YouTube copyright issues

Last updated

YouTube copyright issues relate to how the Google-owned site implements its protection methods. The systems are designed to protect the exclusivity of a given creator and owner and the rights to reproduce their work. YouTube uses automated measures such as copyright strikes, Content ID and Copyright Verification Program. These methods have been criticized for favoring companies and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

Contents

When a person or company creates an original work that is fixed in a physical medium, they automatically own copyright to the work. The owner has the exclusive right to use the work in certain, specific ways. [1] In response to a lawsuit from Viacom, video sharing service YouTube developed a copyright enforcement tool referred to as Content ID which automatically scans uploaded content against a database of copyrighted material ingested by third-parties. [2] If an uploaded video is matched against an asset in the database, YouTube warns the user of the match and applies a predetermined 'match policy'. [3]

Beginnings

YouTube has faced numerous challenges and criticisms in its attempts to deal with copyright, including the site's first viral video, Lazy Sunday, which had to be taken due to copyright concerns. [4] At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a message asking them not to violate copyright laws. [5] Despite this advice, many unauthorized clips of copyrighted material remain on YouTube. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted online, and it is left to copyright holders to issue a DMCA takedown notice pursuant to the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Any successful complaint about copyright infringement results in a YouTube copyright strike. Three successful complaints for copyright infringement against a user account will result in the account and all of its uploaded videos being deleted. [6] [7] Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. [8] [9] [10] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". [11]

During the same court battle, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights". [12] [13] In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling. [14] On April 5, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated the case, allowing Viacom's lawsuit against Google to be heard in court again. [15] On March 18, 2014, the lawsuit was settled after seven years with an undisclosed agreement. [16]

In August 2008, a US court ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order the removal of an online file without first determining whether the posting reflected fair use of the material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who had made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy", and posted the 29-second video on YouTube. [17] In the case of Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC , professional singer Matt Smith sued Summit Entertainment for the wrongful use of copyright takedown notices on YouTube. [18] He asserted seven causes of action, and four were ruled in Smith's favor. [19]

In April 2012, a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube could be held responsible for copyrighted material posted by its users. The performance rights organization GEMA argued that YouTube had not done enough to prevent the uploading of German copyrighted music. YouTube responded by stating:

We remain committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers, and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community. [20]

On November 1, 2016, the dispute with GEMA was resolved, with Google content ID being used to allow advertisements to be added to videos with content protected by GEMA. [21]

In April 2013, it was reported that Universal Music Group and YouTube have a contractual agreement that prevents content blocked on YouTube by a request from UMG from being restored, even if the uploader of the video files a DMCA counter-notice. When a dispute occurs, the uploader of the video has to contact UMG. [22] [23] YouTube's owner Google announced in November 2015 that they would help cover the legal cost in select cases where they believe fair use defenses apply. [24]

Content ID

At the end of 2013, YouTube enabled automated Content ID claiming on videos uploaded by users who were signed with multi-channel networks (MCN). [25] Previously, videos uploaded to channels that were linked to MCNs could only be claimed manually or removed with a DMCA takedown. This led to a large number of new claims which suddenly left uploaders unable to place advertisements on their videos until they disputed. Users such as Angry Joe created videos complaining about the changes and how they would negatively affect the livelihoods of video creators. [26]

According to a 2021 transparency report published by YouTube, more than 2.2 million videos were reinstated due to false copyright claims, which represent 1% of more than 729 million copyright claims spanning from January to June 2021. [27] According to a report by Lindsay Dodgson of Business Insider, creators were "held hostage" by false copyright claims, where the Content ID System and DMCA implementations are abused to extort money from creators. [28]

In 2015 YouTubers known as the Fine Brothers, who produce "reaction videos", applied to trademark the word "react" when it was used in an uploaded video title to protect their series such as "Kids React" or "Adults React". An action that received severe criticism from other YouTubers because it would mean – if successful – that similarly named videos could be removed according to YouTube's copyright system. [29]

In 2016, the Fine Brothers launched React World. This was a program where people could use Fine Brothers' icons to make their own videos for free. However, all uploaded "React" content had to be monetized on YouTube and some of the uploader's revenue would be paid to the Fine Brothers. [29] After a massive backlash against what Fine Brothers were doing, they canceled the program and rescinded their copyright and trademarks application. It has been estimated their actions lost more than 400,000 subscribers. [29]

In November 2015 this issue was highly publicized when a review of the film Cool Cat Saves the Kids by the channel "I Hate Everything" was removed by YouTube, [30] along with videos on Channel Awesome and Markiplier. This led to a large number of complaints against YouTube and on social media sites like Twitter. [31] [32] This prompted YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki to respond three months later with "Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening" in February 2016. [33]

