The Laws Remove Your Media Is Breaking by Sending False Copyright Strikes

By Sean DoyleSeptember 7, 202614 min read

When I first started looking into what Remove Your Media was doing to YouTube creators, it made my blood boil.

I have been tracking bad actors, scams, abusive companies, legitimate companies, online threats, and questionable business practices in one form or another since the 1990s. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is something I have seen far too many times.

Remove Your Media is a legitimate registered company that performs legitimate copyright enforcement work. That does not mean everything it does is legitimate.

What caught my attention was evidence of the company sending copyright strikes against videos that do not contain the copyrighted material being claimed at all. In some cases, creators are simply talking on camera about an anime such as One-Punch Man. No anime footage. No manga panels. No screenshots. No copyrighted music. No clips. Nothing.

Yet copyright strikes are still being sent.

And this is not happening to just one person.

Remove Your Media is doing this to multiple creators in bulk.

That is where this stops being an ordinary copyright dispute and becomes something much more serious.

There are laws governing copyright takedown notices. There are legal representations a company must make before it can use the DMCA process against someone. Those representations are not optional, and knowingly accusing someone of copyright infringement when the claimed copyrighted material is not even present can violate federal law.

There are also several ways victims can challenge this conduct, document it, report it, and potentially pursue the company for the damage caused.

So if you have been dealing with Remove Your Media, if they have sent false copyright strikes against your channel, or if you are worried about losing your videos or even your entire YouTube account because of these claims, I want to give you some information that may actually help.

This article explains what Remove Your Media is doing, the federal copyright laws that apply to knowingly false takedown notices, what rights affected creators have, where this conduct can be reported, and what legal options may be available when false copyright enforcement causes real harm.

Because a company does not get to hide behind the words “copyright enforcement” while knowingly sending false copyright complaints against innocent people.

So let’s talk about the laws that apply.

The Main Law: 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)

The first law everyone affected by this should know is 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

This is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly known as the DMCA.

Section 512(f) specifically addresses false representations made through the copyright notice and takedown system.

The law provides liability when someone knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing.

That is extremely important here.

If a company knows that a YouTube video does not contain the copyrighted anime, footage, artwork, music, manga panels, or other protected material being claimed, but still submits a takedown notice accusing that video of infringement, the accusation itself is false.

Section 512(f) allows a person harmed by that false representation to seek damages caused by it, including costs and attorneys’ fees.

You can read the statute directly at 17 U.S.C. § 512.

A DMCA Takedown Requires a Good-Faith Belief

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), a DMCA takedown notice must contain a statement that the complaining party has a good-faith belief that the use being complained about is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

That becomes a serious problem when the copyrighted material being claimed is not even present.

If a creator is simply sitting in front of a camera talking about One-Punch Man and the video contains no anime footage, no screenshots, no manga panels, no music, and no other protected content, what copyrighted material is supposedly being used without authorization?

There is none.

A company cannot truthfully claim a good-faith belief that nonexistent copyrighted material is being infringed.

The Information in the Notice Must Be Accurate

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), a DMCA takedown notice must also state that the information contained in the notification is accurate.

If the notice identifies copyrighted material as being infringed when that material does not exist anywhere in the targeted video, the factual basis of the complaint is false.

This is not a minor technicality.

A copyright removal request can cause a video to be removed, place a copyright strike on a creator’s channel, interfere with monetization, damage traffic, and potentially contribute to the termination of an entire channel.

The Allegedly Infringing Material Must Actually Be Identified

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii), the complaining party must identify the material that it claims is infringing.

That means there needs to be actual material to identify.

A claimant cannot truthfully identify anime footage in a video that contains no anime footage.
A claimant cannot identify copyrighted music where there is no copyrighted music.
A claimant cannot identify manga artwork where no manga artwork appears.
A claimant cannot transform a spoken mention of a television series into copyrighted audiovisual material.

The copyright complaint is supposed to identify actual allegedly infringing material, not simply a word, a subject, a keyword, or the name of a television series.

Mentioning One-Punch Man Is Not Copyright Infringement

This point should be obvious, but given what is happening, it needs to be stated clearly.

Names, titles, and short phrases are not protected by copyright.

The U.S. Copyright Office specifically explains that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, and short phrases.

You can read the Copyright Office explanation at Copyright.gov.

Saying “One-Punch Man” does not reproduce an episode of One-Punch Man.

Saying “Bleach” does not reproduce the Bleach anime.

Talking about Naruto does not give anyone ownership over your conversation.

Copyright protects original expression. It does not give copyright owners control over every discussion in which the name of their work appears.

This Is Not Even a Fair Use Argument in Many of These Cases

Fair use is important, but many of the cases we are looking at do not even need to reach that question.

Fair use generally becomes relevant when copyrighted material is actually being used and the question is whether that use is legally permitted for commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, education, or another purpose.

