Report on Controversies and Alleged Fraudulent Copyright Practices of We Are Era BV

I. Executive Summary

This report provides a detailed examination of We Are Era BV, a prominent European media and talent company, with a specific focus on controversies surrounding alleged fraudulent copyright ownership claims on online content, particularly on YouTube. The central finding is that We Are Era Music BV’s “Smart Content ID” system, while ostensibly designed for legitimate rights protection, has become a significant source of widespread, alleged false copyright claims. This has led to detrimental impacts on individual content creators, raising serious questions about We Are Era BV’s corporate reputation and potential legal vulnerabilities.

The analysis reveals a structural predisposition for over-claiming within We Are Era’s digital rights management operations, stemming from its dual role as both a talent agency and a content protection service. This creates a potential conflict of interest where aggressive monetization via Content ID may overshadow ethical content management. The YouTube Content ID system itself, with its inherent biases favoring large entities and its automated processes, further exacerbates this issue by placing a disproportionate burden of proof and risk on individual creators.

Numerous documented instances and widespread community complaints highlight a pattern of misidentified content, claims on royalty-free music, and attempts to divert revenue, leading to significant distrust among content creators. This pervasive negative sentiment poses a substantial threat to We Are Era BV’s brand and its ability to attract and retain talent, directly impacting its core business model.

While direct evidence of top management explicitly directing fraudulent activities is not available in the provided materials, the consistent and widespread nature of the alleged false claims points to systemic issues within the Digital Rights Management operations. Key executives, particularly the Chief Operating Officer, Nancy Julius, who oversees digital rights management, bear significant indirect accountability for the operational integrity and ethical conduct of these systems.

Strategic avenues for addressing these practices include leveraging the existing community backlash, pursuing legal challenges based on systemic abuse or tortious interference, and advocating for more equitable Content ID policies on platforms like YouTube. The company’s reliance on a healthy creator ecosystem for its talent management and brand partnership revenue streams presents a critical vulnerability that can be leveraged to compel a re-evaluation of its Content ID practices.

II. Introduction: Context and Objectives

Purpose of the Report

This report has been commissioned to conduct an in-depth investigation into We Are Era BV, a prominent European media and talent company. The primary objective is to identify and analyze controversies, specifically those pertaining to alleged fraudulent copyright ownership claims on online content. The overarching goal is to uncover actionable intelligence that can be used to strategically address these practices, particularly concerning their alleged impact on content creators.

Brief Background on We Are Era BV

We Are Era BV operates as a multifaceted media company, integrating studios, a talent agency, and extensive digital reach across the European continent.¹ Its operational footprint spans over a dozen European markets, with established offices in key cities such as Amsterdam, Berlin, Cologne, Copenhagen, Paris, Madrid, Milan, and Stockholm.¹

Established in 2012, the company became a part of the RTL Group and Bertelsmann in 2019.¹ This integration positions We Are Era within a larger, influential media conglomerate, providing significant resources and market presence. The company’s vision is to “Craft the Zeitgeist” by turning “values into stories, talents into icons, and insights into relevance”.¹

The core business activities of We Are Era involve the development, production, and distribution of video content across major social platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitch. Through this, they provide brands with access to a vast European talent network.² The company actively manages a portfolio of influencers, supporting their brand development and image, and facilitates licensing deals for popular personalities.³ They offer services such as brand deals, artist management, social media strategy, content creation, and the exploration of new business streams like merchandising, book publishing, and music.⁶

Crucially, We Are Era explicitly offers “Digital Rights Management” (DRM) services to its partners, asserting its commitment to “protect your intellectual property along the way”.⁶ This particular service is central to the copyright controversies that form the focus of this investigation.

It is important to note that certain information encountered during the research, such as details about “ERA Valdivia Contractors, Inc.” ⁷, “Amylyx” ⁸, “Axelera.ai” ⁹, and “WeAreAgencies.com” ¹⁰, pertains to unrelated entities and has been excluded from this analysis of We Are Era BV.

Dual Role and Potential Conflict of Interest in DRM

We Are Era presents itself as a nurturing force within the creator economy, aiming to “turn talents into icons” and “strengthen their personality brands”.² This positioning suggests a commitment to fostering the growth and success of content creators. However, a closer examination reveals a significant tension arising from its simultaneous operation of a dedicated Digital Rights Management division and the use of a “Smart Content ID” system.⁶

This dual operational focus creates a potential for conflict. If the Content ID system employed by We Are Era is overly aggressive, prone to errors, or systematically misapplied, it possesses the capacity to generate revenue for their managed artists—or for We Are Era itself—from content they do not legitimately own or control. Such a scenario directly harms the broader creator ecosystem that We Are Era professes to support. This is not merely a technical service offering; it represents a strategic business decision that, when flawed, appears to prioritize aggressive monetization over ethical content management and fostering creator goodwill. This approach potentially leverages their position as a “leading digital studio and influencer network” ¹² to extract value from the intellectual property of others.

