DMCA Takedown Process For YouTube Copyright Infringement
What is a DMCA Takedown?
A DMCA takedown is a request to remove online content that allegedly infringes copyright. It refers to section 512(c) of the DMCA, which outlines the procedure for copyright holders to report infringement.
When a copyright holder discovers their content posted without authorization, they can send a takedown notice to the hosting platform (YouTube) demanding removal. If the notice meets legal requirements, YouTube must promptly remove the content to maintain its DMCA safe harbor protection against liability.
The DMCA provides an important balance – protecting copyrights while enabling platforms to host user content. Takedowns aim to enforce rights without unduly burdening hosts or silencing legitimate speech. However, the system is not perfect and allows some abuse. Understanding proper procedure is essential.
YouTube’s Copyright Strike System
In addition to removing infringing content, YouTube maintains a copyright “strike” system against channels. Copyright owners can choose whether to request a strike in addition to their takedown. Three strikes in 90 days leads to account termination.
Strikes expire after 90 days and only apply to your YouTube account. However, strikes make channels ineligible for monetization and affect standing with the YouTube Partner Program. Losing channels harms livelihoods for professional YouTubers.
YouTube’s three strike policy provides further motivation to avoid infringement and properly respond to takedowns. While an imperfect system, strikes offer a way to deter repeated or willful infringement.
What Triggers a Valid DMCA Takedown?
For a takedown notice to be valid under the DMCA, it must include specific elements:
- Identification of the copyrighted work – What content is protected? How is it registered?
- Identification of infringing material – What video or content is infringing? Link to it.
- Contact information – Who submitted the notice and how can YouTube contact them?
- Statement of authority – The submitter must attest to being authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder.
- Statement of accuracy – The notice must carry penalty of perjury if information is knowingly misrepresented.
Notices lacking required components can be ignored without penalty under DMCA safe harbors. This prevents abuse from those merely seeking to silence criticism or fair use. However, incomplete notices can still lead YouTube to remove content, given their need to appear responsive.
Permitted User Responses Under DMCA Procedure
The DMCA grants users the right to respond to takedown notices through a counter-notification. If you believe your video was removed incorrectly, you can issue a counter-notice stating:
- Identification of the removed work and its location prior to removal.
- Your contact information.
- A statement of “good faith belief” the removal was a mistake.
- A statement confirming correctness under penalty of perjury.
Counter-notifications allow users to fight back when they feel a removal was improper or overreaching. Like takedowns, counter-notices must contain specific statements to be formally valid. Providing false information can lead to legal liability.
After receiving a valid counter-notice, YouTube must restore the removed content within 10-14 days, unless the copyright holder files a lawsuit seeking court order against you. This “put back” procedure provides important due process protections.
Common YouTube Copyright Infringement Scenarios
Understanding common infringement scenarios helps avoid takedowns through preventative education:
Re-Uploading Content Verbatim
The most straightforward violation is re-uploading content you didn’t create or properly license. This includes full videos/songs, video clips, audio tracks, and more. Even if crediting the original creator, you need permission for verbatim use.
Bulk “re-use” channels frequently get terminated for downloading and reposting viral videos without any transformation or commentary. Transformative fair use requires more than just re-sharing content you found online.
Background Music in Videos
Using copyrighted songs as background music poses common pitfalls. Viewers may provide the audio separately, believing that keeping music muted or mixed below vocals provides protection. In reality, rights holders can still detect infringing use via audio fingerprinting.
The safest option is to avoid copyrighted background music entirely. Seek public domain or Creative Commons-licensed tracks instead. YouTube’s audio library also provides content where composers authorize platform use.
If you must feature popular songs users enjoy, attempt to qualify under fair use by using short clips transformed via video commentary. Analyze takedown trends to predict risk thresholds – some publishers are more aggressive than others.
Unlicensed Movie/TV Clips
YouTube features extensive “reaction” and commentary genres where creators provide live response and critique on movie, TV, or viral video clips. However, using even short unlicensed excerpts risks infringement claims under strict studio policies.
Fair use protection depends on proportionate use to provide commentary – not just reposting clips with minor reaction. Use only sparse footage strictly necessary for transformative criticism. Explain commentary goals in video descriptions showing good faith efforts at compliance.
Full movie re-uploads are clearly prohibited. But even compilation videos or extended highlight reels may go beyond fair boundaries depending on context. Takedown responses provide guidance on what publishers find acceptable.
Best Practices to Avoid YouTube Copyright Problems
While unclear boundaries complicate compliance, several best practices help avoid takedowns:
Proactively Block Claimed Content
Rights holders can “claim” videos using Content ID to track use of protected works. This helps publishers discover infringement. However, it also allows creators to predict claims before publishing.
Upload videos privately first and check if Content ID flags any matches. If so, you can delete the video or edit it to remove problematic elements. This proactive approach prevents public posting only to be rapidly taken down.
