So far, despite some creaks the system has been working very well, the only real issue is when a big channel that has an equally large social media presence gets caught up in the cross fire and starts to cause a commotion. For years its been a joke that the best way to get Youtube to address a problem you have is to complain about it on twitter. The sad part? It isn't a joke, I've tried to get my issues resolved using the few official channels Youtube has and usually I can't even get a direct answer to establish what I've done wrong in the first place.
Unfortunately we won't see systemic change from Youtube, what few major changes like disabling adverts and comments on content intended for children came from legislation passed above the company. I've used Youtube since the early days and I've seen many changes over those years. I remember when Youtube had a private messaging feature and a video reply feature. And while many of those changes have been detrimental -a big one for me was removing community captions so speakers of other languages could add translations of content they enjoyed to help it connect with a wider audience as an example -there have been a few that were useful, and one or two that relate to Youtube's copyright system.
A brief example:
- Soundtracks are the bane of any Youtubers existence, ignoring Copyfraud it turns out there are only so many combinations of chords and beats out there, and hundreds if not thousands of versions of the same song with different creators and IP statuses. I cannot count the times I've upload something only to be hit with a claim by the label for a song that was released fifty or sixty years after my upload was released. And even for content I created totally from scratch. So, one of the positive changes is the option to remove the audio in question, which damages the overall upload but is better than losing the whole thing. If you've ever watched a video where the soundtrack suddenly cuts off or its noticeably distorted for a bit before coming back that is probably what happen.
- Another improvement in regards to sounds, Youtube now has a sound library of songs that can be used to replace claimed material. Now, there's a lot of room for improvement which I'll be getting to later but this is at least partially useful.
- Adding an appeal function between disputes and counter notification is a good step, it allows you more room to explain your case if it was rejected the first time.
And that's about it. So, in the interest of making things a little better, I've come up with a few things that Youtube can do to improve the situation without jeopardising its position, if anything they would cement it by making the system be between claimants and defendants more viable.
- Add an option to the disputes for when someone files a claim for content on a video that does not in fact use that content. To explain a bit, when you get copyright claim or block or strike you no longer just get an e-mail informing you that ____ has made a claim against your video, it tells the content being claimed, audio or video, and it shows which part of the video is causing the problem, which could be the whole upload or a few seconds. And it tells you who made the claim (more on this later) and for what they're claiming the content originated from. i.e. Sony has claimed 00:52-01:23 of an upload claiming it belongs to a film they own released in 1983, as a random example. And then you can look at the claim and weigh up its merits and choose how to respond, cut, ignore or dispute. If you dispute you can't just open up a text box and explain your reasoning, you have to first select from some options, (see image above for an example) the issue here is that by making a selection it locks you into a specific argument. Choosing unwisely can cause you a lot of trouble. `You may think what's the problem since you run a public domain channel?` Well aside from intentional copyfraud an issue I run into on a semi-regular basis is content is claimed on a public domain video, but the claim is based on material that is not in the public domain. When that happens you're hamstrung, because arguing that your upload is public domain even with all the proof in the world is all well and good, but the claimant's don't really care about that they care about protecting and profiting off of there IP, so its a roll of the dice whether they'll bother to read your dispute if they know they own the rights to what they're claiming, in my experience they do not bother to look at the upload to check at best they skim what you wrote and decide how much trouble its worth to keep up the struggle. Adding an option to explain that the claim was made in error wouldn't change anything from Youtube's point of view its still up to the claimant to weigh up the merits, but it would mean that since the basis of the dispute has changed at least some IP claimants and copyfraudsters might give the argument more weight and be deterred.
- Make it so that claimants have to explain what exactly is being used. Currently you do not have an easy way of verifying if you have used or misused someone else's content. Most copyright claims are automatic and done via the claimant uploading their content to Youtube's content ID checker tool. And it already highlights which part of the timeline of a video its supposedly found a violation but that is it. Its up to you to check, which can prove impossible if you can't find what they're basing their claim on. This is especially true of music claims, usually you'll get a song name and an artist (but that's not guaranteed) and claimant's corporate name who is the usually the label but could be third party representing them. This makes tracking it down difficult and sometimes impossible. For music their are two important factors composition, its date of creation and creator and the specific recording its date of creation and creator. The old English anthem Jerusalem by William Blake is public domain, I could sing it and record it and then I have copyright on that specific recording. But, if I used Youtube's content checker it would not only flag up copies of my version, it would flag up many others which either belong to the uploader, were licensed, were used for criticism, or a public domain version. If I flagged your upload you would have to stumble upon my recording and figure out it is the version the claim is based on and then decide if I strong case or not. And that's when the claim is based on a song and not a melody claim(2), good luck figuring out if that has any basis. Usually I have to copy all of the information I can get from the claim, read through the credits on the upload to see if there's a match, if not I have to throw that information into a search engine and hope I can find something, and sometimes what I find still denies me important information. But its already in the content ID system, so Youtube absolutely could enable you to review and compare the claims within the copyright dispute panel. This would change nothing for Youtube since its the claimant who submits the media and uses it to pursue its claims.
- Make claimants explain why they feel their material is being violated. Currently the dispute process is entirely one sided, the defendant has to argue their case against a void that is the claimant. Which strikes me as fundamentally wrong, it assumes guilt and forces the targetted to argue innocence without specifically knowing what the issue is. The claimant has to have proof that they're the owner of the content being used or at least represent those that do, so they should no difficulty or objection to providing some proof. This would seriously weaken the rampant copyfraud that plagues Youtube.
- Make it clear which jurisdiction Youtube uses. Copyright is a messy and confusing thing, especially since there are more systems of copyright than there are nations under the sun. If you refer back to the image at the top, you will see an option for fair use, this would indicate that Youtube uses the copyright framework of the United States of America. It would help if this was made explicit and if Youtube could clarify its position regarding works of a non-US origin, does it still count their copyright or does it not? An alternative solution would be requiring copyright claimants to declare what legal basis (i.e. which territory or territories that claim is based on) so you can have some information to go on. Currently I have to deal with copyright owners, well alleged copyright owners in one nation or another blocking content worldwide which in the UK simply can't be done if its public domain in the UK, it does not matter what claim is being made elsewhere.
- Add an option to obtain a license to use content, this would ease some of the tensions over IP from both sides with both legitimate and illegitimate claims of piracy. While IP defenders talk at length about morality and the sacrosanctity of the creator 99% of the time they're after money, a bit of something is better than all of nothing and it would mean that users who rely on Youtube for income will have some more security even if they have to cut in an occasional false actor on work that should be free for them to use for whatever reason. This one is already very slowly being done with audio in the United States, currently Youtube is piloting a deal with some record labels to split revenue with the uploader and the label. Expanding this process while not particularly ideal, it offends me on moral grounds if I'm honest would at least ensure greater access to material and a reduction in fighting over the same material over and over.
- Make it public when an entity is confirmed to be a serial abuser of the copyright claims system. Copyfraud is technically illegal under many nation's copyright statutes including in the United States. However, I am not aware of any nation having a mechanism for punishment. Making it public when someone is caught abusing the system could be a deterrent against repeat offenders, and is already being done anyway informally using the complaining on social media.
______________________________________________________________
1: Copyfraud, put simply its were someone deliberately makes a false claim of ownership of work that is either public domain, an orphan work or belonging to someone else.
2: Melody claims are exactly the same as a standard audio claim, however instead of a specific version you can at least check against that version if you can find its information. For melodies you have little chance without the specific track in question being made available so you can check.