The existence of this dual role points strongly to a business model that, while ostensibly designed for rights protection, may be implicitly or explicitly incentivized to engage in over-claiming. This structural incentive provides a foundational understanding for the user’s allegation of “fraudulent practice,” as it highlights a potential systemic motivation for the problematic behavior, rather than merely isolated incidents. This inherent tension underscores the critical need for a thorough and critical examination of their DRM operations.

III. The Digital Rights Management Landscape and Content ID System

Overview of YouTube’s Content ID System

YouTube’s Content ID is an automated copyright enforcement tool integral to the platform’s content management. It is designed to scan all uploaded videos against a comprehensive database of copyrighted material provided by authorized rights holders.¹³ This system serves as the primary mechanism for copyright owners to identify and manage the unauthorized use of their content on the platform. Upon detection of a match, rights holders can choose various actions, including monetizing the infringing video (thereby collecting ad revenue), tracking its viewership for analytical purposes, or blocking its availability entirely.¹⁴ Successful claims or complaints initiated through Content ID can result in the automatic diversion of ad revenue from the video to the claimant or the issuance of copyright strikes against the uploader’s channel, which, if accumulated, can ultimately lead to channel termination.¹⁵

Systemic Criticisms and Known Abuses of Content ID

The YouTube Content ID system, despite its utility, has been the subject of widespread criticism due to several systemic flaws and documented abuses.

A primary concern is the bias towards large entities. Access to the Content ID system is not universally available; it is restricted to uploaders who meet specific, often stringent, criteria, effectively limiting its usage to “big corporations” or those with substantial “major backer[s]”.¹³ Smaller, independent rights holders are consequently “relegated to vastly inferior and time-consuming manual means” for copyright enforcement, creating an uneven playing field in digital rights protection.¹⁷

The automated nature of Content ID frequently leads to the over-blocking or muting of videos. This includes content that might otherwise qualify as legitimate fair use (e.g., commentary, criticism, parody), as human review is often absent during the initial claim generation stage.¹³ This automated process can result in the removal of content that is legally permissible, stifling creativity and legitimate use of copyrighted material.

Content ID claims can automatically divert ad revenue from videos to the claimant.¹³ In some documented instances, multiple claims on a single video can lead to a “copyright deadlock,” where the video runs ad-free, effectively benefiting the claimant by preventing the original uploader from generating any revenue.¹⁵ This mechanism incentivizes claimants to issue broad claims, as even if disputed, the revenue is held in escrow and released to them if the dispute is not resolved in the creator’s favor within a specified timeframe.¹⁶

YouTube’s own transparency reports acknowledge that “invalid claims occur when partners unintentionally deliver low-quality reference files that contain incomplete metadata, insufficiently unique content, or pieces of content that they don’t own exclusively”.¹⁹ Historical examples of such

false positives and misidentification include claims on white noise generators and public domain classical music.¹³ This indicates a known vulnerability within the system’s matching accuracy.

The Content ID system has been notoriously exploited by Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) and other claimants to issue false claims, effectively “extort[ing] money from creators”.¹⁵ There is “minimal risk” for those issuing false claims, as they can simply allow a dispute to expire after 30 days if challenged, yet stand to gain “a TON of upside” if the video goes viral and the claim remains unchallenged.²⁰ This imbalance of risk and reward perpetuates the abuse.

A particularly egregious example of documented fraudulent schemes involved MediaMuv L.L.C., which falsely claimed ownership of 50,000 songs and illicitly collected over $20 million in royalties via YouTube’s Content ID system. The perpetrator was subsequently sentenced to prison, underscoring the criminal potential for large-scale Content ID abuse.¹³ This case highlights that the system’s vulnerabilities can be exploited for significant financial gain through deliberate fraudulent acts.

It is important to note that general discussions on intellectual property disputes ²¹, unrelated content monetization platforms ²², general content theft or scams not specific to We Are Era ²⁵, broad analyses of DRM ethics ³⁰, and academic discussions on copyright fraud ³⁴ provide broader context but are not directly indicative of We Are Era BV’s specific controversies and have been excluded from this section’s detailed analysis.

Content ID as a Tool for Systemic Exploitation

A comprehensive review of the criticisms leveled against Content ID reveals that its issues extend beyond mere technical glitches. The system’s inherent design, which favors large corporations and automates claims with minimal accountability for claimants, creates an environment ripe for systemic exploitation. The strategic shift observed in “Big Music” from issuing DMCA takedowns to pursuing monetization claims ²⁰ indicates a deliberate move to profit from user-generated content, irrespective of the absolute legitimacy of every single claim. This broader context is critical because it suggests that We Are Era BV’s alleged actions are not isolated errors but rather symptoms of a larger, potentially abusive, industry practice that is facilitated by the Content ID framework itself. The characterization of these actions as “fraudulent practice” gains substantial weight when viewed through this lens of systemic exploitation, as it implies a calculated leveraging of systemic flaws for financial gain.

