As we work to expand access to more powerful tools in the YouTube Copyright Management Suite, we must balance the need to protect creators, viewers, and rightsholders from the significant disruption that can result from the abuse or otherwise invalid use of our tools.
Uploaders are empowered to push back on removals they believe are invalid by filing counter notifications. They can also push back on Content ID claims by disputing the claim. Like abuse, pushback from uploaders occurs most often in response to actions from tools that are available to more people. Between July 2023 and December 2023, uploaders submitted counter notifications in response to over 7% of removal requests submitted via the webform, whereas it’s fewer than 2% for both Enterprise Webform and for Copyright Match Tool. Fewer than 1% of all Content ID claims made between July 2023 and December 2023 have been disputed. Over 65% of those disputes succeeded because claimants either voluntarily released the claim or did not respond to the dispute in time.
Invalid requests often occur when someone incorrectly submits a copyright removal request due to a lack of understanding of either copyright law or our tools. Invalid requests can take many forms, such as filing a copyright request for a trademark or privacy issue or simply failing to provide the necessary information required to constitute a valid copyright removal request. For Content ID partners, invalid claims occur when partners unintentionally deliver low-quality reference files that contain incomplete metadata, insufficiently unique content, or pieces of content that they don't own exclusively — such as a news broadcast that contains public domain footage or a song that uses a licensed beat.
Abuse, on the other hand, occurs when someone is deemed by our review team to have intentionally and maliciously used our tools in an attempt to remove content from YouTube through a likely false assertion of copyright ownership. Sometimes this takes the form of political actors attempting to censor political speech or companies stifling criticism of their products or practices. Other times individuals try to use our copyright processes to bully other creators or to remove videos they see as competing for the same audience.
Regardless of the intent, both invalid requests and abuse can cause significant disruptions to all members of the YouTube ecosystem — creators, viewers, and rightsholders. Just one bad copyright webform notice can result in multiple videos being temporarily removed from YouTube. In Content ID the impact is multiplied due to its automated nature; one bad reference file can impact hundreds or even thousands of videos across the site. In one highly publicized instance, a news channel uploaded public domain footage from NASA of a Mars rover and ended up making inappropriate claims against all other news channels and creators using the same footage, even against the NASA channel itself.
We have dedicated teams working to detect and prevent abuse or otherwise invalid use of each of our tools. We rely on a combination of humans and technology to detect suspicious behavior, request additional information where necessary, and remove reference files that are low-quality or invalid. We take abuse of our tools seriously — we terminate tens of thousands of accounts each year that attempt to abuse our copyright tools.
Impersonator
Uses a fake name or email address to get away with submitting fake requests
Reputation manager
Uses Copyright webform to remove allegedly defamatory content
Competitor
Submits requests on legitimate content to target their competitors
Backdater
Pretends to have created content first (backdates) in order to remove other people's content
Because it is available to everyone, our copyright webform is subject to a significant amount of abuse or otherwise invalid use. We have a team dedicated to processing copyright removal requests. When necessary, we request additional information or deny the request altogether. Below you can see real world examples, anonymized for the report, of how we responded to removal requests we received.
Possible responses by YouTube to a copyright removal request | Examples |
---|---|
Remove: The URL was removed from YouTube | A removal request is accepted by YouTube and the video is removed for copyright under the owner name given in the request. A removal request is received for a video that’s already been removed from YouTube, either by the uploader or for violating another policy. |
Abuse: A webform submission is deemed by our review team to be a likely false assertion of copyright ownership. | An individual falsely claims to be a celebrity or a large company. A creator tries to remove a video competing for the same audience. |
Invalid Request: There are a number of reasons that requests may be ruled invalid. This may be because the user submitting the request did not provide necessary information even after a clarification request from YouTube, or because they are trying to address a non-copyright issue (like trademark or other content moderation issues) through the copyright webform. | A fan requests removal on behalf of a creator, but doesn’t appear to be authorized to make claims on their behalf. An individual does not provide necessary information to process a request, for example they are not sufficiently clear about what content in the video they are claiming, or fail to provide the URL of the video that they claim is infringing. A company asserts their logo is infringed, but the logo is a plain wordmark that is appropriate for a trademark removal notice. |
Copyright Exceptions: Before submitting a copyright removal request, rightsholders must consider whether fair use, fair dealing, or similar exceptions to copyright may protect the video they wish to remove. In some cases, YouTube asks claimants to confirm they’ve done this analysis. If claimants do not adequately respond, the video is not removed. | A company submits a removal request for a video that uses excerpts of their commercial to criticize their business practices. |
Other: In some cases, we hold a request for further review, send a non-standard response, or follow a slightly different process because the content was provided to us under license. In these situations, we've categorized them as 'Other.' We also categorize as 'Other' if we have inconclusive or insufficient data. | A movie producer submits a removal request for a movie, but the movie's distributor (who works with the producer) licensed that video to YouTube. |
Abuse: 6.17%
Content Removed: 86.30%
Copyright Exception: 0.42%
Invalid Request: 6.48%
Other: 0.63%
This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the webform†.
