The Reporters’ Collective's May 19 investigation detailed how Asian News International (ANI) is exploiting YouTube’s policy of dealing with copyright infringement claims to negotiate lucrative content syndication deals with news creators. 

The story asserted that ANI hold a negotiating imbalance while demanding high prices from news creators because YouTube first takes down videos and channels upon receiving claims based on a ‘judgment call’ it makes on the claims receives and then informs the creators to defend their case if they with the claimant or in a court of law. 

The story noted that while the copyright law in India does allow usage of copyright material under certain circumstances, such as for news and analysis, in practice, the lack of specifics in the Indian copyright regulations and YouTube’s policy on copyright claims is creating a loophole that ANI can exploit. 

The story can be read here: ANI Finds Business Niche In Copyright Claims Against YouTubers

We had sent detailed questions to YouTube before publishing the story, but it chose not to respond to them. YouTube instead sent a statement that was quoted in the story.

After the publication of the story, on May 20, YouTube sent us a rejoinder. 

The Reporters’ Collective stands by the facts and assertions in its story in its entirety.

We are appending YouTube’s rejoinder here with our response and providing a link to this blog page at the end of the original story. 

YouTube’s Statement:

1. YouTube is not a court of law and we don't adjudicate copyright ownership disputes or make legal determinations on the merits of fair use or other exceptions. 
   ‍
2. Our role is to process copyright takedown notices that comply with applicable laws, such as the DMCA or local equivalents, and provide a dispute pathway for uploaders who believe they have the rights to use this content. 
   ‍
3. While we do not make final legal determinations about fair use/fair dealing, we do require that copyright claims meet legal requirements under the applicable laws, including whether the claimant has considered exceptions to copyright like fair use/fair dealing.  
   ‍
4. Therefore, our review of a copyright takedown notice is to ensure it meets these legal and procedural requirements for such notices. It's incorrect to characterise this review of the notice itself as a 'judgment call' or legal determination of copyright ownership. 
   ‍
5. These are matters for resolution between the parties involved or to be determined by a court of law.

The Reporters’ Collective's reply:

We stand by our story. 

1. In para 3  of its rejoinder, YouTube says it does not make the ‘final legal determinations’ about fair use and fair dealing, but it does require that claims of copyright infringement meet legal requirements under applicable laws. In Para 4 it says YouTube reviews the notices to ensure the notices meet both legal and procedural requirements. This reaffirms what our story reports: That YouTube is taking the first call on whether a copyright infringement claim is right or not and then informing the creator about it. 
   ‍
2. YouTube describes its decision-making on the legality of a copyright claim as a ‘review’. This is playing with words. At its discretion, it takes down content producers’ videos based on such ‘reviews’, and the creator gets the chance to challenge it only subsequently.
   ‍
3. YouTube’s publicly stated policy on the copyright review process also states as much.
   ‍
4. YouTube does make an initial judgment call, and then, as it has stated in its rejoinder, the final determination on the claim can, quite naturally, be made only in a court of law. 
   ‍
5. More significantly, YouTube’s response fails to counter our story’s central assertion: that its policy of shutting down the entire channel of a creator on the receipt of three or more copyright claims that it reviews positively is leading to a sword hanging on the creator’s work while he ends up in negotiations with ANI. 
   ‍
6. YouTube's copyright policy for creators hangs like a sword over their heads, leaving them vulnerable to potential coercion from claimants of copyrights. 
   ‍
7. Our story does not delve into whether YouTube’s policy is legally sound. It does assert that YouTube’s policy is leading to a moral hazard at the cost of the creators on its platform.