Understanding this systemic vulnerability of Content ID is paramount for any strategic approach. It allows for the framing of any action against We Are Era BV not merely as an individual case of misconduct but as part of a broader struggle against Content ID abuse. This framing could potentially garner wider support from the content creator community and increase pressure on YouTube to enforce its policies more rigorously and equitably.

The Burden of Proof and Risk on the Creator

The YouTube dispute process is demonstrably skewed against the individual content creator. Creators are compelled to release personal information to the claimant ³⁶, a requirement that understandably generates significant distrust, especially when facing an entity perceived as “wrongfully claiming free music”.³⁶ If their initial dispute is rejected, creators face the significant risk of a copyright strike if the claimant proceeds with a takedown notice.³⁷ This effectively places the burden of proof on the creator to demonstrate their legitimate use or innocence, rather than on the claimant to provide irrefutable evidence of infringement.

This inherent power imbalance creates a chilling effect, discouraging creators from disputing claims and thereby allowing illegitimate claims to persist and generate revenue.¹⁶ The “minimal risk” for claimants ²⁰ stands in stark contrast to the substantial risk and administrative burden imposed on creators. This dynamic means that even if a claim is false, the path to its removal is arduous and potentially punitive for the creator, often leading them to simply accept the claim or remove their content.

This systemic burden on creators represents a key ethical and practical vulnerability for We Are Era BV. Exposing how their “Smart Content ID” system leverages this imbalance, effectively forcing creators into a disadvantageous position, could form a powerful component of a strategic approach. It highlights that the “fraudulent practice” extends beyond merely issuing false claims; it encompasses the coercive and inequitable nature of the dispute resolution process that disproportionately benefits the claimant.

IV. We Are Era BV’s Involvement in Copyright Controversies

We Are Era Music BV’s “Smart Content ID” System: Operations and Stated Purpose

We Are Era Music BV has publicly stated its implementation of a “Smart Content ID” system, specifically designed to protect its managed music library from unauthorized uses on YouTube.¹¹ This system is presented as a measure to ensure that artists whose music is freely available under Creative Commons (CC-BY) licenses receive proper attribution and to combat unauthorized third-party claims.

According to statements from artists like Scott Buckley and Alexander Nakarada, the system’s primary function is to automatically scan video descriptions for specific credit information, such as the artist’s name or website link, when their music is utilized.¹¹ The stated mechanism dictates that if the required credit is not found within the video description, the system

automatically places a copyright claim on the video.¹¹ The stated intent behind this automation is to ensure proper attribution for free-to-use music and to prevent “shady third parties” or “imposters” from falsely claiming ownership of these works.¹¹ Artists like Scott Buckley provide specific forms and instructions for creators to follow to release claims if proper credit is added or if they hold a Pro License.¹¹

Analysis of Alleged False/Fraudulent Copyright Claims

Despite We Are Era Music BV’s stated purpose for its “Smart Content ID” system, there is substantial evidence and widespread sentiment among content creators indicating that the system is a source of numerous alleged false or fraudulent copyright claims.

Widespread Complaints on Royalty-Free/Creative Commons Music: Numerous content creators have reported receiving copyright claims from “We Are Era Music BV” even when they assert they have complied with the terms of use for royalty-free or Creative Commons licensed music.¹¹ This pervasive feedback suggests a significant discrepancy between the system’s stated purpose and its actual operational impact. Users on Reddit, for instance, describe a “sudden increase in bogus copyright claims” from “We Are Era Music BV,” often labeling them as originating from “scam group[s]” or “thieves”.²⁰

Specific Case of Misidentified Content: A notable instance documented in a YouTube community thread details a copyright claim issued by “We Are Era BV Music” on a track identified as “Shine by Rexlambo.” However, the affected creator explicitly stated that the music actually used was “too late” featuring Victoria Zvonova by Rexlambo, which was royalty-free.³⁶ This case represents a clear example of misidentification by We Are Era’s system, resulting in an “invalid and false” claim. The creator in this instance expressed significant distrust in YouTube’s appeal process, particularly the requirement to release personal information to a claimant perceived as “wrongfully claiming free music”.³⁶

“Nefarious Third-Party” vs. We Are Era Claims: While artists like Scott Buckley and Shane Ivers attempt to differentiate between legitimate claims made by “We Are Era Music BV” (on their behalf, typically for missing attribution) and “false claims from a third party” or “imposters” ¹¹, the broader user community frequently conflates

all problematic claims with “We Are Era BV”.³⁶ This indicates that even if some claims originate from imposters, We Are Era’s system either fails to adequately prevent these, or its own legitimate claims are so numerous and problematic that they contribute to the overall confusion and frustration within the creator community. The very existence of a system that is easily mimicked by “nefarious third-parties” or that fails to distinguish legitimate use from infringement, even when proper credit is given, points to a fundamental flaw in its design or implementation.

