A YouTube rule has been “weaponised” to instil fear among independent content creators who peg their videos on news events, several content creators on the Google-owned video platform have alleged.
Some have also claimed that the rule is being used to extort money from content creators.
“Now comes the brazen weaponisation of the three-strike-rule where a content creator may lose his entire channel for using even three seconds of content – sometimes even unknowingly,” wrote the comedian Akash Banerjee, who goes by the name Deshbhakt, on his X (Twitter) handle.
“Where YouTube could have just removed that offending episode or given the entire revenue to the original content owner – this three-strike rule has led to an extortion racket,” he alleged.
Another independent content creator has claimed he was served with copyright violation notices by a news agency and then asked to pay the agency for his channel to remain operational.
Banerjee said The Deshbhakt has been on YouTube for seven years and despite following all the guidelines jotted down Google’s video platform, it is a daily battle for survival.
“The platform wasn’t built for news content creators and compared to entertainment creators – we are seen as ‘advertiser unfriendly’ anyway,” Banerjee wrote. “That’s why news content gets age restricted or demonetised or down ranked in the YouTube algorithm on a daily basis – while fluff and soft porn goes unchecked.”
Over the last few years several journalists especially those with the electronic media have moved to YouTube with their channels analysing daily news events.
“While much is not expected from the government in terms of framing a ‘fair use’ law, will YouTube also turn a blind eye to this massacre of content creators for using a few seconds of copyright content?” Banerjee wondered.
Google’s community guidelines on YouTube mention that three copyright strikes in a 90-day period may result in the channel being permanently removed. Each strike will not expire until 90 days from the time it was issued.
In the first strike, Google and YouTube say, a creator for a one week period is not allowed to post new videos, do a livestream, schedule a video to be public, create premieres, launch trailers, create custom thumbnails or posts, make any changes to the playlist. In case of a second strike, the same is applicable for two weeks.
An independent journalist who has been running a YouTube channel for some years said he is very careful when it comes to using news clips.
“I have never received a strike but a notice for copyright violation from a music company once. I have subscribed to two agencies so that I can use the clips. We never know when someone will send a notice,” the journalist told The Telegraph Online, requesting anonymity.
Trinamool Rajya Sabha member Saket Gokhale, a member of the parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology, said he wrote to Google on Monday seeking clarification on YouTube’s policy on the use of news clips.
“These news agency videos are not creative works of content but are videos of news reportage often in the form of video bites by public figures, reporting of public events etc. These news wire videos are not under embargo and have been used with attribution after they have been published by the wire news agency,” Gokhale wrote in his letter.
Popular anti-Narendra Modi YouTuber Dhruv Rathee said that the platform has the power to stop any attempt to squeeze independent creators.
“Before giving a copyright strike, give creators a chance to delete the ‘copyrighted’ clip from their video if it’s less than 10 seconds,” Rathee wrote on his X handle. “It will stop the whole blackmailing and extortion.”
Journalist Abhisar Sharma, whose YouTube channel has 8.46 million subscribers, said sometimes entire shows are used in videos by independent content creators.
“Lot of random YouTubers use my entire video by putting very provocative thumbnails. That has caused me a lot of trouble because people think I have created those shows and thumbnails. That is a security issue also because those misleading thumbnails can enrage people who don’t agree with them. But to kill a channel for seven to 10 second clips? Not done,” Sharma wrote on his X handle.
Lawyer Ameet Datta, who specialises in intellectual property litigations, pointed to the irony behind YouTube turning into the “biggest inadvertent enabler for copyright leverage.”
“It’s interesting that YouTube’s three strike rule has become the leverage tool for copyright owners. The law simply requires content alleged to be infringing to be taken down by an intermediary – not the channel. There is nothing in the law that requires a three strike rule and de-listing of a content channel after three strikes against a particular channel,” Datta on his X handle.
“I can understand that YT perhaps has this rule because it wants to ensure that pirate channels don’t get away with infringement but this is now the leverage tool that copyright owners dream off,” he added.