Our investigation into the abuse of YouTube’s copyright reporting tools reveals how the mechanism is weaponized in the Global Majority to suppress critical voices and impede freedom of speech, risking the transformation of the video-sharing site from a platform of democratic engagement into an instrument of information control. We analyze cases from Bangladesh and India, and find how the reporting tool is exploited to make fraudulent copyright claims in Bangladesh and engage in copyfraud in India to target independent media content. While the research focused on YouTube in the context of South Asia, the issues identified reflect broader systemic challenges faced across similar platforms in the Global Majority.
We make several recommendations, including adopting robust technological solutions, revisiting the takedown mechanism and the three-strikes rule, introducing stronger punitive measures for false complaints, implementing an on-platform dispute resolution mechanism, and enhancing transparency in reporting on complaints and complainants.
Background
With the advancement of digitalization, online content creation and consumption have increased exponentially, making online platforms like YouTube a bustling arena where creators and consumers converge in a circular economy. Amidst this vibrant landscape, a darker phenomenon lurks — the abuse of copyright reporting tools. Malicious actors exploit these tools to remove non-infringing content, stifling creative expressions, cultural exchange and critical coverage of news and current events. This research focuses on abuse of copyright reporting tools on YouTube in South Asia, however the phenomenon is prevalent in other Global Majority regions.
While user-generated content platforms, like Facebook, face similar challenges with false copyright infringement complaints, we examine YouTube specifically due to its extensive user base and reach in the online ecosystem, and its significant role in digital content creation and monetization: over 500 hours of content is uploaded every minute and accessed by over two billion users every month. Of note, considering Google’s greater transparency and the considerable evidence of abuse of its copyright reporting tool, case studies on YouTube offers an opportunity for an in-depth and nuanced examination of issues such as fraudulent complaints and false copyright strikes, and their consequent impact on the fundamental principles of fair use, platform accountability, media freedoms, and the digital rights of citizens.
How Malicious Actors Professionalize Abuse of Copyright Infringement
Abuse of copyright reporting tools transcends geographical boundaries and is a global concern. Indeed, copyright grub and scrub activities have been observed around the world, with many private corporations professionalizing this service and offering bespoke solutions to their clients.
Firms like Eliminalia, serving as reputation laundromat for criminals worldwide, uses “blackhat tactics” to assist bad actors — from drug traffickers, arms dealers and underground prostitution syndicates to corruption cartels, crony capitalists and kleptocrats — in manipulating and erasing information about their murky pasts, often through the weaponisation of copyright infringement tools. For instance, a Mexican journalist who published an investigative report on suspicious contracts between a local state governor and a video surveillance company was initially offered bribes to remove the article. Subsequently, a social media page was created in his publisher’s name, where fake articles were published under his name, before the website of the online news outlet was taken down for copyright infringement by the webmaster upon receiving a complaint from an individual allegedly associated with the firm.
Another company, Ares Rights, follows the same strategy. For example, in December 2015, the firm reportedly filed copyright infringement complaints on behalf of several Ecuadorian state agencies and the country’s former President Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado to disable news website Fundamedios for its critical commentary and coverage. Citing the inclusion of a few seconds of a televised Delgado speech as copyright infringement, the company was successful in temporarily removing a short documentary from YouTube that exposed repressive measures by the Government of Ecuador against indigenous community. In October and November 2019, the Government of Nigeria also used the copyright infringement mechanism to disable access to Sahara Reporters’ website for exposing wrongdoings by state actors.
Our focus on case studies from Bangladesh and India — collectively home to nearly 1.6 billion citizens — serve as microcosms of broader systemic challenges faced in combating this issue in Global Majority regions, where freedom of expression and traditional media are systematically undermined by state apparatuses, often relegating online platforms as the only medium for citizens to express themselves without state intervention and regulation. As the digital ecosystems in these countries rapidly evolve, the influence of political dynamics and vested interests exposes the limitations of policy frameworks and enforcement mechanisms.
