YouTubers and Content Creators' Music and Visual Licensing Violations: Legal Aspects, Algorithmic Monitoring, and Accountability in Digital Publishing

Entrance

The topic of "Music and Visual Licensing Violations by YouTubers and Content Creators" highlights how the development of internet technologies, the proliferation of smart devices, and high-speed connectivity has brought about a radical paradigm shift in mass communication. The rigid editorial filters and corporate structure of traditional media (television, radio, newspapers) have been replaced by digital platforms where individuals create, distribute, and monetize their own content. Today, individuals operating on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and Instagram, generally referred to as "YouTubers" or "Content Creators," have become key actors in the digital publishing ecosystem.

However, the democratization of digital publishing has given rise to serious disputes in terms of copyright protection, one of the most fundamental areas of intellectual property law. A piece of music added to the background during the production of video content, a few seconds of stock image interspersed, a film frame used for news purposes, or a radio sound playing in the background during a broadcast; all these elements harbor a vast network of legal protection.

The fact that the vast majority of content creators lack professional legal training, the complex algorithmic copyright detection systems used by platforms, and the transnational nature of international copyright law have made licensing infringements one of the most critical legal problems in digital media. This study examines licensing infringements in the use of music and visuals by YouTubers and content creators, their legal basis, platform control mechanisms, the fair use doctrine, and copyright holder responsibilities, in academic detail but in a language accessible to the public.

1. Basic Legal Framework: Intellectual Property and Licensing Logic

To understand the infringements that occur when content is published on YouTube or a similar platform, it is first necessary to grasp the nature of intellectual and artistic property rights.

1. Author's Rights

Intellectual property law protects tangible expressions that are the product of human intellect and creativity. According to the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK) and the internationally parallel Bern Convention, two fundamental categories of rights are established for the author upon the creation of a work:

• Moral Rights: These are inalienable rights directly attached to the author's personality, such as the right to present the work to the public, the right to have one's name credited, and the right to prevent alterations to the work. A YouTuber simply attributing the name of the music owner in the description does not, by itself, eliminate the infringement of moral or financial rights.
• Financial (Economic) Rights: These are the rights to adapt, reproduce, distribute, represent, and publicly transmit the work, including through digital transmission. Adding music or visuals to a video means both reproducing the work (recording it within the video) and publicly transmitting it in digital form

1. Dual Rights Structure in Musical Works

One of the biggest misconceptions among content creators is the fragmented nature of music rights. A piece of music is not legally a single work; it possesses two distinct layers of rights:

• Rights to Composition and Lyrics (Musical Work):These are the rights of the composer who wrote the melody of the song and the person who wrote the lyrics.
• Phonogram / Performer's Rights (Related Rights):These are the rights of the artist who performed the song and the production company (music label) that recorded it.

For example, even if a YouTuber plays a piano cover of a famous song themselves and adds it to their video, they would still infringe on the composer's financial rights, although not the rights of the song's record producer. Both a "synchronization license" (matching music with visuals) and a "public transmission license" are required for the use of music in a video.

1. Distinction Between Artwork and Processing in Visuals and Photographs

The situation is similar with visual materials (photographs, illustrations, graphic design, stock video). The photographer becomes the copyright holder the moment a photograph is taken. Any image downloaded from the "images" section of internet search engines and used as a thumbnail or embedded within a video constitutes a direct infringement of the original photographer's right to reproduce and distribute. Manipulating, cropping, or adding filters to the image does not eliminate the infringement; on the contrary, it can lead to a violation of moral rights by altering the integrity of the work.

2. Types of Licenses and the Deceptive Nature of the "Free" Perception

One of the most common pitfalls for content creators is the misinterpretation of the legal implications of "free" or "royalty-free" concepts in the digital environment.

What does Royalty-Free mean?

The term "royalty-free" does not mean the work is without copyright or free . It means that once a user purchases or licenses the work, they are not obligated to pay royalties repeatedly for each view or use. Material downloaded "royalty-free" from a stock image or music site is subject to the platform's Terms of Service. For example, royalty-free music permitted for non-commercial use would be considered an infringement if used in a monetized video on YouTube.

Creative Commons (CC) Licenses

It is a licensing model where authors make their works publicly available under certain conditions instead of reserving all rights. However, Creative Commons is not a single license type; it has subtypes:

• CC BY (Attribution):Can be used anywhere, including commercially, as long as the author's name is credited.
• CC NC (Non-Commercial):The work may only be used in non-commercial videos. If the video generates revenue on YouTube or is sponsored content, these licensed works may not be used.
• CC ND (No Derivatives):No alterations may be made to the work. Adding background music to the video or cropping and using visuals constitutes a violation of this license.

