On 24 July 2017, a Content ID claim was generated upon upload of a musical work to YouTube.

 

The claim remained active for thirty days.

 

The process required to understand the system that produced it extended over eight years.

 

→ View the Investigation

→ Review Supporting Exhibits

 

 

The Claim (Court Record)

 

On 24 July 2017, following upload of a musical work to YouTube, the platform’s Content ID system generated a match.

The Court recorded:

 

– a “play match” between the work and a segment lasting 1 minute 52 seconds
– that monetisation from the video would go to the claimant

 

The claimant was identified as SGAE_CS and The Royalty Network.

 

A dispute was submitted through the YouTube system, which indicated a 30-day review window.

 

On the final day of that period, the visible trace of the claim was no longer present in the interface, and no outcome was communicated.

 

 

Chronology

 

2016 — Creation
Composition recorded and first made publicly available

 

2017 — Claim
Content ID match applied on upload; monetisation active during dispute period

 

23 August 2017 — Claim Expiry
Claim reached the end of the 30-day review window
No outcome communicated; claim no longer visible in the interface

 

2018 — Registry
Publishing and registry structures confirmed

 

2021 — Data Disclosure
User-accessible exports did not include pre–23 August 2017 claim data

 

2024 — Adjournment
“Exceptionally… I agreed to an adjournment to allow him to find and to file further evidence.”

 

2025 — Judicial Recognition
The Court recorded that it had no reason to doubt authorship and ownership, and that the similarities identified were sufficient to establish an arguable case of copyright infringement.

 

→ Read the Book

 

 

 

Data Boundary

 

Following a Subject Access Request and subsequent disclosure:

 

– data was provided through a legal retrieval mechanism

– certain claim and monetisation records were not present in user-accessible data

– data may be retained within internal systems for business and legal purposes

 

This reflects a distinction between:

– interface-visible records

– exported account data

– internally retained system data

 

 

Position

 

This page presents a documented system record.

 

It reflects:

 

– observable events

– preserved materials

– procedural findings

 

It does not assign intention.

It does not attribute blame.

It records system behaviour.

 

 

 

Contact

 

For professional, academic, or other enquiries:

info@mechanicalpublishing.com