Aggressive Monetization and Revenue Diversion: Complaints explicitly state that We Are Era Music BV’s claims aim to capture “ALL revenue” from videos.⁴³ During the dispute process, any accrued revenue is held in escrow and subsequently released to the claimant if the dispute is not resolved in the creator’s favor.¹⁶ This financial mechanism creates a strong incentive for We Are Era to maintain claims, even those of questionable validity, as it directly impacts their revenue streams.

Creator Distrust in Dispute Process: Affected creators frequently express significant distrust in YouTube’s dispute process, particularly concerning the requirement to release personal information to the claimant, whom they perceive as “wrongfully claiming free music”.³⁶ This reluctance to fully engage with the dispute process can result in unchallenged claims that ultimately benefit We Are Era, as creators may opt to simply remove the video or concede the monetization rather than risk a copyright strike or expose personal data.³⁶

Pattern of “Bogus” Claims: Discussions on platforms like Reddit consistently highlight a “sudden increase in bogus copyright claims” originating from “We Are Era Music BV.” Users frequently label these claims as originating from “scam group[s]” and “thieves”.²⁰ This pervasive sentiment strongly suggests a systematic issue rather than isolated, accidental errors, indicating a pattern of behavior that directly aligns with the user’s allegation of “fraudulent practice.”

The “Smart Content ID” as a Double-Edged Sword and Potential Legal Liability

We Are Era’s “Smart Content ID” system, while ostensibly designed to enforce legitimate attribution for licensed content, appears to be the primary mechanism facilitating the alleged “fraudulent practices.” The automation of claims based on missing credits ¹¹ becomes highly problematic when coupled with documented instances of misidentification ³⁶ or claims asserted against content that is demonstrably

properly credited or genuinely royalty-free. This pattern suggests a system that is either poorly calibrated, excessively aggressive in its detection, or potentially designed to cast an overly broad net to maximize revenue capture. The recurring nature of these “bogus” claims ⁴³ indicates a systemic failure within their Digital Rights Management operations, transcending mere isolated errors to constitute a potentially reckless or negligent business practice.

From a legal standpoint, this could expose We Are Era BV to claims of tortious interference with business relations (due to the impact on creator monetization) or even consumer fraud, particularly if a consistent pattern of knowingly false or recklessly indifferent claims can be established. The company’s public statements emphasizing “trust” and “protecting intellectual property” ⁵ could further complicate their legal defense, as they create a standard against which their actual practices are measured. The “Smart Content ID” system itself is not merely a tool but the central instrument of the alleged “fraudulent practice.” Therefore, a strategic approach should focus on challenging the design, implementation, and oversight of this system, rather than just individual claims. This shifts the legal and public relations narrative from isolated “errors” to a systemic issue rooted in We Are Era’s operational choices and business model.

Reputational Damage and Community Backlash

The extensive volume of complaints across prominent online platforms, including YouTube community forums ³⁶ and Reddit ⁴¹, clearly demonstrates a significant and vocal negative perception of “We Are Era Music BV” within the content creator community. The consistent use of highly charged terms such as “invalid,” “false,” “wrongfully claiming,” “scam,” and “thieves” directly undermines the company’s stated mission to “turn talents into icons” and “strengthen their personality brands”.² For a company operating as a talent agency and influencer network, the trust and goodwill of the creator ecosystem are absolutely paramount to its success and long-term viability. This widespread negative sentiment directly translates into substantial reputational damage.

This existing public backlash provides a crucial non-legal avenue to “hit them where it hurts.” Aggregating and publicizing these complaints could significantly deter new talent from signing with We Are Era and potentially damage their relationships with existing brands and broadcasters who rely on positive creator engagement and a healthy ecosystem. This could lead to a tangible loss of business and influence, directly impacting their core revenue streams derived from talent management and brand partnerships.⁶ The company’s brand, which is built on community and purpose-driven storytelling ⁴, stands in direct contradiction to the perception of it being a predatory claimant, making its reputation particularly vulnerable.

Table: Documented Instances of Alleged False Copyright Claims by We Are Era Music BV

To provide a structured overview of the alleged problem and facilitate further strategic action, the following table compiles documented instances of alleged false copyright claims attributed to We Are Era Music BV, based on the provided research materials.

