The internet has opened a broad field of intellectual property questions since its inception in the 1990s as varied as each new function introduced by an app or website. The increasing availability of media online has made infringement as easy as clicking “Save image as…” on a photo from a Google search. Because of this “at your fingertips” state, content moderation has become a copyright battleground for websites like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. 

In today’s blog, we will focus on that last provider. Within YouTube’s IP moderation system, a unique combination of pros and cons have emerged. One particularly frustrating issue for content creators: fraudulent copyright holders.

YouTube’s Problem with Fraudulent Copyright Holders

How do fraudulent copyright claims happen? 

YouTube allows any user to upload videos to its site, which can be discovered through searches or algorithmic suggestions. If a video accrues enough views, that video becomes eligible for ad revenue. This can pose an annoying interruption for YouTube audiences, but a potentially lucrative passive income for YouTube content creators. 

However, this introduces millions of opportunities for copyright infringement – from the innocent teen who does not realize that using their favorite song in a skateboard video constitutes infringement to the willful infringer, skirting YouTube’s 30-seconds-or-less requirement for copyrighted music, hoping to go unnoticed. With so many videos uploaded each day, how can YouTube flag cases of infringement? 

In response to this problem, YouTube created the Content ID system. Copyright owners provide YouTube with a copy of their  work to use as reference, which YouTube uses to scan videos for the presence of that work. YouTube has stated, in defense of this system, that it has garnered millions of dollars for copyright owners whose work was featured in videos. 

Why are they defending the Content ID system? Because YouTube creators have complained about false infringement claims from fraudulent “copyright holders.”

YouTube Creators

The problem is twofold here:

• The Content ID system is based on machine learning, which is imperfect. Sometimes the system flags a video for containing copyrighted material when, in fact, the video creator has the right to use that content. 
• Some users are claiming copyrights on content that is not theirs, sponging up ad revenue from creators who are “infringing” on their work while the copyright dispute plays out.

To give an example of the second problem, a recent Ars Technica article detailed the struggles of a YouTube creator whose washing machine went off during one of his videos. The washing machine played a distinctive chimed melody when it finished its wash cycle. The musical piece is “Die Forelle” by Franz Schubert, a long-dead classical composer whose music has been in the public domain for decades. 

So, why was it flagged? And why did this cause an issue for the creator? 

The washing machine chime in the video raised a flag because another YouTube user had uploaded a video of the washing machine’s song and claimed a Content ID for it. The YouTube Content ID system did not recognize that the piece is in the public domain. Instead, it assumed the Content ID was valid, channeling a stream of ad revenue toward this claimant for any video that features the chimed song. Essentially, whether through intention or not, the claimant is a fraud. 

This hurt the YouTube video creator in the news story partially because it cut into his income from the video site – but also because YouTube’s system seems to favor fraudulent copyright holders over YouTube creators. If a YouTube creator disputes a copyright infringement claim, they run the risk of having their creator account permanently disabled. This can mean the difference between retaining or losing hundreds to thousands of dollars in passive income per month. 

The downfall for the fraudulent infringement claimant is much less steep – if the creator disputes, the fraudulent copyright holder can simply push back, letting things play out for months while they accrue revenue for something they never owned in the first place. Creators complain that the process is opaque, with little interception from human reasoning, which would quickly detect the copyright scammers. They have called for changes to the process to equalize the playing field. At the very least, creators say, YouTube could reduce the looming threat of account suspension.

In the case of the washing machine chime, the creator risked his account in order to repeatedly dispute and appeal the claim. In the end, YouTube recognized that the infringement claim was invalid, and they restored the monetization of his video.

IP Tensions in the Wild West of the Internet

Unfortunately, as things stand, most creators are afraid to dispute fraudulent copyright claims, not wanting to risk their livelihood. And YouTube asserts that the cost of hiring human moderators to review copyright infringement claims would be too prohibitive. 

Here is where we need human innovation to keep up with technology. Intellectual property law exists to protect creators, not persecute them – and systems to detect it should not reward copyright fraud.