Today’s content creators can choose from myriad platforms to build their careers on. For short-form vertical content, creators have found audiences through TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, while for livestreaming, creators can choose between or multi-stream on Twitch, Kick and Rumble. But for long-form content, YouTube remains the primary platform, and a diverse array of creators, including musicians, artists, filmmakers, video essayists, and reactors, all depend on it.

That dependence is exactly why it is so disruptive when a bad actor misuses YouTube’s copyright enforcement tools against a creator. Takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have become an increasingly common vehicle for this kind of abuse, whether through automated brand protection tools that cast too wide a net or through individuals who knowingly file false claims to harass a creator or extract a payout for content they do not own. Understanding how these claims work, and what options a creator has when one is filed in bad faith, is essential to responding effectively and protecting both the creator’s content and their account.

Content ID Claims and DMCA Claims

Content ID claims and DMCA claims are the two main types of claims that affect a creator’s copyright status on YouTube. The key difference between them is whether the content is permitted to remain on the platform while the claim is being resolved.

Content ID is YouTube’s native system that detects potential matches between uploaded content and existing material on the platform. This includes reuploads of another creator’s content, but it may also catch cover songs, reaction videos, commentary videos, or any other content that incorporates a portion of another video. When a Content ID claim is placed on a video, the original owner can choose to (i) block the video from being viewed, (ii) monetize the video by running ads on it, sometimes sharing revenue with the uploader, or (iii) simply track the video’s viewership statistics. Creators can remove the claimed content or dispute a Content ID claim using the tools available in YouTube Studio.

If a creator disputes a claim, the burden shifts back to the claimant to choose whether to escalate to a formal DMCA takedown request. (For more on how that process works, see our post on What Is a DMCA Takedown?) In short, the DMCA is a legal framework that shields platforms from liability to intellectual property owners so long as the platform responds appropriately to takedown requests. Once a claimant satisfies the DMCA’s legal requirements, a platform like YouTube generally cannot second guess the request and must comply with it (although YouTube’s DMCA system has proved finicky at best and often rejects both valid DMCA requests and counter-notifications).

Creators can, in turn, file a counter-notification to contest a DMCA takedown. Once a counter-notification is filed, the claimant’s only remaining option to escalate the dispute is to sue the creator directly.

Wrongful Takedowns

DMCA takedown requests have risen sharply in recent years, due in part to the growing use of automated brand protection tools that file takedowns automatically. Another driver of the increase in takedown requests is bad actors who abuse the DMCA process to harass creators or to extract money for content they do not actually own. In both scenarios, it is important for creators to understand their rights and options.

Automated Takedowns

Automated tools often correctly flag content that genuinely infringes a copyright holder’s rights, but they can also issue wrongful takedowns based on keywords or other blunt criteria. For example, Remove Your Media LLC reportedly filed a DMCA takedown against bleachbit.org for allegedly infringing the copyright of the Bleach manga and anime series. However, bleachbit.org is not an anime streaming or piracy site of any kind; as the site’s operators pointed out, it is an entirely unrelated tool for cleaning disk space and wiping private data. The same company also filed a takedown against a reaction video by cawcawTV for allegedly infringing the copyright of the anime series One Punch Man. In fact, cawcawTV’s video was not reacting to footage from the One Punch Man anime at all, but to a video by YouTuber MoistCr1tikal (channel name Penguinz0), which itself contained no anime footage. MoistCr1tikal has since confirmed he never filed any claim or strike against cawcawTV.

The DMCA requires a takedown notice to include (i) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use in question is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, and (ii) a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notice is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder. The examples above suggest the complaining party may have misrepresented its good faith belief, its factual accuracy, or both. Beyond exposing the claimant to civil liability, including damages and attorney’s fees, a knowingly false takedown can also carry penalties for perjury, which may include fines or imprisonment. Even a claim against content that genuinely includes a portion of a copyrighted work is not automatically valid. Under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015), a copyright holder must consider fair use in good faith before issuing a takedown notice. Failing to do so can expose the claimant to liability under Section 512(f) for misrepresentation.

A creator who understands their rights, and the risks a claimant faces for filing a wrongful takedown, is better positioned to respond to bad-faith takedown requests, cease and desist letters, and litigation threats.

Bad Actors

Sometimes a DMCA takedown is filed by a bad actor for the sole purpose of harassing a creator. One common tactic relies on the expectation that the creator will file a counter-notification, which requires personal information such as a name, email address, mailing address, and phone number. Once a bad actor obtains that information, they may use it to dox or otherwise harass the creator.

However, content creators do not have to submit a counter-notification themselves. Section 512(c)(3)(i) of the DMCA only requires the signature of “a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.” That authorized person can be a lawyer, talent agent, takedown agent, family member, or friend, and can supply their own address, phone number, and email address under Section 512(c)(3)(iv) instead of the creator’s own.

The Takeaway

A DMCA takedown request can be frightening for a creator, both because of the immediate risk to the content and because repeated claims can put an entire account at risk. When a takedown has been filed wrongfully, the most important things a creator can do is stay calm, avoid handing over personal information unnecessarily, and understand the legal options available to them. Working with a lawyer who understands both the DMCA process and the realities of content creation can make the difference in responding effectively to wrongful takedowns and other bad-faith legal threats.