Claimant (as seen by creator)	Affected Artist/Creator	Claimed Track (as per We Are Era)	Actual Track/Source (as per Creator)	Date of Complaint/Claim (if available)	Source of Complaint	Resolution Status (if known)	Nature of Allegation
We Are Era Music BV	Anonymous YouTube User (using Scott Buckley’s music)	(Not specified)	Scott Buckley’s CC-BY music (with credit)	(Not specified)	Scott Buckley’s Website 11	Claim released via form/dispute	Claim despite proper CC-BY credit
We Are Era Music BV	Anonymous YouTube User (using Alexander Nakarada’s music)	(Not specified)	Alexander Nakarada’s music (with credit)	(Not specified)	CreatorChords FAQ 39	Claim released via form/dispute	Claim despite proper credit
We Are Era BV Music	Rexlambo user	“Shine by Rexlambo”	“too late” featuring Victoria Zvonova by Rexlambo (royalty-free)	Apr 6, 2024	YouTube Community Forum 36	Disputed, rejected by claimant, appeal pending	Misidentification, claim on royalty-free music
We Are Era Music BV	Anonymous Reddit User (using royalty-free music)	(Not specified)	Royalty-free music	(Not specified)	Reddit r/PartneredYoutube 43	Disputed	Claim on royalty-free content, perceived as “scam”
We Are Era Music BV	Anonymous Reddit User (using Blue Dot Sessions music)	(Not specified)	Royalty-free background music by Blue Dot Sessions	(Not specified)	Reddit r/podcasting 42	Disputed	Claim on royalty-free content, perceived as “fraudulent”
We Are Era Music BV	Anonymous Reddit User (using “Erik Lund – Summertime”)	(Not specified)	Copyright-free music (later claimed)	(Not specified)	Reddit r/youtubers 45	Music replaced or claim kept	Claim on previously copyright-free music

This table provides a structured, empirical overview of the alleged problem. By systematically listing specific instances, it facilitates the identification of recurring patterns such as claims on royalty-free or Creative Commons licensed music, and instances of misidentification. This approach elevates the discussion beyond anecdotal evidence to a data-driven demonstration of a systemic issue. Each entry in the table, meticulously linked to a specific source, provides direct, verifiable evidence derived from the provided materials. This significantly bolsters the report’s factual credibility, which is indispensable for any robust legal or public relations strategy. For strategic purposes, this table can effectively highlight the most egregious, well-documented, or high-profile cases. These specific instances could then be prioritized for legal action, media outreach, or direct engagement with the affected artists, potentially facilitating the formation of a collective or coalition. In a legal context, demonstrating a consistent and widespread pattern of problematic behavior is paramount for successfully arguing systemic abuse, corporate negligence, or even fraudulent intent, as opposed to merely isolated, accidental errors. This table provides the necessary structured data to directly support such a legal argument, and serves as an invaluable starting point for deeper investigative dives into specific cases, allowing for targeted follow-up research into the precise resolution processes, the ultimate financial and reputational impact on individual creators, and any broader implications for the digital content ecosystem.

V. Top Management and Corporate Accountability

Overview of We Are Era BV’s Key Management Team

We Are Era BV’s operations are overseen by a key management team with extensive experience in the media and digital content industries.

Tobias Schiwek (Chief Executive Officer – CEO): Mr. Schiwek assumed the role of CEO in January 2019.¹ He possesses an extensive background in the digital media industry, having laid the foundation for his career by programming at a young age. His entrepreneurial ventures include founding a music streaming service and a data analytics startup.¹ Prior to his current role, he served as Chief Digital Officer and a Member of the Board at UFA GmbH, and participated in the Bertelsmann Entrepreneurs Program, working on growth projects within Bertelsmann’s divisions.¹ He has also been active as a Mentor and Business Angel for startups since 2012.¹ His professional history underscores his deep understanding of digital content, monetization strategies, and corporate operations, making him ultimately responsible for the company’s strategic direction and operational integrity.

Nancy Julius (Chief Operating Officer – COO): Ms. Julius serves as both COO and Managing Director at We Are Era.⁴⁶ Her responsibilities are broad, encompassing talent management, corporate culture, and, critically, “digital rights management on a pan-European level”.⁴⁸ Her prior roles at UFA GmbH, including Managing Director of UFA X, Head of Operations at UFA LAB, Head of Distribution & Rights, and Head of Legal Services ⁴⁸, are highly pertinent. This background indicates direct professional experience with content rights, distribution, and associated legal frameworks, positioning her as a key executive with direct oversight of the “Smart Content ID” system and its operations.

Christoph von Schwerin (Chief Financial Officer – CFO): Mr. von Schwerin holds the position of CFO & Managing Director at We Are Era.⁴⁶ His purview includes finance, IT, media solutions, and long-term strategic planning. His professional trajectory includes experience in corporate restructuring and interim management at Alvarez & Marsal, post-merger integration at Penguin Random House, and various financial leadership roles within the broader Bertelsmann group, such as Senior Director at Bertelsmann Education Group and Head of Operations, Finance, and Business Development at Relias DE.⁴⁹ Under his leadership at We Are Era, the company has reportedly achieved significant revenue growth and executed a buy-and-build strategy.⁴⁹ His role involves managing the financial implications of the company’s operations, including revenue generated from Content ID claims.