Videos continued to be removed and flagged on the site when copyright claims were made against uploaders for using the alleged use of protected material. On April 25, 2016, YouTuber and freelance video game critic Jim Sterling included clips of footage from Metal Gear Solid V, Grand Theft Auto V and Beyond: Two Souls , as well as the song "Chains of Love", in a video largely discussing Star Fox Zero . Sterling explained this at the end of the video as a way of preventing Nintendo from claiming and monetizing the video by including other material which was similarly flagged by Content ID, hoping that multiple claims would prevent anyone from monetizing the video and running advertisements on their channel, which is intended to be ad-free and funded solely by Patreon. [34] In a follow-up video, they claimed that the technique, which they termed the "copyright deadlock", had succeeded, as the video received multiple ContentID claims, one of which attempted to monetize the video, while two others prevented any monetization, allowing the video to run advertisement-free. Sterling stated that this was indicative of a poorly designed system on YouTube's part, as a video which was well within the bounds of fair use had attracted three copyright claims. They also claimed that they would continue to include material that had previously received Content ID claims in videos likely to attract monetization attempts from the copyright owners, since fair use was not protecting their videos from copyright claims, pointing out that they now felt incentivized to use as much copyrighted material in their videos as possible, the opposite of what YouTube's copyright policies were intended to achieve. [35]

In May 2016, a YouTube user Matt Hosseinzadeh sued the YouTube channel h3h3productions (run by Ethan and Hila Klein) citing a video that criticized his content. Fellow YouTube user Philip DeFranco started a GoFundMe fundraiser entitled "Help for H3H3". [36] The initiative raised over $130,000. The Kleins later uploaded a video where they announced that any funds from the fundraiser left over from their lawsuit would be entrusted in to a 'Fair Use Protection Account', which other users could request assistance from in the event they were sued for copyright infringement. [37]

On December 13, 2018, TheFatRat posted on Twitter that one of his songs, "The Calling", was content claimed by a user named Ramjets for unfairly using a song on the behalf of Andres Galvis, who had remixed the original track. He originally appealed but was denied as it is not YouTube, but the user claiming the content who has the final say over the appeal. He messaged YouTube to appeal, but YouTube said that they do not mediate copyright claims. [38] The claim was later removed, with Google terminating the claimant's YouTube channel and multi-channel network. [39]

On Jan 30, 2019, ObbyRaidz, a channel with 6000 subscribers, tweeted that someone called VengefulFlame had messaged him saying that they had put two copyright strikes on his channel, even though he did not infringe on any content, telling him to pay $150 to get the strikes removed, or else his channel would receive a third strike and be taken down. When he tweeted it, VengefulFlame messaged him: "Hey, we saw you tweet about us, Not sure why you thought that was a good idea or if you thought you would remotely get any help, but this has violated any potential deal. Enjoy your third copyright strike." Kenzo, a channel with 60000 subscribers, said that VengefulFlame also messaged him to tell him to pay $600 or $400 worth of bitcoin and said they were paid by someone else to strike him. [40] YouTube, however, stepped in, resolving the strike and terminating the channel.

In January 2020, Jukin Media has been criticized for extorting YouTubers MxR and Potastic Panda, asking $6,000 for copyright infringement. In this case, one of the pair's reaction videos saw them watch four clips recently bought by Jukin Media, which has promptly issued them with an invoice for four cases of infringing on its copyright. Jukin Media scouts for online videos going viral and licenses them. Liang expressed concern in a video posted on January 13, 2020, that the pair were being "extorted" and could lose their channel if Jukin Media contacted Google with all four claims at once, as this could potentially break YouTube's "three strikes" rule. He added that the pair had previously paid Jukin Media when it demanded cash for copyrighted material. [41] [42] [43]

Following a revelation in October 2020 that a truck in a "self-driving" video was actually just rolling down a hill, Nikola Corporation issued takedown notices against several videos which used that footage. [44]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">YouTube</span> Video-sharing platform owned by Google

YouTube (YT) is an American online video sharing platform owned by Google. Accessible worldwide, YouTube was launched on February 14, 2005, by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim, three former employees of PayPal. Headquartered in San Bruno, California, United States, it is the second-most visited website in the world, after Google Search. As of January 2024, YouTube has more than 2.7 billion monthly users, who collectively watch more than one billion hours of videos every day. As of May 2019, videos were being uploaded to the platform at a rate of more than 500 hours of content per minute, and as of 2021, there were approximately 14 billion videos in total.