YouTube’s Copyright Policies and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
YouTube’s copyright policy underscores the importance of creators only uploading original content or content authorised by the rightsholder. Copyright and rights management rules offer clear characteristics of the works that are copyrightable, while the fair use rules sufficiently address the doctrine of fair use and the nuanced approaches under certain domestic laws. Amongst the recognised fair use exceptions are criticism, commentary and news reporting, aimed at balancing rightsholders’ right with creators’ freedom of expression.
Complaint mechanism is based on the notice-and-takedown regime established under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) by the United States Congress, which enables a user to notify YouTube about the alleged infringement, remove the at-issue content and apply a copyright strike against the offending channel. If a channel receives three copyright strikes in ninety days, then the account, along with any associated channels, will be terminated, all the videos uploaded to those channels will be removed, and the user will be disallowed from creating a new channel. Applying the one-size-fits-all DMCA-inspired approach globally undermines independent media in the Global Majority. Operating on a “guilty until proven innocent” basis and automated systems, this notice-and-takedown scheme fails to account for diverse legal, socio-political and cultural contexts in emerging markets, resulting in routine weaponisation of the three-strikes rule in regions where freedom of speech and press are already under threat. Constraints in resources and expertise among individual-run and smaller media outlets hinders their ability to navigate and challenge complaints effectively, which, as our investigation reveals, creates fertile ground for abuse.
Other notable shortcomings in these policies and their enforcement include the inherent bias in the counter-notification process, asymmetrical power dynamics between complainants and alleged infringers, and the lack of transparency in punitive measures taken against false complainants.
Firstly, the process for issuing a counter notification against false complaints and requesting reinstatement of contested content relegates the onus on the victim to demonstrate that the content removal was a mistake. This compromises the principles of fairness, equity and due process. Generally, in traditional legal settings, the burden rests on the complainants to establish that infringement has occurred, requiring them to substantiate the accusations before any punitive measure is taken. In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit highlighted that the rightsholders must take into account the fair use defences and the good faith activities of alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices against online content. However, the existing enforcement mechanism defaults to content removal and channel disabling, without a thorough evaluation of the complaint for reasonableness or accuracy, or assessment of the fair use rights. Once the actions are taken, the alleged infringers are allowed to challenge the takedown requests and establish their right to use the contested content.
Secondly, content creators confront obstacles in asserting their right, primarily due to the asymmetrical power dynamics vis-à-vis YouTube and the often deep-pocketed complainants. Furthermore, when filing counter notification, content creators must accede to the jurisdiction of the judicial district in which YouTube is located, creating additional cost and geographical concerns in contesting the complaint in a judicial forum. During this time, the complainant can have the channels of the alleged infringers disabled, or at least prevent them from using the at-issue content, impacting their freedom of expression and their revenue stream. YouTube does not offer any financial redress to the users subject to false or frivolous removals and wrongful termination, nor does it impose financial penalty against dishonest complainants, often causing irreparable financial harm.
Finally, although a content takedown request must accompany a good-faith statement and undertaking that the information is correct under penalty of perjury — and indeed comes with a notice that submission of false information or abuse of the reporting tool may result in the termination of the account and other legal consequences — the sheer volume of removal requests received by YouTube everyday makes it impossible for the company to take any meaningful legal action other than blocking the channels of the complainant. It is not clear how often such punitive measures are taken against complainants.
Overall, this creates a conducive environment for bad actors to file false copyright infringement complaints, resulting in a chilling effect on creativity, commentary and critical thought, especially in countries in the Global Majority where the freedom of expression and press freedoms are routinely and systematically eroded. Often, online media outlets like YouTube serve as crucial, and at times sole, avenues for citizens to voice themselves without state interventions.
Mechanisms, Trends and Patterns of Abuse
An abusive copyright claim is a false or malicious copyright takedown request made using YouTube’s copyright management and reporting tools. Our case studies from Bangladesh and India have identified specific mechanisms, trends and patterns of abuse.
Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent in India, harbours bad actors engaged in malicious exploitation of the reporting tool. Our investigation revealed that their primary modus operandi involves multiple-step deceptive tactics. First, the target content and/or content creators are identified, often in exchange of offline monetary rewards. Second, dummy websites are created where the targeted content is republished, frequently with an earlier publication date than the original published version, so that these actors are able to claim themselves as the original publisher. Finally, using the republished content on the dummy website as evidence, they use YouTube’s copyright reporting tool to lodge copyright infringement complaints against the genuine content creator.