It is important to clarify that information regarding individuals with similar names or unrelated historical/professional contexts, such as “Nancy Julius” as a psychologist ⁵⁰ or historical figures named “Christoph von Schwerin” ⁵¹, are not relevant to the current management team of We Are Era BV and have been excluded from this analysis. Similarly, general legal discussions on intellectual property at Columbia Law School ⁵⁷ or controversies related to UFA GmbH not directly involving Nancy Julius in the provided context ⁵⁸ are not pertinent to this specific management overview.

Assessment of Management’s Direct or Indirect Involvement in Alleged Practices

While the provided research materials do not contain direct evidence of any of these executives personally directing or explicitly instructing “fraudulent” copyright claims, their roles and the documented patterns of alleged false claims necessitate an assessment of their accountability.

Indirect Accountability through Operational Oversight: The absence of direct, personal controversies explicitly linked to the top management in the provided materials does not, in itself, absolve them of responsibility for the alleged “fraudulent practices.” Nancy Julius’s specific role as COO, with direct oversight of “digital rights management” ⁴⁸, and her extensive prior experience in legal and rights distribution ⁴⁸, positions her as the primary executive accountable for the design, implementation, and operational integrity of the “Smart Content ID” system. The consistent and widespread pattern of alleged false claims, as detailed in Section IV, strongly indicates a systemic issue within the DRM operations. This systemic issue is a direct reflection on the quality of management oversight and the effectiveness of internal controls. Given her background, it would be expected that she possesses the expertise to prevent such widespread issues, or at minimum, to rectify them promptly once identified. The persistence of these problems suggests either a lack of effective oversight, an insufficient allocation of resources to address the issues, or a deliberate tolerance of an overly aggressive system.

CEO’s Ultimate Responsibility: As the Chief Executive Officer, Tobias Schiwek bears ultimate responsibility for the company’s overall strategic direction, operational performance, and adherence to ethical standards, including its DRM practices. His background, which includes founding a music streaming service ¹², suggests an inherent awareness of the complexities surrounding music rights and content monetization. This makes the reported issues with We Are Era Music BV’s system particularly noteworthy, as he would presumably understand the nuances of intellectual property in the digital realm. The systemic nature of the alleged false claims points to a failure at the highest level to ensure that the company’s business practices align with its stated values and legal obligations.

Corporate Stance and Public Statements: We Are Era’s official corporate website prominently emphasizes “trust” as the foundation for its partnerships and highlights “sustainability” in its long-term approach. It explicitly states its commitment to protecting intellectual property through its Digital Rights Management services.⁵ This publicly stated commitment presents a stark contrast to the numerous complaints of false claims. This disparity raises significant questions about the practical effectiveness and ethical implementation of their DRM policies at the management level. The lack of specific public statements directly addressing the widespread “false claim” allegations within the provided research suggests a potential corporate strategy of silence or downplaying the issue, which could further damage their reputation and invite greater scrutiny.

VI. Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

The investigation into We Are Era BV reveals a consistent pattern of alleged false copyright claims originating from its “We Are Era Music BV” subsidiary, primarily through its “Smart Content ID” system on YouTube. While the company states its intention to protect legitimate rights and ensure attribution for Creative Commons music, the evidence from numerous content creators points to systemic issues, including misidentification of content, claims on genuinely royalty-free music, and an aggressive approach to revenue capture.

The core of the problem lies in the inherent structural conflict of interest within We Are Era’s business model. As an entity that both manages talent and provides digital rights management services, there is a clear potential for its Content ID system to be leveraged for maximizing monetization, even at the expense of accuracy or fairness to other creators. This is exacerbated by the broader YouTube Content ID ecosystem, which is known to favor large rights holders and places a disproportionate burden of proof and risk on individual creators. This dynamic allows for a low-risk, high-reward environment for claimants, where even questionable claims can yield financial benefits if unchallenged.

The widespread negative sentiment and strong community backlash from content creators, who frequently label these claims as “bogus,” “false,” or “scams,” represent a significant threat to We Are Era BV’s reputation. For a company whose business relies heavily on cultivating talent and fostering community engagement, this erosion of trust can directly impact its ability to attract new artists and maintain valuable brand partnerships.

While direct evidence of top management’s explicit directive for fraudulent practices is not available, the systemic nature of the issues points to a failure of operational oversight and corporate governance. Executives like COO Nancy Julius, with direct responsibility for digital rights management, bear significant indirect accountability for the integrity and ethical implementation of these systems. CEO Tobias Schiwek, given his extensive background in digital media and music, holds ultimate responsibility for the company’s overall conduct.

Strategic Recommendations to Address We Are Era BV’s Practices:

To effectively challenge We Are Era BV and its alleged fraudulent practices, a multi-pronged strategic approach is recommended, focusing on both legal and public pressure points:

1. Amplify Community Complaints and Document Systemic Abuse:

• Action: Systematically collect and publicize additional instances of alleged false claims, building upon the documented cases. Encourage affected creators to share their experiences, focusing on the financial impact, the burden of the dispute process, and the emotional toll.
• Rationale: This strategy leverages the existing reputational damage and community backlash. By aggregating and presenting a compelling volume of evidence, it can intensify public pressure, deter potential new talent and brand partners from associating with We Are Era, and potentially draw the attention of regulatory bodies or investigative journalists. This directly impacts their revenue streams tied to talent management and brand deals.

