Meta's Rights Manager: Why its copyright access is under scrutiny in court

Meta said Rights Manager allows copyright owners to upload and maintain a reference library of content they want to monitor and protect

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought details from Meta on who can access its Rights Manager tool after a creator alleged that the system was misused to file false copyright claims against his content.

 

The court has asked Meta to place its policy, eligibility criteria and the reasons for rejecting applications for access to the tool on record.

What is Meta Rights Manager?

Rights Manager is Meta’s copyright and content protection tool for Facebook and Instagram. It is designed to help copyright owners identify copies of their original videos, audio and images uploaded to the platforms.

 

Meta, in its blog explaining the feature, said Rights Manager allows copyright owners to upload and maintain a reference library of content they want to monitor and protect.

 

When the system finds matching content, rights holders can take actions including blocking the content, claiming eligible advertising revenue, applying attribution or reporting the material for copyright infringement, Meta said.

 

The tool can therefore be used to manage potentially unauthorised use of original content at scale.

Who can access Rights Manager?

According to Meta, access to Rights Manager is not automatically available to every Facebook or Instagram creator.

 

The tool is available to eligible rights holders, who have to apply for access. Meta’s published information does not provide a simple, public checklist covering every criterion used to approve or reject applications.

 

The issue of access is at the centre of the Delhi High Court case because the petitioner claims that his applications were rejected despite his use of original content, while people he alleges were misusing his work were able to use the tool.

 

Meta has now been asked to disclose the policy and eligibility requirements it applies when granting access.

Why is the tool facing scrutiny?

The case was filed by Mohit Kumar, an artificial intelligence, business and e-commerce coach who publishes educational content on social media under the name ‘Rise With Mohit’.

 

Kumar alleged that unknown persons downloaded his videos, registered them through Rights Manager as their own content and then used the system to issue copyright strikes against his accounts.

 

His counsel told the court that Kumar had applied for access to Rights Manager three times but was rejected without a specific reason. The counsel also argued that creators with relatively small followings had obtained access, while creators with larger engagement and commercial collaborations had not.

 

The court questioned why access to the tool was restricted if it could also be used by people making fraudulent copyright claims.

 

“Why doesn’t everybody have access to it then?” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked.

 

Bar & Bench also reported another observation from the court: “It is like giving the key to the robber and not to the owner of the house.”

 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that fraudulent copyright claims can have serious consequences for creators, including the loss of accounts, monetisation, brand partnerships and accumulated content.

What has the Delhi HC asked Meta?

The court has directed Meta to place on record its policy governing access to Rights Manager. This includes the eligibility requirements and the basis on which applications can be rejected.

 

Meta told the court that the disputed copyright strikes against Kumar had been reversed and that content removed because of those claims had been restored. The company also said his accounts had not been suspended and remained accessible.

 

Meta agreed to reconsider Kumar’s application for Rights Manager access and to provide the relevant policy and eligibility criteria to the court.

 

The court also directed that content deleted following fraudulent copyright strikes should be restored if Kumar provides material establishing his ownership and showing that the claims were false.

 

Justice Bhambhani said similar concerns had arisen in other cases involving digital content creators.

 

“There are some chinks in the armour, some loopholes that have been noticed. We better sort it out,” the judge said.

 

The case is scheduled to be heard next on September 24, along with a connected matter.