Different trends and patterns of abuse have been recorded in India, where target content is identified and intellectual property ownership is claimed by copyright owners through the notice-and-takedown reporting tool. However, this strategy involves misapplication of both YouTube’s copyright policies and the domestic copyright laws, especially with respect to the allowances for non-infringing fair use. Under the fair use doctrine, copyright-protected materials are allowed to be used by third-parties under certain circumstances, without obtaining permission from the rightsholder. Problematically, once a complaint is received, YouTube takes down the content, applies copyright strikes on the channel, informs the alleged infringer about the actions taken and then uses the Copyright Match Tool to automatically scan and identify all video uploads for potential matches to reported content.
It is then incumbent upon the alleged infringer to challenge the complaint and copyright strikes. This may include simply waiting for the copyright strikes to expire in ninety days, or taking more proactive steps to request a retraction by the complainant, or to submit a counter notification to YouTube that the content was taken down erroneously. Opting for the last option obligates the complainant to respond to the counter notification with relevant evidence within ten business days. Effectively, this approach errs on the side of de facto removal to avoid liability, and the most convenient route is to transfer onus to prove fair use on the alleged infringer.
YouTube’s content management system, Content ID, further compounds the misapplication of the fair use allowance. It enables enterprise partners — such as movie studios, record labels and collecting societies — to upload reference files and metadata that are then used to automatically scan and compare newly uploaded content. Although content removal is more frequent via the takedown mechanism, claims made using Content ID represent over 98% of all copyright actions on YouTube. Once an allegedly infringing content is identified against the submitted dataset, the rightsholder can either block, monetise or track the content, and in the first half of 2022, rightsholders chose to monetise over 90% of all such claims. However, the fingerprinting technology used in this system cannot effectively identify content subject to fair use exceptions.
Safe Harbor vs. False Copyright Claims
YouTube is insulated from potential liability through safe harbour provisions, and one lawsuit demonstrates this well. Viacom International, Inc. and several other film studios, television networks, music publishers and sports leagues initiated copyright infringement proceedings against YouTube before the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2007. Louis Stanton J, invoking the safe harbour protection under the law, observed that a finding of liability against YouTube will revive the ‘anachronistic, pre-Digital Millennium Copyright Act concept’ and that ‘knowledge of the prevalence of infringing activity, and welcoming it, does not itself [result in the forfeiture of] the safe harbour.’
He also noted that YouTube had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner or was a fair use of the material. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of YouTube in 2013, holding that the company was protected under the copyright safe harbour provision from third-party user infringements.
Similarly, in India, online service providers enjoy robust safe harbour immunity from copyright infringement liability. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, they are entitled to protection if they are only providing ‘transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public.’ General intermediary safe harbour under the amended Information Technology Act, 2000 provides additional exemption to intermediaries from liability for third-party content on their platform, provided the intermediary is merely providing access to a communication system for content transmission, without initiating the transmission, selecting the receiver or modifying the transmitted information.
In 2016, the High Court of Delhi affirmed in Myspace v Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. that the safe harbour provisions in both the statutes must be interpreted harmoniously, and given the overriding effect of the latter statute, liability can only be imposed on intermediaries if the conditions of both statutes are met.
These decisions underscore the trade-off between the safe harbour privilege and the removal strategy without adequate procedural safeguards by YouTube. Within one business day of receiving takedown requests, over 100,000 allegedly infringing content were removed, arguably without adequate assessment of their reasonableness or accuracy, or evaluation of the fair use rights involved.
Copyright Abuse, its Impact, and the Efficacy of Domestic Laws
BANGLADESH
Bangladesh — ranked 41st out of 100 for internet freedom in 2023 and 165th out of 180 for press freedom in 2024 — has recorded several instances of abuse of copyright infringement tools. One notable example involves a self-exiled newscaster Kanak Sarwar, who operated the YouTube channel Kanak Sarwar Live since September 2010. His content was mostly critical of the government, and, in July 2020, the channel was subject to 16 copyright infringement claims by now-defunct website Afreen-Music. This disabled him from accessing the channel under the three-strikes rule of YouTube.
