The customer is a leading creator network with a library of more than 100,000 videos across the major social platforms. Their content is widely shared, frequently reposted, and a constant target for unauthorized reuse: both casual reposting by viewers and commercial appropriation by other media accounts.
Infringement was happening at tens of thousands of instances per month. The traditional rights-management tooling offered by the platforms (Facebook Rights Manager, YouTube Content ID) had material limits:
Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat receive far less first-party rights-management support than YouTube does.
The platforms only take content down. They do not convert past unauthorized use into retroactive licensing revenue.
Aggressive in-house enforcement at this volume creates direct § 512(f) exposure if review is not contemporaneously documented.
Platforms surface matches by recency, not by severity, follower count, repeat-offender history, or commercial use.
The most serious commercial infringers require a tracked, escalating response, not single-shot takedowns.
Manually reviewing tens of thousands of monthly matches against the four-factor § 107 analysis was not feasible with the customer’s internal team.
The customer partnered with Verights under an opt-in expedited-settlement program. Our work has focused on four prioritization criteria:
Accounts monetizing the customer’s content directly through brand deals, sponsorships, or platform-monetization programs. Highest-recovery and highest-deterrence targets.
Accounts with a history of unauthorized reposting. Escalated on a documented pattern, not on a single match.
Operators running portfolios of unauthorized clips, where each takedown removes many views at once.
High-follower accounts whose unauthorized reposts deliver disproportionate view-count damage to the customer’s monetization.
For each candidate match, our team reviews the claim and considers fair use in good faith — the standard articulated in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 — before any takedown notice issues. Approved notices then flow through the platform’s rights-management process, with the respondent receiving access to our claims portal where they can review the evidence, settle, submit a Review Request, or counter-notify under § 512(g).
As infringers reach out to resolve their cases, the enforcement workflow pivots from removal to revenue recovery: establishing retroactive licensing terms that convert past unauthorized use into legitimate paid licenses. Incremental revenue the customer would not have realized through takedowns alone.
Through the claims portal’s transparent settlement process: published pricing methodology, disclosed multiplier ranges, GDPR Art. 22 human-review opt-out. A substantial volume of respondents settle within the 30-day Expedited Settlement window rather than escalating to outside counsel.
Figures reflect cumulative outputs of an active, multi-year Verights engagement with the customer described, drawn from Verights’s system of record and the partner portal at partners.verights.com. The customer is anonymized at the customer’s request. Figures are reported in line with Verights’s transparency reporting standard. Engagement outcomes vary materially with library size, infringement profile, platform mix, prioritization choices, and respondent behavior; prior outcomes are not a guarantee of future outcomes.
Every material claim is reviewed by our team, with fair use considered in good faith before notice issues, consistent with the standard in Lenz. Maintaining good-faith review at volume is what manages § 512(f) exposure for both the customer and Verights.
Every notice surfaces claim-level evidence, a transparent settlement option, and the preserved statutory right to file a § 512(g) counter-notification with the platform. The process feels fair to respondents; settlements happen voluntarily.
The customer doesn’t personally pursue infringers. Verights acts as the authorized agent of the rights holder under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi). The customer’s reputation stays creator-facing; the legal mechanics happen behind a documented, defensible process.
For honesty and to set expectations: this kind of result requires a library at scale and a deliberate program structure. We do not believe a small library with occasional infringement could expect this outcome. We also do not think aggressive enforcement against good-faith creators, without good-faith fair-use consideration and without statutory due process, would generate sustainable revenue. It would generate § 512(f) exposure and reputational damage instead.
If you have a substantial video library and recurring infringement, we should talk. We will tell you honestly whether our model fits your situation before recommending an engagement.