But what happens when the copyrighted material is not present at all?

There is nothing to conduct a fair use analysis on.

If someone uploads a video consisting entirely of themselves speaking to a camera about an anime and does not show the anime, play its music, display manga panels, or reproduce other protected material, the question is not whether their use of that material was fair.

They did not use the material.

Bulk False Copyright Strikes Are More Serious Than a Single Mistake

One incorrect takedown can be a mistake.

A company might target the wrong URL. A human reviewer might click the wrong button. A database might malfunction.

But when the same type of false copyright complaint is repeatedly sent to multiple creators, that becomes a pattern.

And when a company knows its process is producing false claims and continues using that process to submit legal copyright takedowns, that knowledge becomes extremely important.

Repeated false strikes are not made lawful because they were submitted automatically.

They are not made lawful because they were submitted in bulk.

They are not made lawful because the company also submits legitimate copyright claims.

Automation Does Not Excuse False Copyright Claims

A company remains responsible for the copyright notices it submits.

An automated system does not receive an exemption from federal copyright law.

A keyword scanner cannot transform the mention of an anime title into copyright infringement.

A bot cannot create copyrighted footage where none exists.

If an automated enforcement system repeatedly produces false infringement accusations and those accusations are submitted as legal takedown notices, the company operating that system is still responsible for the representations being made.

YouTube Treats Copyright Removal Requests as a Legal Process

A formal YouTube copyright removal request is not the same thing as an ordinary moderation report.

YouTube describes copyright removal requests as a legal process.

If YouTube determines that a removal request appears valid, the content can be removed and a copyright strike can be applied to the creator’s channel.

YouTube explains its copyright removal process at YouTube Help.

This matters because a false copyright complaint is capable of causing substantial harm before anyone ever reaches a courtroom.

What False Copyright Strikes Can Do to a Creator

A false copyright strike can potentially cause:

Removal of a video.
A copyright strike against the creator’s channel.
Lost advertising revenue.
Lost traffic and views.
Interruption of sponsorship agreements.
Damage to a creator’s reputation.
Fear of discussing particular subjects.
Additional strikes against other videos.
Risk to the creator’s entire YouTube channel.
Legal expenses required to fight a claim that should never have been submitted.

These are not harmless notices.

If Remove Your Media Targeted You, Save Everything

If Remove Your Media sent you a copyright strike against content that did not contain the copyrighted material being claimed, preserve as much evidence as possible.

Save the original video file.
Save the exact version of the video that was uploaded to YouTube.
Save the original video title.
Save the description.
Save screenshots of the video and channel.
Save the copyright strike or takedown notification.
Save the name of the claimant.
Save the copyright owner they claim to represent.
Save the copyrighted work they claim was infringed.
Save any timestamps or portions of the video they identify.
Save every email from YouTube.
Save every email from Remove Your Media.
Save any request you make for a retraction.
Save their response.
Save any counter notification correspondence.
Save your YouTube analytics.
Save revenue records showing losses during the removal.
Save sponsorship records if a strike interfered with a business relationship.
Save evidence of any additional channel penalties caused by the strike.

Do not assume the information will remain available forever.

Download it. Screenshot it. Preserve it.

Use YouTube’s Counter Notification Process When Appropriate

YouTube provides a formal counter notification process when content has been removed because of a mistake or misidentification.

YouTube explains that process at Submit a Copyright Counter Notification.

A counter notification is itself a legal process, so affected creators should read the requirements carefully and provide truthful information.

When a valid counter notification is forwarded to the claimant, the claimant generally has a limited period to provide evidence that legal action has been filed to prevent the content from being restored.

If that does not happen, the content may be reinstated.

Ask Remove Your Media for a Retraction

YouTube allows a copyright claimant to retract a copyright removal request.

If Remove Your Media targeted a video that does not contain the copyrighted material it claimed was being infringed, request a written retraction.

YouTube explains copyright retractions at Retract a Copyright Removal Request.

Keep the response you receive.

If a company is shown that the copyrighted material is not present in the video and still refuses to withdraw the accusation, preserve that correspondence.

What a company knew and when it knew it can matter.

Section 512(f) Gives Victims a Potential Legal Claim

Section 512(f) is not simply a recommendation that copyright enforcement companies behave responsibly.

It creates liability for knowingly false material representations of infringement.

A person harmed by such a misrepresentation may be able to pursue damages resulting from the false claim.

This is why documenting actual damage is so important.

If your monetized video was offline, document how long it was unavailable.
If revenue dropped, preserve your revenue history.
If traffic collapsed, preserve your analytics.
If a sponsor terminated or changed an agreement, preserve the correspondence.
If you paid an attorney to respond, preserve invoices and records.
If other videos or your channel were affected, document those consequences as well.

