RightsWatch

A proposed workflow for finding possible pirated videos and sending them for review.

Result so far

A workflow blueprint covering search, match scoring, failure handling and human review. It has not been deployed as an enforcement product.

My contribution

I researched the sector and designed the search and review workflow. That included a three-signal score for ranking possible matches and a plan for timeouts and rate limits.

01 / The problem

Where it started.

While researching vertical micro-dramas, I looked at how a rights owner could find possible copies online. Search results can look similar without being infringements, so a match needs to be checked before anyone acts on it.

The decision

Use automation to find and rank possible matches. Have a reviewer check the original material before escalating a case.

02 / The approach

How I worked through it.

01
Start with a title or item in the rights catalogue.
02
Search Google and YouTube for possible matches.
03
Put the results into a consistent format and score them using three signals.
04
Send possible matches for review and handle failed searches through retry or review.

Workflow

The proposed workflow

01Trigger
Start from a defined title or rights-catalogue item.
02Search
Retrieve candidate pages and videos.
03Score
Combine three signals to prioritise review.
04Decide
Require a human source check before escalation.

03 / The evidence

What the work produced.

Discovery

2 channelsThe blueprint searches Google and YouTube.

Prioritisation

3 signalsNo single similarity signal is treated as proof.

Final gate

HumanA reviewer checks the source material before escalation.

Failure state

ExplicitTimeouts and rate limits are routed for retry or review rather than silently dropped.

This case documents the proposed workflow and review steps.

04 / Looking back

What I took away.

The design makes the review step explicit. The score still needs testing against labelled examples before it can be relied on to prioritise cases.

A similar title or video is a reason to investigate; it does not establish infringement.
The workflow also needs to say what happens when a search fails or a reviewer is unsure.

What I would measure next

Test the thresholds on labelled examples. Count false positives and missed matches, and compare where reviewers disagree.

Scope & confidentiality

The public case shows the workflow logic without publishing private rights catalogues, credentials or enforcement records.