IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Drug-dealer-turned-book-author wins round one over unauthorized YouTube narration, (Jul 6, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

But a related claim against YouTube fails—at least for now.

The author of a book about the drug war in Oakland adequately stated a copyright infringement claim against a pair of true-crime podcasters for uploading a narration of the work without his permission, the District Court for the Northern District of California has held. But the court, while denying the two podcasters’ motion to dismiss, found that the author had not stated a copyright infringement, at least at this point in the proceedings, against YouTube itself (Barnes v. Sanchez, No. 5:25-cv-05901-VKD (N.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by Titus Lee Barnes, a drug-dealer-turned-author who documented the underground economy of Oakland in a self-published book titled “Drug Lords of Oakland: The Untold Stories of California’s Most Notorious Kingpins of the 1970s, 80s And 90s.” The author eventually came to believe that Evil Streets TV, a digital media platform dedicated to hip-hop culture, true crime, documentaries, and urban entertainment, had uploaded to YouTube a chapter-by-chapter narration of the work. (The YouTube channel does not appear to be available anymore).

The book's author sued YouTube as well as the two operators of the media platform, Jasmine and Angelo Sanchez, for copyright infringement. Because he did not know the operators of the platform at the time, he originally brought the complaint against YouTube and “Doe” defendants. After the court denied the then-anonymous operators’ motion to quash a subpoena to YouTube to obtain their names, the author then filed an amended complaint. All three defendants then moved to dismiss, leading to this opinion.

Complaint against the Sanchezes. The court found that the author adequately stated a claim against the operators of the YouTube channel. The two operators claimed that the complaint did not adequately distinguish between the two of them as required by Rule 8. But the author’s lawsuit was “sufficient to put the Sanchez defendants on notice of his claims against them and the factual bases for those claims,” the court found. Specifically, the court found, the complaint alleges that that the author “owns a registered copyright for Drug Lords, and that the Sanchez defendants, without permission, posted fifteen YouTube videos that included narration of multiple chapters and original photographs from that work,” That was sufficient, the court found, to allow the complaint to go forward.

Nor could the channel operators defend on copyright law grounds at this stage. The two podcasters argued that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief because Drug Lords contained “facts and historical narratives that are not protected.” In addition, the court noted, they argued that their videos were not “substantially similar” to the original book “because that book and defendants’ videos [were] fundamentally different expressive mediums.” But those arguments, the court emphasized, concern “issues that bear on possible defenses to the merits of Mr. Barnes’s infringement claim—i.e., whether Drug Lords contains original, protectible expression and whether the Sanchez defendants’ videos have substantially similar content—that are generally not an appropriate basis for dismissal of a complaint at the pleading stage.” The complaint would move forward, at least for now.

YouTube. But while the complaint against the two channel operators would survive the motion to dismiss, the complaint against YouTube would not. The book's author asserted direct infringement, contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement claims against the social media giant. But the author failed to allege “any facts showing YouTube’s control of or active involvement in the alleged infringement on the Evil Streets TV YouTube channel,” the court found. The author’s secondary infringement claims, the court found, were equally conclusory. That said, the court concluded, the author would be given limited leave to file a second amended complaint to attempt to assert a valid vicarious infringement claim against YouTube, while leave to amend his direct and contributory claims against the platform was denied as futile.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-05901-VKD.

Judge: DeMarchi, V.

Attorneys: Julian James Ray Barnes, pro se. Jasmine Sanchez, pro se.

Companies: YouTube, LLC

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews