YouTube copyright issues

The context

According to YouTube, when a person creates an original work that is fixed in a physical medium, he or she automatically owns copyright to the work. The owner has the exclusive right to use the work in certain, specific ways.^[1] YouTube has developed an automate system which can scan uploaded videos against a database of media content submitted to the Content ID system by various third parties.^[2] If audio-visual contents in an uploaded video matches content from the database, YouTube produces a copyright notice indicating that third party content has been matched with the video.^[3] When this happens, a 'match policy' set in advance by the copyright holder is applied, the result of which can vary from applying the original copyright holder's monetizing settings on the content or blocking the content from viewing on YouTube.

2013 controversy

In December 2013, YouTube enabled automated Content ID claiming on videos uploaded by users who were signed with multi-channel networks (MCN).^[4] Previously, videos uploaded to channels that were linked to MCNs could only be claimed manually or removed with a DMCA takedown. This led to a large amount of new claims which suddenly left uploaders unable to place advertisements on their videos until they disputed. Users such as Angry Joe created videos complaining about the changes and how they would negatively affect the livelihoods of video creators.^[5]

The sudden increase in claims especially affected channels which uploaded content featuring video games (such as Let's Plays) and movies (such as reviews).

Fine Brothers controversy

The Fine Bros. (Popular Youtubers) created a program called "React World" and trademarked the word "React". React World was a program where people could use the Fine Bros.'s icons to make their own videos for free, but there where limitations that your content must be monetized on YouTube (with Google AdSense) and that the Fine Bros. would take some of the money that the creator made. That started to cause controversy with the Fine Bros. and the "Reaction" video genre to the point where the Fine Bros. cancelled the program and lost many subscribers. During this event many live-streams of the Fine Bros.'s channel's subscribers going down, also the whole reaction genre developed a strong hatred around it.

2015-2016 fair use controversy

Outcries arose from the YouTube community in late 2015 and onward, regarding the unfair removal of YouTube videos and even entire channels based upon supposed copyright infringement allegations, many of which were invalid as no fair use laws were broken. Much of the controversy erupted when a review of the film Cool Cat Saves the Kids by the channel I Hate Everything was removed from YouTube on November 9, 2015.^[6] Videos by large channels such as Channel Awesome and Markiplier were being taken down, and even entire channels, including I Hate Everything, were deleted from the website; complaints sparked across YouTube, as well as on the social media site Twitter.^[7][8] I Hate Everything has since been restored.

On February 26, 2016, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki responded to the controversy on Twitter, writing "Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening".^[9] Matt Hosseinzadeh decided to sue H3H3 Productions because H3H3 made a video making fun of him with his content. The court case would cost about US $100,000, so another YouTube user, "Philip DeFranco" started a Kickstarter project entitled "H3H3 defense fund". It raised up to $130,000 and the leftover money is going to "FUPA" or "Fair Use Protection Account", so when any YouTube user is receiving an unfair lawsuit, they can ask for money from the fund and help fight it.

On April 25, 2016, YouTuber and freelance video game critic Jim Sterling included clips of footage from Metal Gear Solid V, Grand Theft Auto V and Beyond: Two Souls, as well as the song Chains of Love, in a video largely discussing Star Fox Zero. Sterling explained this at the end of the video as a way of preventing Nintendo from claiming and monetising the video by including other material which was similarly flagged by Content ID, hoping that multiple claims would prevent anyone from monetising the video and running advertisements on his channel, which is intended to be ad-free and funded solely by Patreon.^[10] In a follow-up video, he claimed that the technique, which he termed the "copyright deadlock" had succeeded, as the video received multiple ContentID claims, one of which attempted to monetise the video, while two others prevented any monetisation, allowing the video to run advertisement-free. Sterling stated that this was indicative of a poorly design system on YouTube's part, as a video which was well within the bounds of fair use had attracted three copyright claims. He also claimed that he would continue to include material which had previously received Content ID claims in videos likely to attract monetisation attempts from the copyright owners, since fair use was not protecting his videos from copyright claims, pointing out that he now felt incentivized to use as much copyrighted material in his videos as possible, the opposite of what YouTube's copyright policies were intended to achieve.

References