Dispute Invalid Content ID Claims
Copyright “filters” like Content ID automatically detect potential infringement by scanning uploads against reference files. However, algorithms produce many erroneous matches against fair use, public domain works, and creator-owned content.
Always dispute invalid claims through YouTube’s dispute process to clear rights. This releases claimed videos and prevents strikes. Understanding dispute procedures is vital to manage false positives.
Seek Explicit Permission
The safest option is always requesting explicit license from rights holders before publishing. Particularly for prominent media excerpts like movie clips, clear permission provides a strong defense against takedowns.
Fair use is uncertain, so high-risk examples warrant extra diligence. Studios may demand payment for licenses. But avoiding infringement claims protects long-term channel viability. Keep written permission records.
Understand Fair Use Fundamentals
Fair use provides vital protections for education, commentary, criticism, news reporting and more. But its boundaries are notoriously ambiguous, requiring case-by-case analysis based on four factors:
- Purpose/character of your use
- Nature of the copyrighted material
- Amount/substantiality used
- Market harm to the rights holder
The more “transformative” your use through added value commentary, the stronger your fair use claim. Using bare excerpts risks rejection as mere re-posting. Always explain your justification in video descriptions.
Responding to a YouTube Copyright Strike
If you receive a copyright strike from YouTube, stay calm and take the following recommended steps:
Review Takedown Information Carefully
Read the notice closely to assess validity. Confirm it provides required details on the copyrighted work and specifies infringing content. Vague, incomplete or fraudulent notices can be contested.
YouTube provides the full text of takedown requests when notifying channels of strikes. Be sure to review these disclosures as part of your response plan.
Evaluate Whether Takedown Was Correct
Do you have permission for the removed content? Is it clearly fair use? Was the match incorrect? Fully assess the strike’s merits before responding.
If you violated copyright, strikes provide motivation to improve compliance. However, incorrectly targeted speech must be restored. Evaluate options objectively.
File Counter-Notification If Appropriate
If confident the takedown violated fair use or made other errors, file a formal counter-notice through YouTube’s interface. Provide required details and attest accuracy under penalty of perjury.
YouTube provides an official counter-notification form. Using this standardized process carries more weight than just contesting the strike informally. Get the video back up unless the claimant files suit.
Communicate With Claimant To Resolve Dispute
Try reaching out to the rights holder listed on takedown notices to discuss the removal directly. Explain your position on fair use or other exemptions. An informal compromise may satisfy both parties.
Independent dispute resolution prevents further escalation. Rights holders may refine policies if users highlight enforcement inconsistencies and barriers to legitimate speech.
Consult Attorney If Unsure How To Proceed
Copyright law provides murky contours, especially on emerging platforms. If dealing with repeated strikes or channel termination risks, consider retaining an attorney experienced on DMCA matters.
Legal experts may contact platforms/claimants to negotiate on your behalf or defend lawsuits if necessary. Their expertise often proves vital for high-risk cases.
FAQ on YouTube Copyright Strikes
What are common penalties for multiple YouTube copyright strikes?
The main consequences of multiple strikes are:
- One strike – No immediate impact beyond removal of infringing content. However, strikes make channels ineligible for YouTube monetization programs.
- Two strikes – Removes ability to post content longer than 15 minutes. Some partner program features disabled.
- Three strikes – Account terminated with no immediate right to create new channels. Strikes expire after 90 days if no further issues.
Do copyright strikes on YouTube expire?
Yes, copyright strikes expire 90 days after issuance if no additional strikes are received. After expiration, channels regain access to restricted features like long uploads and monetization tools.
However, strikes still appear in channel records indefinitely. Particularly for managed creators in MCNs, past strikes raise compliance concerns regardless of expiration. Avoid strikes vigilantly.
Can I lose my entire YouTube channel for copyright issues?
Receiving three copyright strikes within a 90 day period leads YouTube to terminate associated accounts. Repeat infringers also risk permanent blacklist banning them from ever creating replacement channels.
Losing channels threatens livelihoods for professional YouTubers. Channel bans provide serious motivation to tighten copyright systems and prevent any strikes. Always respond promptly and thoroughly to resolve claims.
What happens if I file a counter-notification and the claimant does not sue?
If the copyright holder does not file a lawsuit within 10-14 days after receiving counter-notice, YouTube is required by the DMCA to restore the removed content. This “put back” procedure is a vital protection for fair use.
Rights holders rarely sue over individual videos. However, repeat counter-notices may prompt legal action if they believe infringement is willful. Weigh risks appropriately given channel value and use good faith efforts to resolve disputes.
Can I get sued directly over YouTube copyright issues?
Yes, receiving a strike means the claimant has identified you as an infringer. At their discretion, rights holders can bring legal action for monetary damages and court orders – they are not limited to platform takedowns.
YouTube strikes provide warning that copyright holders view your behavior as illegal. Direct lawsuits seek harsher retaliation. Fair use uncertainty raises stakes further. Tread carefully and consult counsel when necessary.