Sarwar claims that the 185 videos that he had uploaded on his channel were either videos of himself or the media outlet he was employed by, and further asserted that he is the copyright owner for all contested content. Afreen–Music’s website is not affiliated with the news outlet and was created in May 2020, which then uploaded the contested videos, pre-dating its publication date to June and July 2010 — a decade before the website had been created — enabling it to claim originality and authorship. Sarwar claims most videos were self-recorded and addressed situations occurring after 2010, clearly indicating the falsity of the complaint.
He believes that this was a coordinated attack to stifle public commentary in Bangladesh. He now operates another channel and circumvents malicious copyright infringement claims by broadcasting “live” videos, instead of pre-recorded content. Afreen-Music also reportedly made copyright infringement complaints against YouTube channels operated by political commentators, including M Rahman Masum and Mina Farah.
Sweden-based Tasneem Khalil similarly received several copyright infringement claims in August 2020, within days of uploading a video exposing alleged corruption by a state minister in Bangladesh on his YouTube channel. YouTube admitted that the channel was rendered inaccessible based on “invalid” claims under the three-strikes rule; it was restored within 24 hours.
Abuse of copyright infringement tools to silence and suppress dissent not only undermines democratic principles of openness, transparency and accountability but also constitutes a direct assault on free speech, the right to information and internet freedom. Allowing malicious actors to weaponise copyright reporting tools risks transforming YouTube from a platform of democratic engagement and expression into an instrument of authoritarian control.
Notably, malicious copyright infringement complaints using YouTube’s reporting tool is one of several arsenals in the censorship armoury of the state actors in Bangladesh. Other strategies involve coordinated actions against websites operated by critics, including by disabling access domestically through executive orders to the local internet service providers as well as globally by raising false complaints with the webmaster for copyright infringement claims; several newsrooms dedicated to elevating indigenous voices in Bangladesh faced both domestic and global removal actions.
It is a tried-and-tested method used in other countries. For instance, articles published by South Africa’s Mail & Guardian exposing criminal activities of the political and social elites in Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon were targeted by complainants using false identities and backdating the at-issue articles to claim copyright over them and removing them from the news outlet’s website.
Moreover, pro-state actors often issue a large volume of takedown requests to the intermediaries, as well as engage in coordinated attacks. Ahead of the 2018 national elections, for instance, Meta identified nine pages and six accounts ‘designed to look like independent news outlets and posted pro-government and anti-opposition content … linked to individuals associated with the Bangladesh government.’ Similarly, in its Adversarial Threat Report for the first quarter in 2024, Meta identified 50 accounts and 98 pages on Facebook and Instagram, with about 3.4 million followers across these accounts and pages. Meta’s investigation found that the accounts and pages had ‘links to individuals associated with the Awami League party and the Center for Research and Information, a non-profit in Bangladesh.’
INDIA
India — ranked 50th out of 100 for internet freedom in 2023 and 159th out of 180 for press freedom in 2024 — has records of abusive copyright claims and copyfraud, however, the mechanics and trend are different from Bangladesh. Whereas bad actors in Bangladesh use fraudulent copyright claims to silence dissenting voices, in India, legitimate fair use of content is contested through persistent copyright claims. Generally, malicious actors use copyright complaint forms to silence channels providing critical analysis, commentaries, investigative journalism or alternative viewpoints, depriving the audiences of information necessary for well-informed citizenry and functioning democracy.
For instance, content creator Kishor ran a channel on YouTube Moving Images that offered reviews of lesser-known movies in Tamil that have long finished their theatrical run. Soon after he started his channel, he was subject to constant barrage of copyright claims and disputes that threatened to takedown the channel. Despite allowances under YouTube’s policy for fair use and the Copyright Act, 1957 for fair dealing, Kishor was subject to copyright infringement reports, reversing the burden of proof on him to establish that the snippets used constitutes a fair use. Exchanging notices and counter-notices, he was embattled with the rightsholder Whacked Out Media, who refused to cease using the reporting tool. Jason Mazzone coined this phenomenon “copyfraud,” denoting situations where ‘owners of valid copyrights interfere with lawful de minimis copying and fair use[,] and thereby impose restrictions beyond what the law allows.’
