YouTube operates within the framework of international copyright laws and has policies to protect intellectual property owners while balancing fair use. A copyright strike is issued when copyright owners formally notify YouTube that their content has been used without permission. If YouTube confirms the claim, the creator receives a strike, which limits certain platform features. Three unresolved strikes within 90 days can result in channel termination.
YouTube’s Fair Use Policy
Fair use allows content like commentary, criticism, or education to include copyrighted material to some extent. However, fair use is a nuanced concept and varies across jurisdictions. Misunderstandings around this policy often result in copyright disputes and strikes. Creators must be aware that fair use is not automatically accepted, especially without a proper legal defence.
If the use of copyright-protected material in a video qualifies as a copyright exception, then the video is considered lawful and non-infringing. This is why copyright holders are requested to consider whether copyright exceptions apply before submitting a copyright removal request to YouTube. If a copyright holder believes a video does not qualify for an exception, then they must provide an adequate explanation as to why.
What Are Copyright Strikes as per YouTube Policies?
A “copyright strike” occurs when a video is removed following a legal notice filed by the rightful owner of the content, indicating a violation of copyright laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). YouTube removes such videos at the owner’s request to remain compliant with copyright regulations.
When a creator receives their first copyright strike, it serves as an official warning. As part of the process, the creator is directed to YouTube’s “Copyright School,” where they must watch instructional videos and complete a quiz on YouTube’s copyright policies. This ensures the creator understands the platform’s rules on content usage and copyright compliance.
A copyright strike impacts the creator’s ability to generate revenue through monetisation. The details and status of copyright strikes can be monitored via the “YouTube Studio” platform, accessible through both the application and website.
If a channel accrues three copyright strikes within a short period, severe penalties follow:
- The channel and any associated accounts are terminated.
- All uploaded videos are removed.
- The creator is prohibited from creating new channels on the platform.
Understanding Copyright Claims vs. Copyright Strikes on YouTube
A copyright claim occurs when YouTube’s Content ID system detects copyrighted material in a video. The content owner can choose to monetize the video, block it, or leave it without taking further action.
The primary difference between a copyright strike vs claim lies in the severity—while a claim allows content owners to monetize or block videos, a strike can result in video removal and potential channel termination.
How to Appeal a YouTube Copyright Strike
A copyright strike can be resolved through the following methods:
- Filing a counter-notice: If the creator believes the content was removed in error or falls under fair use or fair dealing, they can submit a counter-notice to dispute the claim.
- Requesting a retraction: The creator may contact the copyright holder and request a withdrawal of the infringement notice.
- Waiting for the strike to expire: Copyright strikes are automatically removed after 90 days if no further strikes are issued and the creator follows YouTube’s guidelines during this period.
Are Copyright and YouTube Copyright the Same?
Copyright is a legal framework that protects original works such as music, videos, and literature. YouTube’s copyright policies operate within the broader legal framework, enforcing rules specific to content shared on the platform.
What Copyright is Protected on YouTube?
YouTube’s copyright protection extends across various forms of creative works, ensuring that authors’ rights are respected and upheld under the platform’s policies. Copyright protection begins automatically when an original work, such as a music recording or video file, is created and fixed in a tangible form.
Types of Content Protected by Copyright on YouTube
YouTube protects various copyrighted works, including videos, music, audio recordings, written work, speeches and musical composition, computer codes and video games, audiovisual creation, and dramatic arts. Creators are required to either own the rights to the material they upload or have permission to use copyrighted content.
How to Register YouTube Copyright
Creators are encouraged to register their work with copyright offices in their jurisdiction to establish legal ownership. While YouTube does not handle copyright registration, registered copyrights provide a stronger legal basis for content protection and claims.
Prepare Your Materials
Ensure you have all the documents supporting your copyright claim, including a copy of your video and any additional evidence proving authorship. This evidence may include drafts, raw footage, timestamps, project files, and any correspondence or contracts related to the creation of the video. Documentation showing the creative process and ownership trail can strengthen your claim, making it more compelling in legal proceedings or negotiations.
Rules for Using Copyrighted Material on YouTube
YouTube allows the use of copyrighted material only with the owner’s permission or under exceptions like fair use or fair dealing. Creators must follow guidelines to avoid infringements, such as using royalty-free content or licensing copyrighted works.
Tools
YouTube offers several tools to help creators and rights holders manage their content and protect intellectual property. These tools ensure that owners can detect and respond efficiently to unauthorised uses.
Content ID
Content ID is an automated tool that scans and matches uploads against a database of copyrighted works. It enables copyright owners to claim or monetise content that matches their registered material or block unauthorised use.
Copyright Match Tool
The Copyright Match Tool identifies uploads that duplicate content already present on the platform. It alerts the original uploader or copyright holder, allowing them to take action, such as issuing a takedown request.
Copyright Strike Appeal Process
Creators can appeal a copyright strike on YouTube or YouTube Studio if they believe their content was taken down incorrectly. The appeal process involves:
- Filing a counter-notice.
- Explaining the justification for the appeal, such as fair use.
- Potentially resolving the dispute with the complainant.
If the channel is terminated due to copyright infringement claims, creators can:
- File a counter notification
- Submit a counter notification via email, fax, or postal mail
- Try to get in touch with the claimant directly to request a retraction
Grey Areas in YouTube’s Copyright Policies
Despite YouTube’s policies, certain grey areas in copyright law complicate content creation. Ambiguous interpretations of fair use and regional variations in copyright law pose challenges. For example, a video creator’s use of copyrighted material for commentary might be considered fair use in one region but not another. Additionally, AI-generated content introduces new complexities in determining ownership and attribution.
