Step-by-Step Guide to YouTube Copyright Takedowns: Protecting Video Content and Literary Works
Introduction
With the rise of digital media, copyright infringement has been on the rise globally, particularly given that files and media can be moved across the world in seconds with the click of a button. Not only that, promising content can be taken in one form – say, written novels, books, et cetera – adapted to another, and published in new format without the original creator and copyright holder being none the wiser that their work has been illegally adapted without their knowledge, uploaded to visual platforms, and commercially exploited without their knowledge and consent and without them reaping the fruits of their work on those platforms.
Why copyright protection matters for Nigerian creators (authors, filmmakers, content producers).
The mechanism of copyright was created so that creators (authors, filmmakers, content producers, et cetera) can enjoy exclusive commercial exploitation of their work for the duration of the subsistence of the copyright in those works. Thus, copyright protection matters for Nigerian creators, as, without the Law’s assurance that their works are protected upon creation, it would be difficult expecting them to create works which would then be infringed upon; in which case the infringers would gain commercially from those works while they – the creators – would lose out on their hard work. This would be demoralizing in the long run and create a dearth in the creator economy, where most creators would stop creating works due to fears of infringement.
The rise of unauthorised adaptations of books into YouTube films/movies and direct video copying.
With the exponential rise of YouTube as a video streaming platform, creators, content producers and even movie studios are specifically creating movies and series to air directly on YouTube rather than having them on the Big Screen or bigger streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video. In many cases, a lot of creator studios release movies and YouTube series that were created from infringed-upon literary materials, which sometimes even the studios and producers that commissioned these works are not aware of, leading to serious copyright infringement battles when their material gains traction on the platform.
In this Article, we will cover what copyright infringement as it relates to literary-to-film cases; the legal basis to have an infringing material taken down from YouTube, evidence requirements which YouTube require for takedowns, and other information that would generally guide creators seeking to have materials that infringe on their literary work taken down from YouTube.
Understanding Copyright Infringement on YouTube
Copyright infringement on YouTube occurs when a user uploads, streams, or otherwise makes available content that violates the exclusive rights of a copyright owner without authorisation. Under the Copyright Act, 2022, these exclusive rights are broad and technology-neutral. The most frequently engaged rights in YouTube cases are:
Reproduction: this entails making copies of a copyright-protected work in any material form, including digital copies stored on servers or temporary copies created through screen-grabbing functions from devices during streaming of those materials.
Adaptation: this entails converting a work from one form into another (for example, turning a literary work into a cinematographic film, screenplay, or audiovisual production), without the knowledge, consent and permission of the copyright holder in the original work. This has become rampant on YouTube, especially among New Content Producers and small studios that make direct-to-YouTube movie content which they make available for streaming on YouTube.
Communication to the public: this entails making the work available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Uploading a video to YouTube and enabling public viewing falls squarely within this right.
Doing any of these acts without the copyright owner’s licence, assignment, or other valid authorisation constitutes infringement of their work. The Act does not require proof of commercial motive for liability to arise, although commercial exploitation strengthens claims for damages and account of profits should the matter become a Court Action for copyright infringement. We have been involved in matters such as this.
Two Main Scenarios of Infringement on YouTube
Direct video content infringement
This is the more straightforward category. It covers situations where an audiovisual work (a film, short video, skit, music video, or documentary) is copied, re-uploaded, mirrored, or substantially reproduced on another channel without permission from the original creators who hold the copyright in that audiovisual work. Examples of direct video content infringement include:
- Re-uploading an entire film or substantial portions of to a YouTube channel without permission of the copyright holders.
- Purporting to create “reaction” or “review” videos that incorporate long, uninterrupted clips beyond fair dealing limits. Many creators exploit content in this form, while purporting that they are reviewing those videos, only for them to upload long, uninterrupted clips of a work, with the aim of getting substantial views and advertising revenue through in-stream video ads that play during airplay of those videos.
- Uploading a work that is substantially similar in sequence of images, dialogue, soundtrack, and dramatic structure to an existing protected audiovisual work.
In these cases the comparison is usually between two audiovisual works. Courts and platforms look for substantial similarity in the protectable expression — the particular way the story is told visually and aurally — rather than high-level ideas. The similarities in concept is usually easy to spot.
Literary works adapted into video or film without licence
This is the more complex and increasingly common scenario for Nigerian and African creators. It arises when a novella, novel, short story, or other literary work is turned into a YouTube film, series, or short movie without the author’s or copyright owner’s authorisation or even knowledge of the adaptation. The exclusive right of adaptation is engaged the moment a screenplay is written or a film is produced that takes the original literary expression and translates it into dramatic or cinematographic form. We are seeing rising instances of this in [YouTube] movies and series in recent times, as many scriptwriters churn out scripts either without working knowledge of copyright and how set-down expressions are protected, or with working knowledge of same but without a care in the world for how their actions affect the copyright holders as they commercially exploit these works without the knowledge and consent of the copyright holders in those literary works.