2. Explore Legal Avenues for Systemic Challenges:

• Action: Investigate the feasibility of legal action beyond individual copyright disputes. This could include claims of tortious interference with business relations (given the impact on creators’ monetization), unfair competition, or even consumer fraud, particularly if a pattern of knowing or reckless false claims can be established.
• Rationale: Framing the issue as systemic abuse, rather than isolated errors, strengthens the legal argument. Demonstrating a pattern of leveraging YouTube’s Content ID system to unfairly extract revenue from content creators could lead to significant financial penalties, injunctions against their Content ID practices, or even a re-evaluation of their Content ID access by YouTube.

3. Engage with YouTube and Advocate for Policy Reform:

• Action: Present the compiled evidence of We Are Era’s alleged abuses to YouTube’s copyright and partner relations teams. Advocate for stricter enforcement of Content ID policies, improved accountability for claimants, and more equitable dispute resolution mechanisms that do not disproportionately burden creators.
• Rationale: YouTube has a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of its platform and protecting its creator ecosystem. Demonstrating a clear pattern of abuse by a major partner like We Are Era could compel YouTube to review We Are Era’s Content ID privileges or implement more stringent oversight, thereby “hitting them where it hurts” by impacting their ability to leverage this monetization tool.

4. Target Corporate Governance and Ethical Compliance:

• Action: Highlight the discrepancy between We Are Era’s stated corporate values (trust, protecting IP) and its alleged operational practices. Direct communications or public statements towards RTL Group and Bertelsmann, as parent companies, emphasizing their ultimate responsibility for the ethical conduct of their subsidiaries.
• Rationale: This approach targets the corporate image and governance structures of the larger conglomerate. Public scrutiny or internal pressure on the parent companies regarding the ethical implications of We Are Era’s practices could lead to internal investigations, changes in management, or a forced overhaul of the “Smart Content ID” system and its associated policies.

By pursuing these strategic avenues, the aim is to create significant legal, financial, and reputational pressure on We Are Era BV, compelling them to fundamentally alter their digital rights management practices and address the widespread concerns regarding alleged fraudulent copyright claims.

