YouTube Copyright Case Over Content ID Withdrawn on Eve of Trial

Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider voluntarily dismissed her copyright lawsuit against YouTube LLC over its Content ID anti-piracy system the day before it was set to go to a jury trial in San Francisco federal court.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California closed the case on Sunday. Accompanying dismissal papers said each party would bear their own attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Schneider, who has been a strong advocate for musician’s rights, argued in her 2020 lawsuit that YouTube’s Content ID system is available only to large movie studios and record labels, while independent artists like herself are left with few options to combat piracy on the platform.

Content ID is a digital finger-printing system developed in 2007 that allows copyright owners to quickly remove infringing content or divert ad revenue from pirated videos.

Stay Denied

Schneider failed last week to convince the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit to pause the trial.

The federal appeals court on June 9 denied Schneider’s emergency motion to stay the case. It said it wouldn’t grant her permission to appeal a lower court’s denial of class certification for her case, which would have greatly expanded the number of copyright owners who could join the suit.

Without the backing of a large group of similarly affected artists, Schneider would have had to try the case on her own, and the potential damages and injunctions she could win would have been limited.

Infringement Claims

Schneider would have argued at trial that YouTube infringed 27 of her musical works when they were uploaded to the platform without her permission. She also would have contended that YouTube also stripped the copyright management information from 10 of her works.

In her proposed class action, Schneider said she and other artists had been denied access to Content ID, and could only find infringing content through the normal search function.

US District Judge James Donato ruled last month that Schneider’s case wasn’t suitable for class certification because each claim by a copyright owner would “require highly individualized inquires.”

Schneider had argued in her emergency petition to the Ninth Circuit that the lack of class certification for her case will undermine a principal purpose for her bringing the suit: providing a “final judgment on whether YouTube qualifies for the” Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision.

The DMCA safe harbor protects online platforms from copyright suits as long as they have a system to take down infringing content and ban repeat infringers.

After Donato denied class certification, YouTube withdrew its argument that it is protected by the safe harbor. Instead, it relied on arguments that Schneider has actually signed licenses in the past that allowed the platform to use her music.

Korein Tillery LLC and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP represent Schneider. Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC represent YouTube.

The case is Schneider v. YouTube LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 3:20-cv-04423, case closed 6/11/23.