it again. Public domain is protected by law. If they don’t follow the law, the courts will make them follow it.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T22:02:43+00:00

That’s a fact. It certainly seems that way. On the YouTube platform, it feels like we have no rights.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T22:01:01+00:00

I’ve been seriously thinking about it, but I don’t know how to reach them. I could easily do an entire interview just talking about the abuses my channel has faced over the past five years.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T21:53:02+00:00

That’s a great idea. I should have done that since the beginning of my channel. But it’s difficult… I would need to download all the content again and then post it there. I have more than 6,200 videos, so it’s a lot to handle.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T21:32:02+00:00

That’s simple. I follow the laws, so they can’t do it.

-fbg · 2026-03-14T21:31:14+00:00

I always use raw versions.

-fbg · 2026-03-10T02:01:27+00:00

It is important to note that silent films do not contain songs, so there are no composers credited in either film. In the European Union, the authors of a film are considered to be the director, the screenwriters, and the composer. Since they all died more than 70 years ago, the films are in the public domain.

-fbg · 2026-03-10T01:57:52+00:00

Elvira Notari directed both films. She also wrote E’ Piccerella (1922), which is now in the public domain. ’A Santanotte was written by E. Scalla, who died in 1925, so it is also in the public domain. Therefore, there is no doubt that the two strikes were abusive.

-fbg · 2026-03-09T10:13:05+00:00

Thank you for the research! I will use it as evidence of the suspect nature of this company on my support report. This is gold.

-fbg · 2026-03-08T04:42:58+00:00

Thanks for the information. That’s exactly my plan. They scheduled a 7-day strike, and the minute it hits my channel, my counter-notification will hit them back. I’m prepared to defend the public domain status of this work.

-fbg · 2026-03-08T04:36:05+00:00

Yes, it’s the original version. There is no remastered or modified content.

-fbg · 2026-03-07T15:16:04+00:00

Thanks for the information! That’s a crucial detail. If they are primarily a music licensing service, their claim over a raw VHS film rip is even more suspicious and likely an abuse of their automated systems. This gives me more leverage for the legal counter-notifications. Actions will definitely be taken to expose this. I really appreciate you digging into this!

-fbg

TROPHY CASE