Public Domain

These are works whose financial rights expire upon the expiration of the legal period following the death of the author (70 years in many countries and in Turkey). Classical music compositions (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.) are in the public domain. However, the critical legal detail here is this: while Beethoven's composition (sheet music) is in the public domain, a sound recording (phonogram) is not in the public domain. Therefore, putting a Beethoven recording performed by a famous orchestra on video constitutes an infringement.

3. Algorithmic Control Mechanisms and Content ID System

In traditional law, the detection of a violation occurs when the rights holder applies to the court and the judge rules. However, with thousands of hours of video uploaded to digital platforms every minute, private law mechanisms by algorithmic monitoring systems .

How does the YouTube Content ID mechanism work?

YouTube's Content ID is a digital fingerprint database. Media companies, music producers, and film studios upload audio and visual files of their works to this system. The system compares every second of a video to billions of fingerprints in the database the moment a YouTuber uploads it.

When a match is found, three basic scenarios occur according to the automated decision previously defined by the rights holder in the system:

1. Mute or Block:The video's sound is completely muted, or the video is blocked from access worldwide/in specific countries.
2. Monetization / Claim:The video remains available, but all advertising revenue generated from the video is transferred to the copyright holder.
3. Tracking and Statistics:The rights holder monitors the video's viewing statistics but does not interfere with them.

Distinction Between Copyright Strike and Content ID Claim

These two situations, often confused by content creators, have different legal consequences:

• Content ID Claim:This is done automatically by the system. It does not directly jeopardize the broadcasting of channels; it usually only results in the video's advertising revenue going to the rights holder.
• Copyright Strike:This is when a copyright holder or their legal representative issues a formal legal notice under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to have a video removed. A YouTube channel that receives three copyright strikes within 90 days will be permanently shut down along with all its videos, and the channel owner will be prevented from creating a new channel.

4. The "Fair Use" Doctrine: What is Believed and What is Real

Among YouTubers, the most frequently invoked but also the most misunderstood legal concept regarding licensing violations is "Fair Use.".

What is Fair Use?

The Fair Use doctrine (US Copyright Act Section 107), originating in the Anglo-American (US) legal system, is a legal exception that allows the use of works without permission from the author and without paying royalties under certain conditions. Uses for criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, and research purposes may be considered fair use.

The 4 Basic Criteria of Fair Use

When a court or platform decides whether a use constitutes fair use, it looks at these four criteria:

1. Purpose and Nature of Use: Is the use transformative? Has a new meaning, message, or value been added to the original work? Or is it merely a copy to replace the original work? Whether the use is commercial or not is also important.
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work: Is the work used a fictional/creative work (e.g., a film) or an informational work (e.g., a documentary or news footage)? Creative works have a higher level of protection.
3. Quantity and Significance Used: What portion of the work was used? A 5-second segment taken from a two-hour film may seem small in quantity; however, if this segment constitutes the film's most critical ending (heart), it may be considered a violation of fair use.
4. Impact of Usage on the Market Value of the Work: Does the content creator's usage prevent the original work from being sold or viewed? If users choose to watch the YouTuber's video instead of buying the original work, then the market value has been harmed.

Myths and Legal Realities

Misinformation circulating in the industry is leading content creators into legal disasters:

• Myth 1:“If I use the music for less than 7 seconds, I won’t incur copyright infringement.” Reality: In law, there are no strict time limits like 7 seconds, 10 seconds, or 3 seconds. Even a one-second iconic sound effect can constitute copyright infringement.
• Myth 2:“I wrote ‘Copyright belongs to the owner, no infringement intended’ in the disclaimer, so I’m safe.” Reality: Writing a disclaimer regarding the copyright holder does not eliminate infringement. This statement does not negate the existence of intent to infringe; on the contrary, it can be interpreted as an admission that the work is copyrighted.
• Myth 3:“I don’t make money from the video (monetization is off), so I can use whatever music I want.” Reality: Not making a profit doesn’t legalize unauthorized use. The copyright holder’s right to reproduce and distribute the work is still violated.

The Situation in Continental European and Turkish Law

The Turkish Intellectual and Artistic Works Law (FSEK) does not have a flexible "Fair Use" doctrine like that in US law. Instead, the FSEK "Use for Public Order and Private Purposes" or "Freedom of Quotation" (FSEK Article 35). For a YouTuber to be able to quote (excerpt) from another work:

• The fact that the work has been made public,
• The quotation should be intended for critique or scientific explanation,
• The quotation should not exceed the amount that justifies it
• The author and source must be clearly indicated.

Therefore, the claim of "transformative use" is interpreted much more narrowly in disputes subject to Turkish law than in US jurisdictions.

