Copyright Gossip: Exploring Copyright Opinions, Theories, and Strategies on YouTube

Abstract

This study investigates copyright discourses on YouTube. Through a qualitative content analysis of 144 YouTube videos, we explore how YouTube creators understand copyright law, how they minimize risks posed by copyright infringement, and how they navigate a highly technical and dynamic copyright enforcement ecosystem. Our findings offer insights into how digitally situated cultural producers are impacted by and respond to automated content moderation. This is important because increasingly lawmakers around the world are asking digital platforms to implement efficient systems for content moderation, and yet there is a lack of good information about the stakeholders most directly impacted by these practices. In this study, we present a systematic analysis of copyright gossip, building on the concept of algorithmic gossip, which comprises the opinions, theories, and strategies of creators who are affected by YouTube’s copyright enforcement systems.

From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok

“…While visibility moderation is not unique to short video platforms, TikTok is a unique site to explore visibility governance due to the centrality of its algorithmic recommender system and the many different approaches creators take to interrogate black boxes, negotiate power and mitigate harms on the platform. This study joins previous research that calls for more ground‐level stakeholder involvement to shape understandings of platform governance (Cotter, 2021; Edwards & Moss, 2020; Kaye & Gray, 2021). With algorithms becoming the norm to moderate content, platforms are increasingly ruled by statistical mindsets, which carry errors and result in human costs (Gillespie, 2020).…”

Copyright Governance for Online Short Videos: Perspective of Transaction Cost Economics

“…Massive numbers of short videos are disseminated across various platforms via the network. Even if the work is infringed, addressing this is difficult for copyright owners (especially when the copyright belongs to individual creators; Kaye and Gray, 2021 ). Moreover, even if the copyright owner knows that his/her work’s copyright has been infringed, taking effective legal action is troublesome.…”

“…Although, in terms of academic theory ( Halbert, 2019 ; Kaye and Gray, 2021 ) and judicial copyright practice ( Li and Cheng, 2015 ; Cunningham and Craig, 2019 ; Caplan and Gillespie, 2020 ; Zhuliang, 2020 ), useful studies and explorations are available on the copyright governance of short videos, no consensus has been formed on how to deal with the problem of short video copyright infringement. Therefore, new perspectives need to be sought to decipher the governance dilemma posed by the proliferation of infringing short videos.…”

Content ID vs. „Uploadfilterpflicht“ – Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von privaten und gesetzlich vorgesehenen Filtermaßnahmen

“…Das UrhDaG führt darüber hi naus mit den Bagatellgrenzen ( § 10) und dem Flagging-Verfahren ( § 11) weitere prozedurale Mechanismen ein, die die Rechte der Uploader schüt zen sowie ein Overblocking verhindern sollen, und regelt ausdrücklich ein Beschwerdeverfahren ( § § 13-17). 69 Andere schätzen Content ID als besonders fehleranfällig ein und kritisieren den Mangel an Transparenz in der Durchsetzung von Urheberrechten auf der Plattform. 70 Kaye und Gray weisen darauf hin, dass der Mangel an detailliertem Wissen über Content ID zu Spekulationen und einer Vielzahl an Theorien da rüber führt, wie genau YouTubes System funktioniert und wie effektiv es ist.…”

“…69 Andere schätzen Content ID als besonders fehleranfällig ein und kritisieren den Mangel an Transparenz in der Durchsetzung von Urheberrechten auf der Plattform. 70 Kaye und Gray weisen darauf hin, dass der Mangel an detailliertem Wissen über Content ID zu Spekulationen und einer Vielzahl an Theorien da rüber führt, wie genau YouTubes System funktioniert und wie effektiv es ist. 71 Es fehlen jedoch Studien, die sich tiefer mit den urheberrechtlichen Erfahrungen aktiver Uploader beschäftigen und ihre Wahrnehmungen von privaten Filtermaßnahmen erfassen.…”