Publishing its first-ever Copyright Transparency Report, YouTube revealed how its copyright management tools worked during the period of H1 2021.
YouTube stated the three tools it uses for letting copyright holders complain about infringing content and its review system in handling them. It’s seen that many are abusing the public tools available for copyright management, and in most cases ruling in favor of the uploader.
YouTube Copyright Transparency Report
Transparency reports are highly commendable, as they shed light on the working mechanism of particular systems. Google, in the case of YouTube, has released its first-ever transparency report on copyright handling on its platform. And it gave enough details to judge how YouTube manages copyright complaints.
As per it, YouTube provides the community with three types of tools for reporting copyright infringement issues – a public Webform, a Copyright Match Tool, and the Content ID system. While the Webform is available for all, helping potential copyright owners to point out infringements, the latter two tools are available to specific criteria users.
Also Read- Two Men Earned Over $20 Million Through YouTube Content ID Scam
Content ID system, in particular, is available for big houses like movie studios and music labels, whose content is often reposted without permission, by millions of users. YouTube stated that, throughout the period of H1 2021, most takedown requests have come from Copyright Matching Tool and the Content ID system, as they detect infringements automatically.
In terms of numbers, there were about 1.6 million removal requests that came from Copyright Match Tool and 722 million requests made by the Content ID system. These two tools represent over 99% of all copyright actions on YouTube. Also, YouTube is said to be resolving over 60% of requests in favor of the uploader.
And most of the creators seen pushing back takedown notices arising from the Content ID system, which they believe to be made in error. Also in Web form, over 8% of requests made in the said period were abusive in nature, thus false claims by fake copyright holders.