A news critiquing site Newslaundry was met with similar treatment from media conglomerate India Today Group, which filed over fifty copyright infringement against the YouTube channel of Newslaundry, resulting in the channel receiving five strikes and its operators being locked out, in a short span of two weeks.
This raises several legal questions. For instance, why were the videos taken down by YouTube without applying the fair use exception; will there be punitive actions against those who misuse copyright reporting tools; is the alleged infringer entitled to compensation for the downtime and, if so, who compensates; and what happens to the channel while the issue is still under consideration — questions to which no satisfactory responses was received from YouTube.
Furthermore, the Internet Freedom Foundation observed in October 2021 that the compliance by YouTube with this trend of “complaint bombing” is based on an incorrect application of domestic and international copyright laws as well as its own copyright policies. Google removed 59,322 items of content against 27,762 complaints received in April 2021, with a curious 99.99% takedown compliance rate, rendering the assertion that YouTube reviews removal requests before actioning them dubious at best. On the contrary, one can reasonably argue that the current approach constitutes weaponisation of the intellectual property regime to stifle dissent and fair critique.
Complaints were also filed by public broadcaster Doordarshan against independent journalists like Abhisar Sharma for using snippets of the parliamentary proceedings in videos he uploaded on YouTube. One of the videos showed Prime Minister Narendra Modi avoiding answering questions, while another showed opposition leader Rahul Gandhi making remarks about the ruling party, and the state media claimed exclusive rights over both.
Sharma noted that while the official social media handles of the Bharatiya Janata Party freely used snippets of parliamentary proceedings, independent content creators using 10-40 seconds of political speeches received takedown complaints and were subject to copyright strikes from YouTube. This forced many independent newscasters to pre-emptively remove videos containing materials aired by the state broadcaster, which is not only contrary to the statutory fair dealing exception, it constitutes self-censorship and has deleterious impact on the revenue stream necessary to continue independent journalism.
One can deduce that this “copyfraud” is a part of a broader, systemic strategy to stifle dissenting views — authorities have used a range of legal avenues, including the controversial Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to demonetise and censor independent news channels on YouTube.
Similar tactics have been used, for instance, in Nicaragua. A media company associated with the family of President Daniel Ortega reportedly issued forty-four complaints in 2020 against videos uploaded by 100% Noticias documenting government oppression, and many of the material referenced in the complaints were public speeches by Ortega — content covered by the fair use doctrine.
A US-based firm, Viral DRM, established by the videographer Brandon Clement, initiated lawsuits in California against several Indian news channels for exploiting copyright-protected materials. Under the laws of both the United States and India, fair use doctrine allows these channels to use these materials for criticism, review and current affairs reporting. Indeed, the fair use doctrine allows content creators to create original, copyrightable works using copyright-protected materials, subject to certain legal limitations. The en mass complaints filed against the YouTube channels and the lawsuit by Clement forced the news outlets to delete thousands of videos, many of which were lawfully used and original copyright of the newscasters, to avoid copyright strikes on their channels and adverse litigation outcomes. News Nation alone reportedly removed over 51,000 videos to avoid penalties.
Abuse of copyright infringement tools through misinterpretation and misapplication of fair use doctrine to remove content and suspend channels has far-reaching implications for democracy and fundamental freedoms. As a crucial platform for online content sharing and expression, particularly in a nation experiencing democratic recession, YouTube risks transforming into a tool for censorship rather than a forum for diverse perspectives and ideas if the video-sharing platform continues to allow arbitrary removal of content that may be protected under fair use provisions. Moreover, the current approach stifles creativity and innovation while fostering a chilling effect on free expression, as content creators often self-censor to avoid potential copyright disputes.
