Posted a blog which speaks to the points discussed above - "
not approved for monetisation". Essentially the way the monetisation system works it appears, for all intents and purposes, that Google/YouTube are the ones doing the flagging rather than the Entity owning the copyright/licensing rights to the materials being questioned. No mention of such a party is ever made in any of the information provided, and to resolve the issue the accused is required to provide proof (or make a statement thereof) they own the appropriate Rights to commercially exploit the contents of a given video, rather than it being the accuser providing that information -
it's critically important to note that even if one did show such 'proof' (or make an appropriate statement), on the Internet what does that mean? The Rights holder could just dismiss whatever legitimate documents one was in possession of, or deny any such permission/agreement had ever been made in the first place. It's immensely frustrating to deal with because it generally means the accused is having to prove a negative ("prove to me you did not do 'x'"), rather than the accuser proving a positive ("I have proof you did 'x'").
