there's a reason i don't cover much @tobyfox music anymore. even major labels have the decency to allow revenue share on cover songs, but @MateriaColl would rather shut down any and all community creativity 100%.

Materia has worked with YouTube and dozens of other platforms since 2015 to *proactively* facilitate community creativity, cover songs, and clearance. That means helping YouTube license and match sound recording and music publishing right for literally 100m+ videos.

what i don't understand is why materia collective cannot/does not do what other rights holders/managers do....claim the piece and then allow sharing. This is what I want on all of my covers ->

You and us both, since 2015. Content ID does not allow first uses (soundtracks) for video game music, as per their OST exception: support.google.com/youtube/a… That gets complicated when music societies share cover song metadata, which become the basis of melody matching.

but y'all already have a workaround for that -- submit to content ID not as "original soundtrack" type. plus, when you manage on behalf of Toby Fox, the video game publisher is literally your client. This isn't a "work for hire" situation where a megacorp is blocking things

It's a great idea -- one of many we've deliberated with our partners, distributors, subpublishers, and administrators over the years. Ultimately, there's enough invalid/incomplete metadata out there, and we'd rather focus our efforts in resolving it, not adding to it.

It absolutely gets confusing, if only for the misnomer "publisher" between game and music industries. On the distribution (sound recording) side, many fingerprinting services will allow video game music to be submitted, or require monetization to be disabled.

We're calling this the Indie Video Game Music exception: larger rightsholders of franchises remain unaffected, in part due to nonparticipation in music industry defaults. Who is affected are independent composers who retain their rights. Platforms do not allow them to get paid.

ok, I appreciate this, but this is vague & indirect. Are you trying to say, "Indie game devs cannot publish to content ID even though they are the game publisher of their works, in contradiction to YouTube's stated rules?" That would be clear, direct. but there is an issue:

1) if true, then how would anyone get a content ID claim for UT and DR, and why would you take responsibility for such? (e.g., why wouldn't your FAQ say, "it's not us claiming, because *we cannot*") 2) given that you do have claims, that doesn't explain why no revshare