YouTube’s corporate copyright censorship system restricts user expression
February 13, 2016
After the Fine Brothers, creators of the React YouTube channel, submitted trademarks protecting their show’s generic reaction format, public outrage eventually led to the cancellation of all the trademarks and an apology statement from the Fine Brothers. Though the trademark controversy has seemingly ceased, the incident highlighted the issues with YouTube’s aging copyright system.
Two fates await a YouTube video which allegedly contains copyrighted material. The copyright owners can submit a copyright notice. Or the YouTube Content ID, which maintains a database of all copyrighted material submitted to YouTube by copyright owners, automatically alerts the copyright owners of a violation and grants them power over the video. The former leads to a channel’s loss of important features and monetization for a six month period, while the latter leads to a possible removal of the video.
While this system efficiently eliminates full movies and obviously pirated content, it struggles with the gray areas of copyright. As copyright complaints require users to find violations and fill out forms independently, the number of man-hours required in the process makes it unrealistic for small up-and-coming creators to hunt for copyright violations.
n reality, only large multi-channel networks with millions of subscribers and billions of views such as Fullscreen, Machinima and Maker Studios can invest the resources into the copyright process. With 201 to 500 Fullscreen employees, 51 to 200 Machinima employees and 201 to 500 Maker Studios employees, each of these multi-channel networks have more than enough man-hours to make copyright claims.
YouTube’s creator culture, which allows any person with internet access, a camera and a creative idea to potentially be successful, has been replaced with a corporate culture, where new channels exist in constant fear of bullying through copyright. Even more concerning is the power of selective enforcement, where holders can pick which videos to take down.
Media reviews and critique videos are especially vulnerable to suppression and intellectual property strikes due to their frequent usage of copyrighted material. As Content ID detects any matches with copyright content including trailers, posters or clips, avoiding copyright strikes entails review videos with no visual or audio representation of its subject, a recipe for a boring video; all while large channels such as CinemaSins and Screen Junkies post hours of copyrighted clips with no retribution. Though reviews do fall under fair use, YouTube’s Content ID system automatically grants the copyright owner power over the video when it detects the clips used in them. The critic must go through a dispute process and argue that their review falls under fair use to regain control of the video. Unsurprisingly, far more negative reviews are taken down in comparison to positive ones.
YouTube’s Content ID algorithm does not support small channels either. Adding intellectual property to YouTube’s database requires another lengthy submission process, which once again, favors companies over individuals. In both paths of copyright judgment, defendants are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Channels can lose privileges, monetization and their videos if they are accused of copyright violations before they have a chance to challenge accusations, a process that could take weeks.
As YouTube continues to develop with more and more channels and viewers appearing every day, it is paramount for it to implement a just copyright system which leaves room for channels to grow without being at risk of losing their ability to make money and show videos. While YouTube’s copyright system has to be strict in order to maintain a safe environment for copyright holders, channels must be given a chance to defend themselves before they lose necessary features for growth.