5. Legal and Financial Consequences of Licensing Violations

Copyright infringements committed by content creators are not limited to an on-platform administrative process such as video removal. Infringements can lead to serious compensation lawsuits and even criminal penalties.

1. Legal Cases and Compensation

Copyright holders can file lawsuits against YouTubers who infringe on their copyrights

• Financial Compensation (Article 68 of the Turkish Copyright Law): According to the Turkish Copyright Law, the author of a work used without permission up to three times . This rule imposes very heavy financial burdens on content creators who infringe on their work.
• Transfer of Profits (Article 70 of the Copyright Law): The rights holder may request that all advertising revenue, sponsorship agreements, and indirect earnings obtained by the YouTuber from that video be transferred to them.
• Moral Damages: In cases of unauthorized use, unauthorized alteration, or failure to credit a work, moral damages may be awarded on the grounds that the author's personal rights have been violated.

1. Criminal Liability

According to Article 71 of the Turkish Copyright Law, individuals who process, reproduce, distribute, or transmit to the public a work, performance, or phonogram without the written permission of the rights holder imprisonment from one to five years or a judicial fine . Although digital platform disputes are mostly resolved through mediation or compensation lawsuits, criminal proceedings are initiated in cases of systematic and commercial-scale piracy.

1. Joint Liability and Sponsorship Violations

If a YouTuber creates a video sponsored by a brand and infringes copyright in that video, the brand itself can become a party to the infringement. Copyright holders can file a lawsuit against both the YouTuber and the sponsoring company to prevent further infringement and seek damages. This situation has led brands to include very stringent "copyright guarantee and recourse clauses" in their contracts with content creators.

6. Publishers' Protection Methods and Secure Usage Strategies

There are legal and practical strategies that a content creator should follow to avoid facing licensing violations.

1. Direct Licensing and Stock Libraries

The safest way is to source the content components (music, sound effects, stock video, photos) directly from platforms that provide licensed services. Platforms like Epidemic Sound, Artlist, Envato Elements, and Shutterstock offer a wide library of content under a "clear license" (cleared for YouTube/Social Media) model for a specific subscription fee. It's crucial to read the terms of the agreement to determine whether the licenses for previously published videos are preserved if the subscription is cancelled.

2. Platforms' Own Audio Libraries

YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok offer content creators a vast library of copyright-free music and audio. Tracks from the YouTube Audio Library can be safely used in videos. However, it's important to note that using this music on a platform other than YouTube (such as a TV commercial or Twitch stream) may void the license.

3. Use of "Copyright Check" Systems

YouTube offers a pre-screening step called "Checks" during the video upload process. Before a video is made public, the system scans for Content ID violations and determines if a copyright claim exists. Instead of directly publishing videos as "Public," publishers can first upload them as "Private" or "Unlisted" and wait 24 hours, allowing them to detect potential Content ID violations in advance.

4. Exercise of the Right to Counter Notification

If a content creator is absolutely certain that the material they are using falls under fair use, is in the public domain, or is licensed, and they receive an unfair Copyright Strike, they can initiate the legal “Counter-Notice” process. When a counter-notice is filed, the rights holder is given 10-14 business days to prove they will file a lawsuit. If the rights holder does not sue, the video is automatically reinstated. However, filing a false counter-notice is a legal process that must be handled with great caution, as it can lead to perjury charges in US courts.

7. Future Projections: Artificial Intelligence, Web3, and New Areas of Violation

The rapid transformation in digital media is adding new dimensions to licensing violations.

Generative AI and the Copyright Issue

Today, YouTubers use AI tools like Midjourney and DALL-E to create visuals, and platforms like Suno or Udio to create music. This has given rise to two enormous legal debates:

1. Input Violation: Millions of artists' copyrighted visuals and music were used without permission while training AI models. Does using content produced with these tools in a video constitute indirect infringement? (Lawsuits are ongoing globally).
2. Copyright in the Output: Do images or music generated entirely autonomously by artificial intelligence acquire copyright protection? Many legal systems (including the US Copyright Office) exclude AI outputs that do not involve a human element from copyright protection and consider them to be in the public domain.

Deepfake and Voice Cloning

A YouTuber cloning a famous artist's voice using artificial intelligence and having it sing in their own song, or inserting a politician's face into a video using deepfake technology, of personal rights, portrait rights, and voice rights . This represents a new area of ​​dispute where intellectual property law and personal rights law intersect.

Conclusion

YouTubers' and content creators' music and visual licensing violations are not merely a technical detail related to platform rules, as is often thought, but a serious area of ​​legal responsibility at the heart of international intellectual property law. The attitude of "I found it online, therefore I can use it" or "I cited it, so there's no problem" has completely lost its validity in the digital publishing age.