Transparency Report

YouTube Copyright Transparency Report

Creating a Balanced Ecosystem

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.

Key points

YouTube takes steps to prevent abuse or otherwise invalid use of our rights management tools. We also empower uploaders to push back on requests and claims they believe are wrongful. As demonstrated by our public copyright webform, when we make a tool available to attempted abuse. This is why we must balance access to tools against the significant disruptions to the ecosystem they can cause.

Over 6% of videos requested for removal through the public webform between July 2023 and December 2023 were the subject of abusive copyright removal requests, meaning these requests were assessed and rejected by our review team as a likely false assertion of copyright ownership. The attempted abuse rate through the webform was more than 10 times higher between July 2023 and December 2023 than the attempted abuse rate across all other copyright removal tools.

The limited availability of Content ID also helps to limit abuse of that tool. This is especially important because claiming can happen automatically. While a single copyright removal requested from the webform impacts only one (or a handful) of videos, a single invalid reference file in Content ID can impact thousands of videos and users, stripping them of monetization or blocking them altogether.

10×
Higher attempted abuse rate in webform than in copyright removal tools with limited access

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 and abuse

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.

Common types of abusers

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

YouTube's responses to copyright removal requests

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 requestExamples
Remove: The URL was removed from YouTubeA 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.

YouTube actions in response to copyright removal requests by tool

86.30%
TypeAmount
Abuse6.17%
Content Removed86.30%
Copyright Exception0.42%
Invalid Request6.48%
Other0.63%
circle

Abuse: 6.17%

circle

Content Removed: 86.30%

circle

Copyright Exception: 0.42%

circle

Invalid Request: 6.48%

circle

Other: 0.63%

Exhibit 2.1 – Removal requests via webform

This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the webform.

98.60%
TypeAmount
Abuse0.00%
Content Removed98.60%
Copyright Exception0.06%
Invalid Request1.34%
Other0.00%
circle

Abuse: 0.00%

circle

Content Removed: 98.60%

circle

Copyright Exception: 0.06%

circle

Invalid Request: 1.34%

circle

Other: 0.00%

Exhibit 2.2 – Removal requests via Enterprise Webform

This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the Enterprise Webform.

94.93%
TypeAmount
Abuse0.96%
Content Removed94.93%
Copyright Exception0.06%
Invalid Request4.04%
Other0.01%
circle

Abuse: 0.96%

circle

Content Removed: 94.93%

circle

Copyright Exception: 0.06%

circle

Invalid Request: 4.04%

circle

Other: 0.01%

Exhibit 2.3 – Removal requests via Copyright Match Tool

This chart shows the video-level result of each copyright removal request made between July 2023 and December 2023 through the Copyright Match Tool.

How YouTube protects against wrongful Content ID claims

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:

  • Exclude the segment from the larger reference file
  • Remove the entire reference file
  • Ask our team to re-review the suspicious flag

If the partner does not respond, the reference file is marked as invalid and removed from Content ID. When a reference file (or a segment) is removed from Content ID, all claims associated with that reference file (or segment) are released.

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.

How YouTube empowers uploaders to fight wrongful claims

Counter notifications

Beyond the work YouTube does to prevent abuse or otherwise invalid use, there are also disputes that can only be resolved between claimants and uploaders. YouTube is not in a position to determine facts like whether the claimant actually holds copyright to the identified work, or whether the uploader has a valid license. In these cases, recipients of copyright removal requests or Content ID claims have the ability to counter notify or dispute, respectively.

If an uploader believes they have the required license to use content or are subject to a copyright exception, such as fair use, they can file a counter notification. 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. YouTube is not in a position to make determinations that require a detailed factual or legal assessment (such as ownership determinations) as we are not a court of law. However, counter notifications are reviewed by YouTube for completeness and to ensure they have a clear explanation for why the uploader believes they have all necessary rights for the removed video. If we accept the counter notification, a copy of the notice is sent to the claimant who requested removal of the video(s). We accepted fewer than 25% of counter notifications submitted in response to removals that occurred between July 2023 and December 2023. After receiving a counter notification, the claimant has 10 business days to provide evidence that they have initiated a court action* to keep the content down; otherwise we will reinstate the content. The 10 business day limit and requirement of court actions serve to balance the intellectual property interests of rightsholders with the free expression interests of uploaders, while facilitating the resolution of legal disputes through an appropriate authority, such as a court.