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong–based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Knight (filmmaker)</span> American film producer

Robert Christopher Knight is a blogger and filmmaker based in Greenville, South Carolina who received much attention for a video he uploaded to YouTube and a subsequent copyright infringement clash with Viacom. The incident has since gone on to be cited in numerous legal writings and court cases involving digital copyright and the interests of corporations versus independent content producers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corey Vidal</span> Canadian YouTuber and entrepreneur

Corey Vidal is a Canadian YouTube content creator and entrepreneur. His YouTube videos have been seen over 100 million times and he has over 200,000 subscribers. In December 2007, Corey was one of the first Canadians to join the YouTube Partnership Program. In February 2013 he was named Niagara's Entrepreneur of the Year in Innovative Small Business for his video production company ApprenticeA Productions. He is the founder of Buffer Festival.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i> U.S. District Court copyright case

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Let's Play</span> Playthrough of a video game with commentary

A Let's Play (LP) is a video documenting the playthrough of a video game, often including commentary and/or a camera view of the gamer's face. A Let's Play differs from a video game walkthrough or strategy guide by focusing on an individual's subjective experience with the game, often with humorous, irreverent, or critical commentary from the player, rather than being an objective source of information on how to progress through the game. While Let's Plays and live streaming of game playthroughs are related, Let's Plays tend to be curated experiences that include editing and narration, and can be scripted, while streaming is often an unedited experience performed on the fly.

<i>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 No. 09-55902, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which UMG sued video-sharing website Veoh, alleging that Veoh committed copyright infringement by hosting user-uploaded videos copyrighted by UMG. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Veoh is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions. It was established that service providers are "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability so long as they diligently remove infringing material upon notice of infringement".

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v Vimeo, LLC</i> 2013 US District Court case

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp. 2d 500, 972 F. Supp. 2d 537, was a 2013 copyright infringement case out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The decision resolved cross-motions for summary judgment filed by a video-sharing service (Vimeo) and a pair of record labels. Vimeo sought a ruling that, as a matter of law, it was entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as to a series of copyrighted videos that were uploaded to its platform; the record labels sought the opposite ruling.

<i>Warner/Chappell Music Inc. v. Fullscreen Inc.</i>

Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472) was a case against multi-channel network Fullscreen, filed by the National Music Publishers Association on behalf of Warner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers, which alleged that Fullscreen illegally reaped the profits of unlicensed cover videos on YouTube without paying any royalties to the rightful publishers and songwriters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jukin Media</span> Viral video licensing company

Jukin Media, Inc. is an entertainment company that operates by identifying shareable or otherwise compelling user-generated videos, negotiating with the video owners, and then licensing the videos for third-party use and/or featuring the videos in its own productions. The company was founded in 2009 by Jonathan Skogmo, Aldo Carrascoso and Josh Entman and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

h3h3Productions YouTube channel

h3h3Productions is a YouTube channel created and hosted by Ethan and Hila Klein, an American-Israeli husband-and-wife duo. Their content consists of reaction videos and sketch comedy in which they satirize internet culture. The H3 Podcast is their current podcast channel that has been running since 2017, with the h3h3Productions channel now defunct, with its final video posted on August 5, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">YouTube copyright strike</span> Website policy action

YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. A copyright strike will expire after 90 days. However, if a YouTube user accumulates three copyright strikes within those 90 days, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, including any associated channels that the user have, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel.

Content ID is a digital fingerprinting system developed by Google which is used to easily identify and manage copyrighted content on YouTube. Videos uploaded to YouTube are compared against audio and video files registered with Content ID by content owners, looking for any matches. Content owners have the choice to have matching content blocked or to monetize it. The system began to be implemented around 2007. By 2016, it had cost $60 million to develop and led to around $2 billion in payments to copyright holders. By 2018, Google had invested at least $100 million into the system.

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 was a copyright infringement lawsuit where the court evaluated if commenting on humorous videos in a transformative manner is fair use or exploiting videos for their humor without paying for their use.

