What Can YouTube Plagiarism Victims Do?

Earlier this week, YouTuber hbomberguy posted a 3-hour, 51-minute video essay about plagiarism on YouTube. The video examined five different cases of plagiarism, two of which involved popular YouTubers that he accused of ongoing plagiarism.

On Tuesday, I broke down the video and examined many of the broader points that hbomberguy was making about plagiarism, many of which were excellent but some needed clarification or adjustment. 

Still, the fallout from the video is still settling, and we have no way of knowing what, if anything, is next for the YouTubers featured in the video. This a particularly thorny question for YouTubers Iilluminaughti and James Somerton, the two that hbomberguy focused on that were both active on the site and the alleged plagiarism seemed to be ongoing.

However, there’s one group that has received precious little attention: The victims.

As I found out in the aftermath of the Jumi Bello case, this is not uncommon. When dealing with cases of plagiarism, in particular cases of celebrity plagiarism, it’s common for victims to be largely ignored as they focus in on the plagiarist rather than the people they took from. 

So, what about the victims? What, if anything, can they do? Since hbomberguy has already brought as much public attention to the issue as possible, what possible recourse do they have?

To answer that, we have to look into the messy overlap between plagiarism and copyright law. There, we find out just how complicated this issue is.

The Difference Between Copyright and Plagiarism 

Copyright and plagiarism are two very different concepts that, while sharing a great deal of overlap, also have significant differences.

Plagiarism deals solely with attribution and looks solely at whether a work is correctly and fully cited. Though attribution standards vary from medium to medium and audience to audience, in general, there’s an expectation that one will cite their ideas and information as well as any reused expression, such as quotes or video clips.

Copyright, on the other hand, looks solely at the act of copying. It’s meant to protect the commercial rights to a work, such as the rights to make copies, license derivative works and so forth. Importantly, copyright only protects the expression of a work, not the idea or information that went into it.

As such, it’s easy to see how the two have a great deal of overlap. If you take one of my articles and publish elsewhere or turn it into a script for a video without attribution, the case is both an example of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

However, if you only take a sentence or two or if you paraphrase correctly and only the facts or ideas are present, while it is likely still a plagiarism, it may not be a copyright infringement.

This is something that you see in hbomberguy’s video itself. Of all the cases he discussed, including several that had been resolved one way or another, only one involved a copyright issue: The Internet Historian.

In that section of the video, hbomberguy alleged that Internet Historian had copied extensively, including heavy verbatim copying, from an article in Mental Floss. This prompted Mental Floss, or rather their parent company, to file a copyright claim on the video, forcing the video to be rewritten heavily and reuploaded with attribution.

This was a clear overlap between the two. The video made extensive use of the article throughout, copying both information and verbiage. Though the lack of attribution made it a plagiarism, it would almost certainly have been a copyright infringement even if it had been properly attributed from the start.

So what about the other victims of plagiarism? That is where things get a bit more complicated.

Every Victim is a Different Story

One of that makes this challenging is that every victim is, essentially, in a different place when it comes to copyright law. 

Some, like the Netflix’s documentary on the Fyre Festival mentioned during the Iilluminaughtii section, had significant amounts used verbatim, unattributed use of footage and the usage was pervasive through the plagiarized video.

Others, however, only had a few sentences or a few paragraphs taken from their article, book or other source material. While there is no clear line, at some point the usage gets small enough that either A) It likely becomes a case of fair use, even without attribution or B) The amount being used doesn’t qualify for copyright protection.

Because of this, there’s no one solution for all victims featured in the video. Some likely have no recourse at all, at least through copyright, while others likely have an easy copyright infringement case to make.

It’s going to be up to each individual rightsholder to examine the facts of the case and determine whether the use amounts to copyright infringement and, if it does, if there’s any desire to take action on it. This decision is likely best made with an attorney who works in the space.

However, that still doesn’t answer the big question: If a victim does decide that the use of their work is a copyright infringement, what can they do? To that end, two paths come to mind.

Copyright Claim

This is by far the most obvious path. It’s what Mental Floss did in response to Internet Historian’s video, and it’s also the easiest and fastest route.

Submitting a copyright notice to YouTube is simple and is literally as easy as filling out a form. That said, you will likely want to compile clear and easy-to-understand proof of the infringement, perhaps using text comparison tools, to make the infringement easy to understand as you will likely be asked follow-up questions.

That said, this approach is simple, low-to-no cost, and can get the infringing video removed from YouTube pending either a counternotice or a (hopefully edited and corrected) reupload.

That said, there are risks. First, you will have to turn over your contact information. Second, the YouTuber involved could file a counternotice with the intent of getting the video restored, setting up a possible legal battle if you want the video to remain down. Third, there’s a risk of a backlash from the YouTuber’s community, though, in this case, that risk is relatively low.

The other drawback is this makes the infringement nothing but a time sink. Since a copyright notice doesn’t grant any damages, you won’t be compensated for the use of your work nor for the time and energy it took to file the notice and follow up on it. 

Still, this is an approach that is relatively easy to take, can result in the video being removed and, if enough other victims also file such notices, can result in the closure of the channel.

The Copyright Claims Board

The second option, at least in some cases, is to file a case with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB).

The CCB is the (relatively) new copyright small claims court in the United States. It allows individuals and companies to file cases of copyright infringement where they are seeking less than $30,000 in compensation and less than $15,000 per infringed work. 

However, there are two major limitations of the CCB. First, the CCB is opt-in. This means that the respondent needs to opt into the proceedings, and many simply don’t. If they don’t, the claimant has to start over by filing the case with a federal court.

Second, the CCB can only hear cases filed against American citizens. Since both James Somerton and Internet Historian are not American, the CCB couldn’t hear cases against either of them. Based on the best information I could find, Iilluminaughtii appears to be based in the United States. 

That said, there’s still likely many similar plagiarisms on YouTube that could be heard by the CCB. If one is considering that route, it’s worth taking the time to closely read the contents of the CCB website, including their FAQs and handbook.

After that, understand the various common mistakes that filers make, and also understand the full cost of filing a case. Taking a moment to parse all this information will give your case a much greater chance of success.

Bottom Line   

Many will notice one possible response I did not include is filing a lawsuit. The reason is simple: It likely isn’t practical.

Though, as with all things legal, this is something best discussed with an attorney, the reality is that a full lawsuit is rarely practical for dealing with this type of infringement.

The reason is simple: The costs of filing and pursuing a lawsuit are rarely justified by the damages that can be won and collected. It can easily happen in much larger cases as well. That, in turn, is likely why Mental Floss opted to file a copyright notice rather than taking the matter to court.

The CCB does provide an alternative venue that, in theory, can help both claimant and respondent save money and more quickly resolve such a dispute. However, it is opt in only and cannot be used to target a respondent not in the United States.

This is a big part of why so many rightsholders, including larger ones with the resources to tackle a lawsuit, often simply settle for filing copyright notices. They are simple, low-cost and, at the very least, remove the allegedly infringing material.

Still, the CCB does remain an interesting option for at least some cases, even if it’s not most of the ones pointed out in hbomberguy’s video.