Possible responses by YouTube to a copyright counter notificationExamples
Forwarded: YouTube will forward a counter notification to the rightsholder who originally requested removal of the content only if the counter notification meets all legal requirements and clearly explains the submitter’s right to use the content.A YouTube creator submits a counter notification because they created all of their own content for their video, including visuals and music.

A video was removed for use of a company's promotional poster, but the creator asserts that they used it under a copyright exception to review the company's product.
Not Forwarded: YouTube rejects counter notifications when they either don't meet all legal requirements, or they don't explain the counter notifier's right to use the contentAn individual explains the reason for their counter notification as "I gave credit to the copyright owner," which is not equivalent to having permission.

A counter notification is missing legally required details like the submitter's address (needed if the rightsholder decides to file a lawsuit against the counter notifier).
Other: In some cases, we hold a request for further review, send a non-standard response, or follow a slightly different process. In these situations, we've categorized them as 'Other.' We also categorize as 'Other' if we have inconclusive or insufficient data.A video was already reinstated outside of the counter notification process.
WebformCopyright Match ToolEnterprise Webform0%2%4%6%8%7.5%1.8%1.5%
Type
Webform7.5%
Copyright Match Tool1.8%
Enterprise Webform1.5%

Exhibit 2.4 – Copyright removals resulting in counter notification, by tool

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.

ForwardedNot ForwardedOther21.4%75.8%
TypeAmount
Forwarded21.4%
Not Forwarded75.8%
Other2.8%

Exhibit 2.5 – Counter notification responses

This chart shows the video-level result of counter notifications submitted in response to removals requested between July 2023 and December 2023.

Content ID claim resolution

We offer a number of methods for uploaders to address Content ID claims they receive. Uploaders are notified through our checks functionality during the video upload process whether there is material in their video that may result in a Content ID claim. Before they publish the video, they may edit out the content or use the dispute process described below. These options are also available after a video is published.

If uploaders believe that their use of claimed content is valid, they can file a dispute for the claimant to review. This dispute process is a routine part of a healthy Content ID ecosystem and provides multiple opportunities for both sides to exchange their views, as claimants and uploaders are almost always in the best position to work out between themselves who has the rights to use copyrighted material. For example, there could be complex licensing issues between two parties, or they could be located in countries with different laws governing copyright exceptions.

When a claimant receives a dispute, they can respond by either releasing the claim or reinstating it. If they don’t respond within 30 days, the dispute expires and the claim is automatically released. However, if they choose to reinstate the claim, the uploader can file an appeal, which claimants can respond to by releasing the claim or issuing a copyright removal request (also, claimants can issue a copyright removal request on a video with a Content ID claim at any time). If a video is removed, uploaders can pursue additional remediation by filing a counter notification or seeking a retraction from the claimant.

In September 2022, we made two updates to the dispute and appeal process to offer faster resolution for disputed claims. First, we shortened the review period for appeals so that claimants have 7 days instead of 30 days to decide whether to request a takedown of the video, release the claim, or let the claim expire. Second, we introduced a new “Escalate to Appeal” option for uploaders when responding to block claims. This option allows those that are eligible to appeal to skip the initial dispute step and move straight to the appeal stage.

Of the more than 1 billion Content ID claims made between July 2023 and December 2023, fewer than 1% have been disputed. Over 65% of those disputes succeeded, because claimants either voluntarily released the claim or did not respond within the 30-day window, resulting in the claim’s release. So although disputes are rare, when they do take place, our process provides real recourse for uploaders who believe they have the right to use claimed content.

Exhibit 2.6 – Content ID claim resolution

1. Uploader response to CID claim

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.

2. Dispute outcome

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

3. Uploader response to failed dispute

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.

4. Appeal outcome

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.

5. Copyright removals

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.

6. Uploader response to copyright removal

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*.

Claim tree

1234561,016,137,305(100.00%)Claims1,011,862,627(99.58%)Unchallenged4,180,335(0.41%)Disputed94,343(0.01%)Escalated to appeal (only for block claims)2,775,188(66.39%)Dispute succeeded1,405,147(33.61%)Dispute failed1,320,482(93.97%)Failed dispute not appealed84,665(6.03%)Failed dispute appealed179,008(100.00%)Appeals97,175(54.29%)Appeal succeeded81,833(45.71%)Appeal failed13,486(16.48%)Failed appeal with removal68,347(83.52%)Appeal canceled or video deleted2,996(22.22%)Counter notifications submitted10,490(77.78%)Counter notifications not submitted
Learn more at How YouTube Works

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.