Assessment of Copyright Laws
BANGLADESH’S COPYRIGHT ACT, 2023
Domestic laws are often ineffective in addressing abusive copyright claims. Under the recently enacted Copyright Act, 2023 in Bangladesh, it is a criminal offence to infringe digital works, misattribute authorship and engage in fraudulent reproduction, possess infringing materials and furnish false or deceptive information to state officials. While these provisions, in theory, if not in practice, provide victims of false copyright complaints with the legal recourse to hold malicious actors accountable for their deceptive practices in domestic courts, enforcement could prove difficult. Complainants like Afreen-Music are often hard to identify and track down, especially if they are registered and operate offshore.
Significantly, online service providers are also entitled to safe harbour immunity from copyright infringement liability if the infringing content is promptly removed upon receiving a complaint from the rightsholder. This encourages online service providers like YouTube to continue with their existing practice of defaulting to content removal to avoid liability, rendering the statutory protection ineffective.
INDIA’S COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Under the Copyright Act, 1957 in India, commercial and non-commercial use of copyright-protected work for research, criticism, review, reporting current events or public speeches, and its storage in electronic format, is covered by fair dealing exemption, and thus does not constitute infringement. Over a decade ago, the High Court of Delhi ruled in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v Chintamani Rao that criticism or review using copyrighted material, as long as the focus is on critiquing or reviewing the content created with such material and not the material itself, is not an infringement. By the same line of logic, review and criticism by Kishore and Newslaundry, as well as Sharma’s broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, are unlikely to constitute copyright infringement.
Victims of false infringement complaints can initiate proceedings under the statute seeking declaration that the alleged infringement is not in fact an infringement, as well as injunction against the complaints and damages for losses sustained due to the complaints. However, as demonstrated above, the fair dealing doctrine is often misconstrued and misapplied, and many content creators lack the legal sophistication and financial resources to challenge these misuses by corporate giants.
As a result, YouTube is likely to continue its practice of defaulting to content removal without thoroughly verifying the complaints’ veracity, despite evidence of routine copyfraud on its platform — and this hypothesis is decidedly consistent with the unjustifiably high compliance rate with copyright complaints by Google.
Recommendations
- Adopting robust technological solutions to detect fake websites. Combatting the misuse of copyright reporting tools requires investment in technological solutions that can detect and flag false websites created to backdate content and claim copyright ownership. Algorithmic models can be used to verify the authenticity of publication dates and cross-reference content across the internet, enabling YouTube to identify fraudulent claims and protect genuine content creators from malicious ones. Google invested hundreds of millions of dollars to devise, design and deploy comprehensive content management systems like Content ID, and should continue to invest in technological solutions to emerging threats like abusive copyright claims.
- Complainants should bear the burden of proof. Given that many complainants are well-resourced companies and state entities, shifting the burden of proof on them will encourage submission of well-substantiated complaints aligned with applicable standards and laws, thereby safeguarding content creators from unwarranted takedowns and strikes. Specifically, the complainants must provide substantial evidence of infringement and demonstrate that fair use and other exceptions do not apply. This would dissuade misuse of the copyright reporting tools. This approach aligns with conventional judicial settings where the burden lies with the complainant to prove ownership and infringement.
- Revisiting the takedown and strike system. YouTube’s current system defaults to content removal and issuance of strikes on channels, effectively shifting the presumption of innocence away from the alleged infringer. It also affords the complainant superior moral claim over the contested content. Applying punitive measures without undertaking proper, human-in-the-loop due diligence and reaching decisions is contrary to the principles of due process and fairness, and could undermine trust in the platform and its commitment to protecting creators’ rights. This system should be reformed to ensure that content is not removed, and strikes are not issued, until a conclusive determination of the infringement is made. YouTube should apply strikes only after the notice and counter-notice process is complete, and a clear finding of ownership and infringement is made.
