The Baptist Press has issued three separate copyright strikes against Protestia’s YouTube channel over our livestream coverage of the 2026 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting.
The strikes target all three of Protestia’s livestream broadcasts covering the Convention proceedings.
The issue raises a broader question for Southern Baptists: Should an SBC entity be using YouTube’s copyright enforcement system against Southern Baptists who are reporting on, discussing, analyzing, and critiquing the public proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention?
What Happened
During this year’s Annual Meeting, Protestia hosted livestream coverage of the Convention proceedings, accompanied by live commentary and viewer interaction.
On the first day of the Convention, the proceedings were streamed through the official SBC Annual Meeting website. Protestia simultaneously provided commentary, analysis, and discussion concerning the actions taking place on the Convention floor.
The second day was more complicated.
The Convention’s official streaming platform experienced significant technical difficulties and failed to begin broadcasting for approximately an hour after the meeting had already started. During that period, viewers attempting to watch the proceedings through the official SBC Annual Meeting website were unable to do so.
As an emergency workaround, Baptist Press embedded an unlisted YouTube livestream onto the SBC Annual Meeting website to replace the failed stream.
Protestia continued its commentary coverage of the Convention proceedings.
Following the Annual Meeting, Baptist Press issued a copyright strike against one of the videos.
In response, we reached out privately to Baptist Press’s Jonathan Howe, seeking clarification and requesting reconsideration.
We received no response as of the publishing of this article. Instead, two additional copyright strikes were subsequently issued against the remaining videos.
As a result, Baptist Press has now filed copyright claims against all three of Protestia’s SBC Annual Meeting commentary livestreams – enough to remove our YouTube channel entirely. Now, we are not big YouTubers, but a substantial portion of our audience uses YouTube to stay informed, and the removal of our channel would represent a loss for Southern Baptists trying to know what’s going on (even those who can’t stand us).
What Our Coverage Actually Consisted Of
The videos in question were not uploaded as passive archives of Convention footage.
Throughout the broadcasts, we provided continuous commentary regarding resolutions, elections, parliamentary procedure, floor debate, entity reports, and the broader significance of actions taking place before the messengers.
Viewers actively participated through comments and questions, many of which were addressed live during the broadcasts.
At times, individual SBC leaders and entity heads were criticized. That should surprise no one familiar with Protestia’s coverage.
However, the overwhelming majority of the commentary focused on the issues, motions, resolutions, procedural decisions, and institutional actions occurring on the Convention floor.
In fact, on multiple occasions, I publicly defended actions taken by individuals with whom Protestia has frequently disagreed, explaining to viewers why certain rulings, procedural decisions, or positions were correct despite our broader disagreements with those individuals.
The purpose of the livestreams was not to simply display Convention footage. The purpose was to explain, analyze, critique, and discuss the proceedings as they occurred.
Whenever viewers asked where they could watch the original, unaltered stream, they were directed to the official SBC Annual Meeting website.
The Larger Question
This dispute is not ultimately about whether Baptist Press can articulate a copyright claim.
Perhaps they can.
The larger question is whether they should.
The Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting is not a private entertainment product. It is the annual business meeting of a denomination comprised of thousands of churches and millions of members.
The proceedings involve elections, resolutions, budgets, entity reports, constitutional questions, and decisions that affect Southern Baptists throughout the country.
Many Southern Baptists cannot afford to travel across the country to attend the Annual Meeting in person. They rely on livestream coverage and independent reporting to understand what is happening on the Convention floor.
For years, Southern Baptists have been told that transparency, accountability, and openness are important values within the Convention.
Yet an SBC entity has now chosen to use YouTube’s copyright strike system against Southern Baptists who were discussing and analyzing those proceedings in real time.
Southern Baptists can decide for themselves whether that is an appropriate use of Convention resources and authority.
Our Response
Protestia has submitted counter-notifications through YouTube’s established process.
We believe our broadcasts constituted commentary, criticism, reporting, and analysis concerning matters of legitimate public interest to Southern Baptists.
We will allow the process to proceed and will provide updates as additional information becomes available.
In the meantime, Southern Baptists should consider a simple question:
Should SBC entities, funded by Southern Baptists, be copyright-striking Southern Baptists for discussing the public proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention?
One response to “Baptist Press Issues Three Copyright Strikes Against Protestia Over SBC Annual Meeting Coverage”
What they should’ve done first was to obey the Lord by honoring Matt 18 and 1 Cor 6. They took action and treated you as a gentile or tax collector without first speaking to you. Refusing to communicate with you and to first try to work things out before taking action is blatant disobedience and rebellion against the Lord and His word. So many these days, including southern baptists, don’t seem to give a flying flip what the scripture says. They’ll do everything but what scripture tells them to do. It’s a damnable disgrace.