Key features of this category include:
- The original work is a literary work that’s been published for public consumption; that’s how the infringers know of its existence and then work to infringe on same.
- The allegedly infringing work is audiovisual [which is then uploaded on a streaming platform such as YouTube]
- The claim rests on the taking of the original’s distinctive narrative structure, characterisation, specific plot sequences, dialogue patterns, atmospheric devices, and other expressive elements, not merely the title or general subject matter, and then adapting all these structures/elements into audiovisual material they intend to commercially exploit for commercial gain.
This is precisely the type of claim that arises when a published novella, short story, or Novel is adapted into a YouTube feature film without a licence agreement, credit, or payment to the copyright holder [author] of the work they adapted.
Idea versus Expression: The Critical Distinction in Book-to-Film Claims
Copyright standards are almost generally identical worldwide, and it is easy to pinpoint what’s precisely protected no matter the Jurisdiction in play. Nigerian copyright law, consistent with international standards, protects only the definite expression of ideas which has been set down in a medium, not the ideas themselves. This distinction is decisive in literary-to-film cases, as the mere “copying” of ideas does not amount to infringement; rather, the copying of the expression of the ideas is what amounts to infringement if done without the knowledge and authorization of the copyright holder.
A successful claim requires proof that the defendant took a substantial part of this protected expression, not merely that both works share a similar idea, name or genre. Courts examine the works as a whole and ask whether an ordinary reasonable person would recognise the film as having appropriated the original literary work’s creative expression of an idea or set of ideas.
Where this happens, the original copyright holder can move to protect their intellectual property by initiating Platform takedowns and Actions at the Federal High Court for copyright infringement. The strength of any plaintiff’s claim turns on careful documentary evidence of the original literary work’s publication, the detailed comparison of expressive elements, and proof that the adaptation was made without [their] authorisation.
Understanding these distinctions allows rights holders to frame accurate notices, gather the right evidence, and avoid overreaching claims that rest only on unprotected ideas that are not protected by law. It also helps creators recognise when their own work risks infringing existing literary rights.
Legal Foundation for Takedowns
Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 – exclusive rights of authors and owners.
A copyright holder’s rights in Nigeria is grounded in the provisions of the Nigerian Copyright Act, which grants exclusive rights to owners to publish, broadcast, adapt, or commercially exploit their copyright-protected works. As such, any other person or Entity that wishes to do so must get a licence from the copyright holder, and failure to do so amounts to infringement under the law, which the copyright holder can action whether through takedowns or Action at the Federal High Court for copyright infringement.
YouTube’s Copyright policies and the DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system
YouTube is a platform owned and managed by a US entity, and it has its copyright policies and DMCA notice-and-takedown system that allows copyright holders to initiate takedown notices against uploaded works that infringe on their copyright. Nigeria is not a DMCA jurisdiction, but YouTube has a global copyright policy, and it applies its global copyright policy under the DMCA to take down infringing content off of its platform if the initiator of the Notice presents cognizable evidence that their work has been infringed through an upload to the Platform. It simply means that Nigerian copyright holders need not rely specifically on Nigeria’s Copyright Act to initiate takedown notices for video uploads on YouTube that infringe on their copyright-protected works/materials.
Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court for subsequent litigation
In Nigeria, the Federal High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to handle intellectual property rights-related matters, inclusive of copyright infringement Actions by copyright holders against infringers who infringe on their work. It simply means that no other Court in Nigeria has the jurisdiction to handle such matters, and any potential plaintiff has to file their Action at the judicial division of the Federal High Court where the infringement occurred and/or where the defendant resides and/or carries on business.
Preparing Your Case Before Filing the Takedown
Confirming ownership and subsistence of copyright
Before you initiate a takedown notice for a copyright-protected work, you have to first confirm that you actually do own the copyright in the work you are seeking to protect; or, that you are an actual authorized representative [agent, attorney] of the copyright holder of such work. Once that is established, the next step is simple: copyright still subsists in the work. Where the work is a literary work, then the term of copyright subsistence is the lifetime of the holder and seventy years after their death.
Gathering strong evidence:
For pure video infringement: provide and keep the following details:
- original upload date and the upload date of the infringing video;
- side-by-side comparisons of the original upload and the infringing upload
- timestamps in the original video which was infringed, including timestamps in the infringing video that are infringements on the original upload.
For book-to-film cases, provide and update the following details:
- publication details (ISBN, first publication date),
- name of author, publisher, link to purchase of original copyrighted material
- detailed similarity schedule (plot structure, characters, distinctive scenes, dialogue parallels, etc.)
- timestamps in the infringing video upload that directly infringes on the book’s content. Many creators may think this is irrelevant, but it is one of the details YouTube’s Copyright team will request for, to process any copyright takedown notice for an infringing video on its platform.