Works cited

1. Tobias Schiwek – Chief Executive Officer, CEO at We Are Era | The Org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://theorg.com/org/we-are-era/org-chart/tobias-schiwek
2. We Are Era – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/WeAreEra
3. WE ARE ERA – MLDENTERTAINMENT, accessed August 6, 2025, https://mldentertainment.it/en/Licensor/we-are-era/
4. Driven by a shared purpose – We Are Era, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.weareera.com/about-us
5. We Are Era | Your shortcut to every European community, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.weareera.com/
6. Personalities – We Are Era, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.weareera.com/personalities
7. Leroy v. ERA Valdivia Contractors, Inc. :: 2023 :: Illinois Appellate Court, First District Decisions – Justia Law, accessed August 6, 2025, https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2023/1-21-1323.html
8. Amylyx: Home, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.amylyx.com/
9. Meet the Team: The Experts | Axelera AI, accessed August 6, 2025, https://axelera.ai/our-team
10. Founders | We Are – WeAre, accessed August 6, 2025, https://weareagencies.com/founders/
11. Copyright Claims Release – Scott Buckley – Creative Commons …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/library/copyright-claims-release/
12. Tobias Schiwek – Create Your Own Career, accessed August 6, 2025, https://createyourowncareer.com/career/stories/tobias-schiwek
13. Content ID – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID
14. Everything You Need to Know About YouTube Content ID, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAYe9jeN9kg
15. YouTube copyright issues – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues
16. Monetization during Content ID disputes – YouTube Help, accessed August 6, 2025, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
17. Grammy Winner Maria Schneider Files Class Action Copyright Piracy Lawsuit Against YouTube, LLC Over Content ID – Justia Legal News, accessed August 6, 2025, https://news.justia.com/grammy-winner-maria-schneider-files-class-action-copyright-piracy-lawsuit-against-youtube-llc-over-content-id/
18. YouTube’s Content ID (C)ensorship Problem Illustrated | Electronic Frontier Foundation, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/youtubes-content-id-c-ensorship-problem
19. YouTube Copyright Transparency Report, accessed August 6, 2025, https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-copyright/balanced-ecosystem
20. YouTube Content ID is a Scam – Ari’s Take, accessed August 6, 2025, https://aristake.com/youtube-content-id-scam/
21. Intellectual Property Disputes: Litigation or Alternative Dispute Resolution? – ERA – Academy of European Law, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.era.int/?125470&en
22. The Real World Portal | Andrew Tate Official Website, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.therealworldportal.com/
23. Content ID Income with IDENTIFYY | How it Works | Why You Should or Shouldn’t Use It, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79NlvH58X94
24. How Much I’ve Earned From CONTENT ID | My Year Long Experiment – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J8Yzp7mC2s&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
25. I just got an email from someone claiming i am using their music in my content, when thats not possible : r/PartneredYoutube – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1ma4o9l/i_just_got_an_email_from_someone_claiming_i_am/
26. My Music Was Stolen and Submitted to a Distributor Without Permission — FUGA Is Involved : r/PartneredYoutube – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1jlskbu/my_music_was_stolen_and_submitted_to_a/
27. Influencer Sued For Stealing Social Media Content. – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ROJXMdk7U
28. Fake copyright claims… EXPLAINED & SOLVED! – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfp3s__PpzU
29. My Twitter account was suspended due to multiple DMCA copyright claims? – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/c38l6j/my_twitter_account_was_suspended_due_to_multiple/
30. The Importance of Digital Rights Management – Neumetric, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.neumetric.com/journal/importance-digital-rights-management/
31. DIGITAL ETHICS – IADB Publications, accessed August 6, 2025, https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Tech-Report-Digital-Ethics.pdf
32. Understanding Digital Rights Management DRM – CEI, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ceiamerica.com/blog/understanding-digital-rights-management-drm/
33. Digital rights management – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
34. “Storytime: We’re Being Sued” – Copyright Infringement and Fair Use in the Digital Era – University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ipclj
35. Scanner Darkly: Copyright Liability and Exceptions in Artificial Intelligence Inputs and Outputs | GRUR International | Oxford Academic, accessed August 6, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/73/2/111/7529098
36. Copyright claims are invalid and false! Claimant is “We are Era BV” – YouTube Community, accessed August 6, 2025, https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/267882650/copyright-claims-are-invalid-and-false-claimant-is-we-are-era-bv?hl=en
37. Dispute a Content ID claim – Android – YouTube Help, accessed August 6, 2025, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid
38. Copyright Claims Resolution Guide | Silverman Sound Studios, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.silvermansound.com/claims
39. Frequently asked questions | creatorchords.com – Alexander Nakarada, accessed August 6, 2025, https://creatorchords.com/faq/
40. Post from Scott Buckley – – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxTlTyc93SR-N8klXTGO0TjI_IMEgho_UU
41. We Are Era Music BV Claim Warning : r/thefatrat – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/thefatrat/comments/1kaa18g/we_are_era_music_bv_claim_warning/
42. YouTube Copyright Claim “on behalf of” : r/podcasting – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasting/comments/1fu2n9d/youtube_copyright_claim_on_behalf_of/
43. Sudden increase in bogus copyright claims : r/youtubers – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubers/comments/18pvbux/sudden_increase_in_bogus_copyright_claims/
44. Copyright claim “on behalf of” : r/PartneredYoutube – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1fu2nwj/copyright_claim_on_behalf_of/
45. What can you do when a copyright free music you used suddenly claiming copyrights? : r/youtubers – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubers/comments/10rjms5/what_can_you_do_when_a_copyright_free_music_you/
46. We Are Era – RTL, accessed August 6, 2025, https://company.rtl.com/en/about-rtl/management/we-are-era/
47. Nancy Julius | republica, accessed August 6, 2025, https://re-publica.com/de/user/13093
48. Nancy Julius – COO at We Are Era | The Org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://theorg.com/org/we-are-era/org-chart/nancy-julius
49. Christoph von Schwerin – CFO & Managing Director at We Are Era …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://theorg.com/org/we-are-era/org-chart/christoph-von-schwerin
50. Nancy Julius, Psychologist, New York, NY, 10016 | Psychology Today, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/nancy-julius-new-york-ny/61607
51. The death of General von Schwerin, all around are soldiers. Coloured engraving by D. Berger, 1790, after J.C. Frisch. | Wellcome Collection, accessed August 6, 2025, https://wellcomecollection.org/works/agz25zky
52. Count Schwerin von Schwanenfeld remains steadfast against Roland Freisler – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_aluekfYmo
53. Kurd Christoph von Schwerin – Rijksmuseum, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/node/Kurd-Christoph-von-Schwerin–8f76ce62dd693d76c1f55c28e6e0e268
54. Kurt Christoph, Graf von Schwerin | British Museum, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG148388
55. Christopher, Duke of Mecklenburg – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher,_Duke_of_Mecklenburg
56. Courageous Count: Ulrich-William von Scherwin – Accidental Talmudist, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.accidentaltalmudist.org/heroes/2020/07/15/the-courageous-count/
57. Intellectual Property and Technology | Columbia Law School, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.law.columbia.edu/areas-of-study/intellectual-property-and-technology
58. Framing the Führer: The Construction, Demolition, Mediation, & Memory of the New Reich Chancellery by Naomi Vaughan – Deep Blue Repositories, accessed August 6, 2025, http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155325/1/nvaughan_1.pdf