A legal claim depends on evidence.

The Copyright Claims Board May Be an Option

Creators should also know about the Copyright Claims Board, commonly called the CCB.

The CCB is a tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office designed to resolve certain copyright disputes without requiring the same type of litigation normally associated with federal court.

The CCB can hear certain claims involving misrepresentations under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

More information is available directly from the Copyright Claims Board at ccb.gov.

The CCB has its own limits, rules, and procedures, and respondents can generally opt out, but it is an option affected creators should know exists.

Federal Court Is Another Option

For cases involving significant damages, repeated false takedowns, or broader legal issues, affected creators can speak with a copyright attorney about bringing a claim under Section 512(f) in federal court.

The exact remedies available depend on the circumstances, damages, evidence, jurisdiction, and other facts surrounding the case.

The important point is that creators are not legally required to simply accept knowingly false copyright takedowns.

Report Copyright Abuse to YouTube

If one claimant is sending false strikes to multiple creators, YouTube should be made aware of the pattern.

Creators should preserve and compare information such as:

The claimant name.
The company submitting the strike.
The alleged copyright owner.
The dates the strikes were sent.
The anime or other work involved.
The wording used in the complaints.
The claimed copyrighted material.
Whether that material was actually present.
Whether multiple strikes arrived together.
Whether the company withdrew the strike after being challenged.
Whether the company continued sending similar strikes after being notified of false claims.

One false strike can be dismissed as an isolated mistake.

A documented pattern involving many creators is much harder to ignore.

Creators Should Compare Evidence With Other Victims

If Remove Your Media targeted you, you may not be the only person dealing with the same pattern.

Creators affected by similar strikes should compare the factual details of what happened.

Look for similarities in:

Anime titles.
Keywords.
Claimant identities.
Copyright owners.
Dates.
Notice language.
Targeted video formats.
Talking-head videos with no copyrighted footage.
Videos targeted shortly after mentioning particular titles.
Multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

Patterns matter.

Do Not Admit to Copyright Infringement That Did Not Happen

If your video contained none of the material being claimed, be precise when you respond.

Do not casually suggest that you might have accidentally used copyrighted material simply because you are worried about your channel.

State what actually happened.

If the video contains only you talking, say that.
If you never showed anime footage, say that.
If you never displayed manga panels, say that.
If you never played copyrighted music, say that.
If the only connection is that you mentioned an anime title, say that.

Facts are important.

A Legitimate Company Can Still Break the Law

Remove Your Media being a real company does not make every action it takes legitimate.

This distinction is important.

A company can perform legitimate copyright enforcement work and still engage in unlawful conduct elsewhere.

Representing legitimate copyright owners does not provide immunity from federal law.

A company could correctly identify and remove hundreds of genuinely infringing videos and still be responsible when it knowingly sends false takedowns against innocent creators.

Calling It Copyright Enforcement Does Not Make It Legitimate

This is something I have seen repeatedly during the years I have spent tracking bad actors and abusive organizations online.

Bad conduct often hides behind legitimate terminology.

Security.
Compliance.
Fraud prevention.
Brand protection.
Copyright enforcement.

Those are all legitimate activities.

They do not automatically legitimize everything someone does while claiming to perform them.

If someone knowingly accuses another person of copyright infringement when no infringement occurred, calling the operation “copyright enforcement” does not change the underlying conduct.

This Is Why Remove Your Media Is on My Radar

What particularly bothers me about this situation is the scale.

I have spent decades watching bad actors, scam operations, abusive networks, online threats, deceptive companies, and legitimate companies that cross lines they should never cross.

When I see one mistake, I see one mistake.

When I see the same behavior happening repeatedly to different people, I start looking at the organization behind it.

That is what happened here.

Remove Your Media is now on my radar because of its bulk copyright enforcement against creators whose videos do not contain the copyrighted material being claimed.

Those tools exist for a legitimate reason.

Someone uploading an anime episode is not the same thing as someone discussing that anime.

Someone reproducing copyrighted footage is not the same thing as someone saying the title of a television series.

A talking-head video containing no copyrighted footage, screenshots, music, manga panels, or other protected content does not become copyright infringement simply because the creator mentions One-Punch Man, Bleach, Naruto, or another copyrighted work.

Knowingly submitting materially false copyright takedown notices can violate 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

False notices also run directly into the requirements established by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A), including requirements concerning identification of the allegedly infringing material, good-faith belief, and accuracy.

If Remove Your Media targeted you with a false copyright strike, preserve the evidence.

Challenge the strike.

Request a retraction.

Use the counter notification process when appropriate.

Report the pattern to YouTube.

Document the financial and other harm caused by the takedown.

And if the false takedown caused serious damage, consider speaking with a copyright attorney about your rights under Section 512(f).

It is not supposed to be used to manufacture copyright infringement where none exists.