Abuse: 0.00%
Content Removed: 98.60%
Copyright Exception: 0.06%
Invalid Request: 1.34%
Other: 0.00%
This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the Enterprise Webform†.
Abuse: 0.96%
Content Removed: 94.93%
Copyright Exception: 0.06%
Invalid Request: 4.04%
Other: 0.01%
This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the Copyright Match Tool†.
We have a dedicated team that monitors reference files delivered to Content ID. The team uses automated systems along with manual review to detect reference files (or segments of reference files) that may be causing an issue and requests that partners review them.
The rightsholder can choose to:
There are multiple reasons this can happen. Most often it occurs when partners deliver non-exclusive content, such as content in the public domain or content they've licensed but don't own. For example, an owner of a late night talk show may deliver a reference file of an entire episode of their show that includes a clip of a film that one of their interviewees is promoting, and that clip may inadvertently result in a Content ID claim on the filmmaker's official upload of the film. Invalid claims can also occur when partners deliver reference files with indistinct sound effects, nature sounds, or content that is in the public domain and not subject to copyright.
Unlike webform requests that are rejected, which only affect one or a handful of videos, the impact of reference files in Content ID is multiplied. A single invalid reference file in Content ID can impact thousands of videos and users, stripping them of monetization or blocking them altogether.
This chart shows the percentage of copyright removals from each copyright tool that resulted in a counter notification from the uploader asserting that they do have the right to keep the video up†.
This chart shows the video-level result of counter notifications submitted in response to removals requested between July 2023 and December 2023†.
For Content ID claims the uploader has the choice to disputed the claim, escalate it to appeal (available only for block claims), or leave it unchallenged. Unchallenged claims may be removed by editing out the claimed content.
When a claim is disputed, claimants have 30 days to review and decide whether to release the claim, reinstate the claim, or issue a removal request. If they don’t respond within 30 days, the claim expires. Eligible uploaders can choose between dispute or the escalate to appeal option for block claims, which allows the uploader to skip the initial dispute step and submit an appeal right away.
If the claimant chooses to release the claim in response to a dispute or allows the dispute to expire after 30 days, the claim is removed from the video and the dispute is considered to have succeeded for the uploader.
If the claimant instead chooses to reinstate their claim or, in very rare cases, file a legal copyright removal request, the dispute is considered to have failed for the uploader
If a claimant reinstates their claim after the uploader has disputed, the uploader can appeal that decision. Claimants have 7 days to review an appeal. At this point the claimant can no longer reinstate their claim and must instead either release the claim or file a legal copyright removal request.
If the claimant chooses to release the claim in response to an appeal or allows the appeal to expire after 7 days, the claim is removed from the video and the appeal is considered to have succeeded for the uploader.
Alternatively, after receiving an appeal, if the claimant chooses to file a copyright removal request and the request meets all legal requirements, the appeal is considered to have failed for the uploader. At this stage, the ownership issue exits the Content ID claim and dispute system built by YouTube and enters the legal removal and remediation process defined by the DMCA and similar applicable laws.
Between July 2023 and December 2023, over 15% of failed appeals resulted in a copyright removal. For the remaining failed appeals, either the appeal was canceled or the video was deleted.
Not all failed appeals result in the copyright removal of the video. When the claimant files a copyright removal request in response to an appeal, they can ask for an immediate removal after YouTube validates the request, or schedule the removal for 7 days after that. If they choose the scheduled option, the uploader gets 7 days to cancel their appeal or delete their video to avoid a copyright strike. If the uploader decides to cancel their appeal, the Content ID claim will remain active on their video.
As is the case with all copyright removal requests received by YouTube, uploaders have the option to file a counter notification in response to the removals above. A counter notification is a legal request for YouTube to reinstate a video. If we receive a valid counter notification, the claimant will have 10 business days to provide evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down.
Between July 2023 and December 2023, fewer than 1% of counter notifications submitted resulted in a lawsuit*.
Data Collection Note:
All data in this report is collected between July 2023 through December 2023, unless otherwise annotated as below:
† Data collected as a 'snapshot' in April 2024. Some data, like rate of counter notifications and Content ID disputes, look at "trailing" events. We start with the set of claims or removals made during H2 2023, but disputes and counter notifications continue to accrue after that period because they can be made at any time. For instance, a claim made on November 30, 2023 may have a dispute made on April 1, 2024. For these data points, we have chosen to take a snapshot 3 months after the end of H2 2023.
Terminology Note:
* While in general, claimants must provide evidence that they have initiated court action to prevent a video from being reinstated by counter notification, other forms of valid legal action, such as a Copyright Claims Board complaint, may be accepted
For previous versions of this report covering Jan 1, 2021 through Dec, 31 2022, refer to the PDF Download Center.