The concept of Copyright is complex and multifaceted, such that its enforceability through Copyright law remains a massive point of academic contention today. This is of particular relevance when discussing the barriers to litigation and the lack of legal education available to artists and creators, especially when the person copying your content and posting it as their own, lives in the United States.
It is all well and good to have a piece of legislation managing how copyright is protected in a single country or jurisdiction, but how does the enforceability of copyright work in the context of a global technology conglomerate that almost operates above the law? The following discussion will touch on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, and assess how they deal with copyright in their policies.
Content you upload to Instagram still belongs to you, granted your work is written, video or audio, and it is original. If your work matches the above criteria, Instagram will do its best via its extensive reporting structures to protect your copyright. The major exception to this protection is the rule of ‘fair use’ in America, where Instagram considers the following:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for charity educational purposes.
The nature of the copyrighted work (works that are factual and are statistic based are less likely to be protected).
The amount and substance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
The European basis for exceptions mirrors that of our own, and includes cases of: quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche. Where someone is found to be at cross purposes with the law, they could find themselves facing hefty fines and even jail time. From Instagram’s side, their posts may be removed, their accounts may be banned, regardless of whether the copyright enforcement is accidental or not.
If you are an avid YouTube consumer, no doubt have you come across a video of someone speaking about how a video of theirs has been unfairly struck by a copyright strike, along with the hurdles they had to jump, and mountains they had to climb, to get the copyright strike appealed. The discourse surrounding copyright law on YouTube is widely negative, with the harsh and vague scope of their algorithmic mechanisms. There is consensus that the system favours corporations, that entities such as Universal Music Group abuse false claims, and that the due process on YouTube is lacking and ineffective. The rationale behind this is that there are no repercussions for false or abusive claims, both automated or manual, and that the burden is placed on the person being accused to defend themselves rather than that of the accuser to prove a breach. YouTube acts this way to avoid being at odds with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, which excludes liability for YouTube against copyright claims if they execute a notice and takedown policy.
As one can imagine, this is a major issue. When a video on YouTube is copyrighted, the advertising revenue from that video goes to the ‘holder’ of the copyright, or they may elect to have the video taken down. This system is heavily abused against video essay accounts who often face claims due to the original author wanting to silence criticism directed towards them. Moreover, accounts that get copyright struck face the major threat of being deactivated, and allegedly get put lower in preference on the YouTube algorithm, otherwise known as being ‘shadow banned’.
To conclude, it is evident Instagram is rather individualised, and although a copyright process may be slow, the systems in place appear to balance the rights of the copyright holder and their alleged breachers. However, YouTube appears to have a very lopsided system of executing copyright law, one that is at odds with the natural principles of justice, and one that seeks to protect YouTube itself from legal liability rather than protect the Copyright of its site members.
Comments