Step-by-Step Process for Filing a YouTube Copyright Takedown Notice
To initiate takedown proceedings for an infringing video on YouTube, a creator can take either of three routes:
- to use the Report feature on YouTube’s Copyright Center, which involves using YouTube’s webform to report the infringement;
- to write to the YouTube Copyright team via electronic mail and provide all necessary details;
- to write snail mail to YouTube and mail to their headquarters, with all needed details enclosed in the mail bundle for their attention and resolution upon appraisal and scrutiny of the claim.
Specific tips when the infringement is an adaptation of a literary work
When the YouTube video is an unauthorised adaptation of a book, novella, or short story, the quality of the description you provide in the notice becomes critical. Platform reviewers are not literary experts and will not read the entire original work. Note also that the Platform uses a mix of human and AI reviews to determine the veracity of a claim based on what you submitted for their reference and scrutiny. As such, your descriptions must therefore be precise, structured, and focused on protectable expression.
- Identify the original literary work with full particulars
State the exact title, the full name of the author (and copyright owner if different), the year of first publication, the publisher, the ISBN of the work and links to where the work can be downloaded or purchased by the public. This establishes subsistence and ownership at the outset so there is no guesswork on what you are dealing with.
- Clearly characterise the nature of the infringement as an adaptation
Do not simply say “the video copies my book.” Explicitly state that the video constitutes an unauthorised adaptation of a literary work into a cinematographic work. Under the Copyright Act 2022, adaptation includes the conversion of a literary work into a dramatic or audiovisual form. Framing the claim this way aligns the notice with the statutory right that has been engaged.
- Describe the protected expression that has been taken and attach evidence
Focus on the distinctive narrative structure, characterisation, specific plot sequences, supernatural or thematic framework, and other expressive elements that give the original work its individual character. Avoid relying solely on high-level ideas or genre tropes. Be ultra-specific as to which protected expression the infringing upload infringed upon regarding your work. Be specific regarding timestamps in the infringing upload that infringes on your work; additionally, attach a copy of the copyrighted material so the YouTube Copyright team can review same and make a decision faster regarding your takedown notice.
What happens after submission of a Takedown Notice to YouTube for an Infringing Video
After you submit a takedown notice for an infringing video to YouTube, the said notice doesn’t ground an immediate removal of the video under reference. The submission has to first go through YouTube’s review by their review team – there is no specific timeline for this, although the platform will notify you that they have received your takedown request and are actioning same and will provide feedback when they make a decision regarding same.
During the review process, the YouTube copyright team may request additional information/feedback from you, sometimes repetitively. If and where such happens, be ready to provide all requested additional information to them, as that’s what will help them to process the request faster to see if there is merit in same or if there isn’t. If there is, the platform will take down the infringing video and issue a copyright strike against the infringing creator’s Creator account on the platform, then inform you that they have taken the infringing video down from their streaming platform.
After the Takedown: Next Steps and Enforcement
Taking down an infringing video from YouTube might just be the first step in a broader enforcement strategy, as such takedowns does not automatically guarantee permanent halt to infringement. The same infringer may try to create a mirror channel to re-upload the same video on the platform – you should monitor for such re-uploads and mirror channels so you can combat them instantly as they crop up.
Formal litigation at the Federal High Court
While some copyright holders may be content with having the infringing work that infringed on their copyright taken down from YouTube without further follow-up action, some may not be so lenient with the infringers. In such circumstances they can take up action at the Federal High Court for injunctive remedies, damages, account for profits, delivery-up of master copies of infringing material, among other reliefs. In such cases it can make a plaintiff’s case if they use the successful YouTube takedown as evidence in Court proceedings in order to better strengthen their case against the defendant.
Conclusion
Protecting creative work on YouTube requires a clear, methodical approach. Rights holders must first confirm ownership and the subsistence of copyright, carefully distinguish protected expression from unprotected ideas, gather strong comparative evidence between their work and the infringing upload, and then deploy the appropriate platform Notice for a takedown, then follow through with formal legal court action [if desired]. Where a literary work has been adapted into a film or video without licence, the focus must remain on substantial similarity of expressive elements rather than shared themes or genre conventions. Once these elements exist, it becomes easy to initiate takedown notices with YouTube for a takedown of the videos under reference.
Proactive enforcement remains the strongest protection available to creators. Waiting until substantial commercial exploitation has occurred, or until multiple unauthorised versions circulate, often reduces the practical value of any eventual remedy. Early action preserves evidence, limits ongoing harm, strengthens the prospects of a successful takedown or injunction, and signals to the market that the rights holder is prepared to defend their work. In an environment where content can be uploaded, monetised, and widely viewed within hours, delay is rarely neutral.
Creators, authors, producers, and rights owners who discover that their video content or literary works have been used on YouTube without authorisation are invited to seek professional advice promptly. Kabbiz Legal & Advisory regularly assists Nigerian and African creators with copyright assessments, platform takedown strategies, and Federal High Court enforcement.
For confidential guidance, please contact the author of this Article – our managing partner Kingsley Ani – via email on kingsley.ani@kabbizlegal.com for guidance on Copyright Takedown Notices on YouTube.
About the Author