Preventing Copyright Strikes on YouTube
Here are two key points to consider when aiming to prevent copyright strikes on YouTube:
- Understand and Adhere to Fair Use Guidelines:
- Purpose and character of the use: Determine if your use of copyrighted material is transformative, serving a new purpose rather than simply duplicating the original work.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: Consider the creativity and originality of the work being used. Factual works are generally less protected than creative ones.
- Obtain Proper Licences or Permissions:
- Directly contact the copyright holder: Seek explicit permission to use their material, especially if your use falls outside of fair use guidelines.
- Utilise royalty-free or creative commons-licensed content: Explore platforms and resources that offer content with permissive licensing terms, allowing you to use it without fear of copyright infringement.
YouTube Content Infringement Cases
High-profile cases highlight the complexities of YouTube copyright issues and the consequences for creators. Here are six critical cases illustrating how copyright laws have impacted YouTube channels:
Schneider v. YouTube, LLC
Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider, along with Pirate Monitor Ltd., filed a class action lawsuit against YouTube. The plaintiffs alleged that YouTube’s Content ID system created a discriminatory two-tiered system, favouring large content producers over smaller ones. They claimed that smaller creators had to manually monitor and report copyright violations while YouTube benefited from user-uploaded infringing content, generating significant ad revenue. This case highlighted issues with YouTube’s selective access to its Content ID tool and raised questions about its adherence to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provisions
Nintendo v. YouTube Creators
Nintendo has been known for its stringent copyright enforcement on YouTube. The company often issues Content ID claims or strikes against creators who upload gameplay videos without permission. This highlighted the difficulty content creators face when using game footage, even when it falls under commentary or review, which may be considered fair use Group Copyright Disputes: This case is representative of how large music corporations use automated systems like Content ID to manage their intellectual property on YouTube.
Lenz v. Uusic Corp. (The “Dancing Baby” Case)
In 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted a brief video of her son dancing to a Prince song, which led Universal Music Corp. to issue a DMCA takedown notice. Lenz countered by claiming fair use and sued Universal for misrepresentation, arguing that they failed to consider fair use before issuing the notice. The district court ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before sending takedown notices but found that Lenz had not suffered significant damages, leaving both parties in a legal stalemate as they continued their appeals. It influenced the platform’s approach to consider fair use before removing content due to copyright claims.
(H3H3 Productions) v. Matt Hoss
In this landmark case, the YouTubers (Ethan and Hila Klein) behind H3H3 Productions were sued for copyright infringement over a reaction video they made. The California-based creators of H3H3 Productions had analysed and commented on the writing, acting, and portrayal of women in Matt’s video, pointing out flaws in a critical manner. YouTuber Matt Hoss sued H3H3 Productions over a video they made, alleging that they infringed on his copyright by including clips from his content in their critique. The court ultimately ruled in favour of the Kleins, setting a precedent for fair use defence for YouTubers and content creators. This case underscored the importance of transformative content in fair use considerations. It pertained to “Fair Use,” a law that permitted individuals to utilise the work of others for purposes such as criticism, parody, and news reporting.
Suneel Darshan vs Google & YouTube
Darshan filed a private complaint with a Mumbai court claiming that his 2017 film Ek Haseena Thi Ek Deewana Tha was illegally uploaded on YouTube without his permission. Despite several notices and complaints, he also alleged that YouTube had not taken responsibility. The court ruled in favour of Darshan, awarding him damages of INR 50,000 and restraining the defendants from infringing on his work. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the works were not listed on YouTube because there were no URLs.
Brandon Clement vs News Stations
Several Indian news channels have recently faced copyright infringement claims due to using footage from natural disasters. A US-based firm, Viral DRM, has initiated legal action against these channels, alleging unauthorised use of copyrighted content. The firm has filed a lawsuit in a US federal court, seeking damages and an injunction.
News Nation, one of the affected channels, has deleted thousands of videos to avoid YouTube’s penalties. The channel has also challenged the copyright strikes in the Delhi High Court, claiming fair use under Indian copyright law. The outcome of these legal proceedings will have significant implications for the use of copyrighted content by Indian news media.
Understanding landmark YouTube copyright cases is essential for content creators to navigate the platform while respecting copyright laws. By understanding the distinctions between copyright claims and strikes, recognizing the principles of fair use, and learning from real case outcomes, creators can make informed decisions when using third-party content.
FAQs
1. What is a YouTube copyright strike, and how does it work?
A YouTube copyright strike occurs when a copyright owner submits a legal complaint against a video that uses their content without permission. YouTube responds by removing the video, and the channel receives a strike as a warning.
2. What happens if I receive multiple YouTube copyright strikes?
If a channel receives three copyright strikes within 90 days, the account, including all associated channels, may be terminated. Additionally, all videos will be removed, and the creator will be prohibited from creating new channels.
3. How can I avoid receiving a copyright strike on YouTube?
Creators can avoid strikes by using licensed or royalty-free content, seeking permission from copyright holders, or ensuring their use of content falls under fair use or fair dealing policies.
4. What’s the difference between a copyright strike and a Content ID claim?
A copyright strike involves legal action and can lead to video removal or channel termination. In contrast, a Content ID claim is automated, often resulting in the copyright holder monetising the video or blocking it without issuing a strike.
5. Can I appeal or resolve a copyright strike?
Yes, creators can file a counter-notice if they believe the strike was issued in error or if their use qualifies as fair use. Alternatively, they can ask the complainant to retract the claim. If not resolved, the strike will expire after 90 days.
