YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) allows users to upload videos under CC BY license. Yet this is only a claim, and video producers can sometimes reuse non free content, non licensed to owners. This page based on Commons:Questionable Flickr images lists YouTube users and videos that have been questioned in the past and links to related discussions.

When you upload a Creative Commons licensed YouTube video, check this page to see if the image or user has been questioned before. When a Creative Commons licensed YouTube video has been decided to be probably improperly licensed, list it here, so the question does not come up again later.

This page also lists YouTube channels that have declined to use the CC BY license for their videos, so they would not have to be asked again.

Explanation

Although videos flagged by YouTube's Content ID system cannot be licensed under CC BY,^[1] some non-free media still slips through the cracks. For one, Content ID tracks only visual, auditory and audiovisual media. It does not flag other protected works such as literature, drama, choreography, sculpture or architecture. Additionally, in November 2019,^[2] YouTuber EmpLemon discussed how YouTubers could bypass Content ID in what he calls "copyright smuggling":

• Images/photographs:
  • Usually never enforced (even stills from non-free films/television programs) and are more likely enforced by commercial stock media companies.
  • Images from both sources that are widely used for internet memes (even stock photography) are less likely to be claimed.
• Audiovisual media:
  • Non-free films/television programs:
    • Low quality uploads.
    • Reaction videos.
    • Obscuring or other methods of distorting the content.
    • Slideshows of stills if the content is too sensitive to claims.
    • Short clips (less than five seconds) are less likely to be claimed.
  • Video game footage:
    • More likely to be unclaimed under the reasoning of free publicity, with the exception of some independent developers and those with a history of claiming content.
• Music:
  • EmpLemon says the likely use of music is for background audio, which would likely constitute de minimis.
  • Songs played on top 40 and classic hits radio stations are highest risk.
  • Evading system claims by altering the volume level.
  • Instrumentals, karaoke covers and film scores are less liable to claims. The same goes for older, classical and jazz tracks, as well as deep cuts (i.e. non-single tracks).
    • Note that sound recordings published before 1926 and compositions published before 1931 are in the public domain in the US.
  • 8-bit, MIDI and GXSCC covers, as well as video game music, are usually never enforced.
  • Independent artists are less likely to enforce their copyright under the reasoning of free publicity.

It should also be mentioned that some portions of non-free works are more scrutinized than others. For example, excerpts from the last two episodes of the 2019 American animated series Amphibia are subject to stricter enforcement than the rest of the series.^[3][4]

Evaluating YouTube video permissions

Some video excerpts could be taken from movies, other television channels, news programs or professional footage.

YouTube users

Problematic accounts

Accounts who have declined to relicense their videos

References