References

  1. ↑ "What is copyright?".
  2. ↑ "YouTube's Approach To Copyright Claims Could Scare Off Streamers". Kotaku. August 26, 2015.
  3. ↑ "Youtube and the dreaded third party content match". Digital Bard. January 30, 2016. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2015.
  4. ↑ Novak, Matt (February 14, 2020). "Here's What People Thought of YouTube When It First Launched in the Mid-2000s". Gizmodo . Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  5. ↑ Marsden, Rhodri (August 12, 2009). "Why did my YouTube account get closed down?" . The Independent. London. Archived from the original on May 7, 2022. Retrieved August 12, 2009.
  6. ↑ Why do I have a sanction on my account? YouTube. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  7. ↑ "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?". BBC News. London. May 21, 2010. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  8. ↑ "Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn". BBC News. March 13, 2007. Retrieved May 26, 2008.
  9. ↑ "Mediaset Files EUR500 Million Suit Vs Google's YouTube". CNNMoney.com. July 30, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
  10. ↑ "Premier League to take action against YouTube". The Daily Telegraph . May 5, 2007. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
  11. ↑ "YouTube law fight 'threatens net'". BBC News. May 27, 2008. Retrieved May 28, 2008.
  12. ↑ "Google must divulge YouTube log". BBC News. July 3, 2008.
  13. ↑ Helft, Miguel (July 4, 2008). "Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube". The New York Times. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
  14. ↑ Lefkow, Chris (June 23, 2010). "US judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube". AFP. Archived from the original on June 26, 2010. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  15. ↑ "Google and Viacom: YouTube copyright lawsuit back on". BBC News. April 5, 2012. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  16. ↑ "Google and Viacom settle seven-year YouTube row". BBC News . March 18, 2014. Retrieved March 18, 2014.
  17. ↑ Egelko, Bob (August 20, 2008). "Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 25, 2008.
  18. ↑ Ohio Northern District Court (July 18, 2013). "Court Docket". Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC. Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
  19. ↑ District Judge James G. Carr (June 6, 2011). "Order". Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  20. ↑ "YouTube loses court battle over music clips". BBC News . London. April 20, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  21. ↑ "YouTube's seven-year stand-off ends". BBC News . London. November 1, 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  22. ↑ "YouTube's Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices". TorrentFreak. April 5, 2013. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  23. ↑ "Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations" . Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  24. ↑ Finley, Klint (November 19, 2015). "Google Pledges to Help Fight Bogus YouTube Copyright Claims—for a Few". Wired. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  25. ↑ Campbell, Colin (December 11, 2013). "YouTube defends copyright crackdown". Polygon. Retrieved May 7, 2016.
  26. ↑ Vargas, Joe (December 11, 2013), Youtube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant , retrieved May 7, 2016
  27. ↑ King, Ashley (December 7, 2021). "What Is a YouTube False Copyright Claim? 4.4 Million Happen Every Year". Digital Music News. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
  28. ↑ Dodgson, Lindsay. "YouTube channels are being held hostage with false copyright claims, but the platform's hands are tied". Insider. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
  29. 1 2 3 "The Fine Brothers tried to trademark YouTube reaction videos. The backlash changed their minds". Vox. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
  30. ↑ Foxworth, Chris (November 13, 2015). "Daddy Derek: The Wiseau-Tier filmmaker and his fall from viral fame to viral hatred". TheFoxworth. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  31. ↑ Butler, Mark (February 4, 2016). "The Trouble With YouTube". Wow 24/7. Archived from the original on February 6, 2016. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
  32. ↑ Chingcuangco, Alexi (February 21, 2016). "YouTube Fair Use: Nostalgia Critic, Alex of I Hate Everything, Markiplier Rally Against Unjust Copyrights". Morning Ledger. Archived from the original on February 22, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  33. ↑ Tamburro, Paul (February 27, 2016). "YouTube Responds to #WTFU, Claims it Will "Strengthen Communication with Creators"". Archived from the original on February 28, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  34. ↑ Hernandez, Patricia (April 27, 2016). "Game Critic Uses Brilliant Workaround For YouTube's Copyright Bullshit". Kotaku . Retrieved June 2, 2016.
  35. ↑ Copyright Deadlock (The Jimquisition) , retrieved November 22, 2023
  36. ↑ "GoFundMe For H3h3productions' Copyright Suit Raises $100,000 From Philip DeFranco, Markiplier, PewDiePie". Tubefilter. May 26, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2016.
  37. ↑ h3h3Productions (May 26, 2016), A New Chapter for Fair Use on YouTube , retrieved December 14, 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  38. ↑ Katzowitz, Josh (December 18, 2018). "YouTube stars say unfair copyright claims are making their lives hell". The Daily Dot . Retrieved February 8, 2019.
  39. ↑ @ThisIsTheFatRat (December 23, 2018). "But seriously. I got my video back and Ramjets channel was deleted. Huge thanks to everybody who helped. Every share, like comment, everybody who spread the word about what happened. You made the difference" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  40. ↑ Katzowitz, Josh (January 30, 2019). "2 YouTubers say their channels were threatened by an extorter". The Daily Dot .
  41. ↑ Wood, Charlie (January 14, 2020). "Two YouTubers with 2 million subscribers face a $6,000 bill over a copyright complaint and risk losing their channel if they don't pay up". Business Insider .
  42. ↑ Gerken, Tom (January 13, 2020). "YouTubers face £4,600 bill over copyright claims". BBC News .
  43. ↑ MxR Playz (January 10, 2020). "We're being taken advantage of and we don't know what to do anymore". YouTube .
  44. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (October 2, 2020). "Nikola issues copyright takedowns against critics who use rolling-truck clip". Ars Technica. Retrieved April 22, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.