Accuracy of content fingerprinting
An independent test in 2009 uploaded multiple versions of the same song to YouTube, and concluded that while the system was "surprisingly resilient" in finding copyright violations in the audio tracks of videos, it was not infallible.[29]
The music industry has criticized Content ID as inefficient, with Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) estimating in a 2015 filing to the US Copyright Office "that Content ID fails to identify upwards of 40 percent of the use of UMPG's compositions on YouTube".[1][30] Google has countered these assertions by stating that (as of 2016) Content ID detected over 98% of known copyright infringement on YouTube and humans filing removal notices only 2%.[1]
Fair use
The use of Content ID to remove material automatically has led to controversy in some cases, as the videos have not been checked by a human for fair use.[31] In April 2019, WatchMojo - one of the largest YouTube channels with over 20 million subscribers and 15 billion views with an extensive library of videos that rely on fair use - released a video that relied on its 10-year experiences managing claims and strikes via Content ID to highlight instances of alleged abuse. In a follow-up video, the channel estimated that rights holders had unlawfully claimed over $2 billion from 2014 to 2019.[32]
Claims on public domain material
Content ID has sometimes been criticized for levying false copyright claims on videos using material that is in the public domain or ineligible for copyright. In January 2018, a YouTube uploader who created a white noise generator received copyright notices about a video he uploaded which contained only white noise.[33] In a blog post, University of North Texas copyright librarian Stephen Wolfson commented that videos of white noise may not be copyrightable because they do not pass the threshold of originality.[34]
In September 2018, a German university professor uploaded videos with several classical music performances for which their copyright had expired. Since the composers were dead for more than 70 years, the musical compositions were in the public domain, and the recordings were no longer under copyright in Germany because they were first published before 1963. After he received several copyright violations by YouTube, he could lift the majority of them, but Deutsche Grammophon refused to lift two of them even if their copyright had expired.[35][36]
Dispute process
If a YouTube user disagrees with a decision by Content ID, it is possible to fill in a form disputing the decision.[38] However, this claim is sent directly to the party that owns the supposed copyright, who has the final decision in the matter unless legal action is pursued. If the reporting party denies their claim, the channel receives a strike. If a channel receives three strikes, it is removed from the platform. Prior to 2016, videos weren't monetized until the dispute was resolved.
Since April 2016, videos continue to be monetized while the dispute is in progress, and the money goes to whoever won the dispute.[39] Should the uploader want to monetize the video again, they may remove the disputed audio in the "Video Manager".[40] YouTube has cited the effectiveness of Content ID as one of the reasons why the site's rules were modified in December 2010 to allow some users to upload videos of unlimited length.[41]
Fraudulent claims
In December 2018 TheFatRat complained that Content ID gave preference to an obvious scammer who used the automated system to claim ownership of his content and thereby steal his revenue.[42]
On November 6, 2021, Jose Teran of Scottsdale, Arizona and his co-conspirator, Webster Batista, was charged by a federal grand jury of 30 felony counts which include Conspiracy, Wire Fraud, and Transactional Money Laundering. Teran, in pleading guilty, admitted that they created the fake music publishing company MediaMuv L.L.C. from which they claimed 50,000 songs and received royalty payments amounting to $20,776,517.31 using YouTube's Content ID System.[43][44] On June 26, 2023, Teran was sentenced to 70 months in prison by Judge Douglas L. Rayes. According to the U. S. Attorney's Office, District of Arizona, the case has been dubbed as "one of the largest music-royalty frauds ever perpetrated."[43]
Impact of system changes
In December 2013, Google changed the way the system worked (seemingly to cover YouTube in case of lawsuits), leading to numerous content creation copyright notices being sent to YouTube accounts. Those notices led to ad revenues being automatically diverted to third parties, which sometimes had no connection to the games.[45][46]