- Revising the three-strikes rule. YouTube’s three-strikes rule is routinely misused by malicious actors to carry out coordinated campaigns targeting content and channels through the copyright reporting tool. Because many content creators rely on revenues from their channels as their primary income source, the misuse of the tool can have significant financial consequences for them. As such, the rule should be reformulated to avoid arbitrary and excessive blocking, and a more nuanced, graded and contextual approach should be implemented in its stead. Instead of automatically issuing strikes upon receiving complaints, an impartial panel should conduct enhanced review to decide whether strikes are warranted.Additionally, a graduated penalty system could be introduced.YouTube currently employs a graded model where the first strike results in a one-week restriction on certain engagements and access to advanced features, the second strike increases its severity, and the third strike leads to permanent removal — all within a ninety-day period. However, there are no guardrails to protect content creators from coordinated attacks by malicious actors. A third strike should not be applied until the alleged infringer is given a fair chance to present their case and a conclusive determination of the infringement is made.
- Complainants to be subject to more robust punitive measures for false complaints. YouTube’s current penalty regime for lodging false complaints include strikes and channel suspensions, and in extreme cases, termination of complainants’ accounts. However, no policy currently exists for imposing financial penalties to compensate victims for losses incurred due to false claims. Instead, YouTube merely informs users that claims for damages, including costs and legal fees, can be brought against the complainant for material misrepresentation about infringement under §512(f) of DMCA — the bad faith notices and takedowns provision.YouTube should amend its policy to enable alleged infringers to claim financial compensation from the complainants’ on-platform revenues, backed by sanctions against the complainants who fail to compensate. This would deter malicious actors and provide a mechanism for victims to seek redress within the platform, avoiding the need for external litigation.
- Introduction of on-platform dispute resolution mechanism. YouTube could introduce an on-platform dispute resolution mechanism, allowing disputing parties to directly address issues without resorting to external litigation. Expert panels of adjudicators and mediators could facilitate efficient resolution within the platform, which could significantly reduce both the costs and time associated with dispute resolution while providing a streamlined and structured process. Obstacles faced in traditional litigations, such as lack of evidence due to content removal, could be avoided, and alleged infringer could continue to retain valuable digital assets until an adverse determination is made. Moreover, this initiative would enhance transparency within the system and improve the overall user experience on the platform, ultimately fostering higher levels of satisfaction, trust and engagement among users.
- Copyright counter notifications’ dispute resolution jurisdiction needs reform. Alleged infringers submitting copyright counter notifications are mandated to issue a legal statement consenting to “… the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which [their] address is located, or if [their] address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant.” For users outside the United States, YouTube should reconsider this policy, allowing them to pursue disputes in jurisdictions where the alleged infringement occurred and the cause of action arose. This reform would ensure fairer and more accessible legal recourse for users worldwide.
- Transparent reporting on complaints and complainants. YouTube should publish detailed transparency reports disclosing the number of false complaints received, actions taken against abusers and the criteria for these actions. While currently complainants are required to provide a good-faith statement and undertake that the information is correct under penalty of perjury, there is no publicly available information on what actions YouTube has taken against malicious complainants. This transparency would serve as a deterrent to potential abusers and provide clarity to content creators about the enforcement policies. Additionally, YouTube should clearly indicate which complainants are government entities or affiliates in their transparency reports, as this information is crucial for understanding the potential misuse of copyright tools for political purposes and ensuring that the platform remains a space for free expression and democratic engagement.Moreover, YouTube should monitor, analyse and report the nature of content being taken down, particularly if political content is disproportionately targeted in certain countries. This would enable identification of coordinated inauthentic behaviour using copyright tools to silence opposition and dissenting voices, and the findings should be included in transparency reports. Google has an ongoing commitment to respect human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its implementing treaties, as well as the standards established in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Global Network Initiative Principles, and the implementation of these recommended measures will advance its human rights commitments.
- Enhancing transparency, accountability and education. YouTube should enhance its transparency and accountability mechanisms by providing users with detailed explanations when their content is removed, outlining their rights and appeal avenues. While this is already implemented, these explanations should be accessible in multiple languages and formats, including videos and interactive guides, to ensure users fully understand their options and protections. Additionally, YouTube should offer comprehensive educational resources for content creators and viewers on navigating copyright claims and defences, including clear guidelines on fair use, the reporting process, and the rights of both complainants and defendants.
