How to Delete Someone Else’s YouTube Video: Essential Dos and Don'ts

Only the video's author or YouTube's administration can delete it. Let's examine the pros and cons of the primary methods for removing unwanted videos.

For any YouTuber, a video represents significant work and potential income, so they'll only remove content with compelling justification.

Negotiating with smaller channels is often easier, even if the video contains demonstrably false information. However, expect them to request payment for its removal.

It's far more difficult to negotiate with YouTubers who have large audiences, even with irrefutable evidence of unlawful negativity. These creators are supported by the platform and their subscribers, value their reputation, and earn substantial revenue from their content, making free removal nearly impossible.

Threatening legal action, applying pressure, or bargaining is a flawed strategy. The YouTuber will likely publicize these attempts, amplifying negative attention and backlash.

This is exemplified by Synergy University's failed attempt to remove a video from the "Stalingulag" YouTube channel about alleged fraud, where the blogger publicized threats of criminal charges from the university administration.

Pros:

• Quick removal is possible if you can reach an agreement with the YouTuber.

Cons:

• No standardized approach; requires a tailored strategy for each individual.
• High risk of publicity.
• No guarantee of complete removal or prevention of similar content.
• Unpredictable project timeline if negotiations stall.

Another method for removing a YouTube video is to file a complaint using the platform's reporting form. The content creator then has 48 hours to address the violation or remove the video entirely.

You can report videos that violate copyright or community guidelines. The latter includes content that is pornographic, dangerous (e.g., drug-related), violent, knowingly false (e.g., unfounded medical advice), discriminatory, threatening, or violates privacy or laws (e.g., promoting terrorism, arms trafficking, or drugs), as well as shocking or traumatizing content involving children.

If the video remains unchanged after 48 hours, YouTube's support lawyers review the complaint. They may reject it or request additional information, such as a detailed description of the violation with links to relevant laws and community guidelines, or evidence of the information's falsity.

Bloggers often resist removal, as their content is their livelihood. They may attempt to circumvent the order by editing out problematic sections or re-uploading the video.
Even if the violations are addressed, the negative video remains, and the blogger gains an opportunity for further attention. They may publicize attempts to remove their content, increasing reputational damage for those targeted.

It's important to note that YouTube support can refuse removal without explanation. Success hinges on well-articulated claims against the video.

The reason for removal must be compelling, justified, and supported by evidence of illegality and links to relevant laws. It can be difficult for those unfamiliar with this process to prepare a strong appeal, making it advisable to consult with YouTube video removal specialists.
YouTube doesn't release statistics on complaint success rates, but available data suggests they are low.

From July to September 2024 (the most recent analytics), YouTube removed 9.1 million videos. Only 225,000 were removed at user request and 60,000 at organizational request, while the remaining 8 million were removed automatically by YouTube itself.

This is understandable, as YouTube relies on content creators. Therefore, it is hesitant to remove videos based on complaints unless they are widespread.

Pros:

• Clear process.

Cons:

• High risk of publicity.
• High risk of rejection by the YouTuber or YouTube support.
• No guarantees: bloggers may circumvent removal orders, and negative videos may reappear.
• Unpredictable project timeline.

If negotiations with the YouTuber and a complaint to YouTube support fail, legal action is an option. However, it's not suitable for everyone.

Going to court to force a YouTuber to remove a video is only advisable if there is strong evidence of the content violating Russian law, such as defamation.

The primary drawback is the increased media and online attention. The media will scrutinize the details, as such cases are often considered "hot" and engaging.

If the plaintiff loses, the media and the defendant will likely create further negative content, portraying it as "justice prevailed, and the deception of person N was exposed."

In short, reputational damage from legal proceedings against a YouTuber can backfire, drawing increased attention to the video, the person involved, and the overall situation, thus undermining efforts to remove the content.

This is illustrated by the drawn-out conflict between banker Oleg Tinkov and the creators of the "Nemagia" YouTube channel, who created a parody sketch about him. Tinkov sued the bloggers, won the case, and had the video removed by court order. However, the trial and resulting publicity caused the video's views to increase exponentially (from 3 to over 6 million in a few months), as Tinkov inadvertently fueled interest in the video.

Furthermore, many YouTubers defended Nemagia, leading to even greater public outcry. For example, Yuri Khovansky published videos in support of his colleagues but was forced to delete them after a warning from Tinkov's lawyers. Consequently, instead of protecting his business reputation, Tinkov spent considerable time and money on lawyers, alienating the online community, whose attention Tinkoff Bank spends millions to attract through advertising.
Ultimately, the original Nemagia video was re-uploaded and remains accessible online.

Pros:

• Significant media attention (useful if the client wants to generate publicity through a trial).

Cons:

• High risk of publicity.
• High risk of reputational damage and a counterproductive outcome.
• Unpredictable project timeline.
• No guarantee that the video will be permanently removed and won't reappear on YouTube.

In summary, before attempting to delete a video from another person's YouTube channel, consider the following:

• You can only delete videos that contain demonstrably false, defamatory, outdated, or illegally obtained information. Removing a video due to dislike of the channel owner or other subjective reasons is impossible and carries significant reputational risks.
• Video removal is difficult because, even for smaller channels, each video generates income. Deleting a video effectively deprives the creator of earnings. The most popular videos often contain controversial content (leaks, revelations, or compromising material), and removing them can alienate a loyal audience.
• Social networks, especially YouTube, are considered platforms for self-expression and free speech. Any attempt to remove a video can be perceived as a violation of rights, even if legal methods are used. This can cause backlash and a wave of supporting videos from other creators.
• Removing a video without publicity is always challenging, though we do have our methods for minimizing this risk.
• Each case is unique and requires a tailored action plan based on the video's content, the channel where it's posted, the client's request, the history of interaction with the channel, and other factors. Algorithms and guides don't guarantee success, so consulting specialists is recommended. We have developed our own methodologies for handling complex video removal cases.

None of the tools for deleting videos from someone else's YouTube channel guarantee that 1) the video will be deleted, 2) the video will not be re-uploaded after some time, 3) this story will not become public and will not worsen reputational damage.

Our Avagard Global team knows exactly how to delete an unnecessary video from YouTube thanks to its own methodology. It allows you to delete someone else's video from YouTube without mentioning the applicant (i.e. the risk of publicity), in a predictable time frame and with a high probability of success.

Our secret to successful YouTube video removal lies in combining legal and marketing tools, tailored to each client's specific needs.

We don't use a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, we find the optimal combination of tools and expertise for each client, enabling us to successfully delete videos, even those from popular channels with high viewership.

We go beyond basic video removal and offer comprehensive online reputation management. Often, a negative video is just the tip of the iceberg, and online negativity extends beyond it.

Our team conducts a full audit of your digital profile, identifying sources of information (media publications, videos, social media posts) that damage your personal and professional reputation, hindering business, international banking, and travel.

Often, negative YouTube videos rank high in search results, followed by related negative content. This requires not only video removal but also management of search results.

We neutralize negativity on the first two pages of search results (the most visible pages) using various tools: de-indexing, legal action, negotiations with websites, and building a positive digital profile (creating new, positive content).

Our comprehensive approach minimizes the risk of publicity and potential reputational damage from future negative content. Submit a request below, and our specialists will promptly contact you to discuss your situation and, if needed, arrange for YouTube video removal services.