> A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation date
Correct, but in this case we know there was no earlier video anywhere, so the only conclusion to draw is that they simply weren't checking the date at all. If the only "source" video being compared with the "offending" video had a newer upload date, the claim never should have been allowed to happen. If there's truly some external video with an earlier upload date, compare to that.
Correct, but in this case we know there was no earlier video anywhere, so the only conclusion to draw is that they simply weren't checking the date at all. If the only "source" video being compared with the "offending" video had a newer upload date, the claim never should have been allowed to happen. If there's truly some external video with an earlier upload date, compare to that.