Reuters Under Fire for Distributing Chinese Military Propaganda with Copyrighted Drone Footage »

Reuters Reloaded: How to Spread Propaganda, Step on a Landmine, and Call It Journalism

Unauthorized. Unlicensed. And Used to Threaten.

The irony? Reuters didn’t just carry this message — they helped amplify it. And worse, they did so using footage that was never theirs to distribute.

The video included drone visuals I captured — original, registered, copyrighted content — edited and placed into a threatening geopolitical narrative without so much as a credit, inquiry, or license. The footage was lifted from my own work, re-edited, and embedded directly into a scene implying that Taipei — my former home — was a military target.

Where China’s propaganda outlets show no concern for IP law, Reuters should have. Instead, they became not just an unwitting accomplice — but an enabler.

Reputational Damage, Delivered Globally

Reuters didn’t just make a mistake. They walked into a reputational landmine, eyes wide shut — dragging dozens of media partners with them. And they did it in the name of newsworthiness, syndication profits, and publishing speed.

What happened to fact-checking? What happened to source validation, or even a basic copyright clearance review?

A global agency should never be used as a mouthpiece — and certainly not as a megaphone for military messaging built on misinformation and unlicensed content. Yet here we are.

And this isn’t just a creator complaint. It’s a systemic failure — one already setting off ripple effects in courtrooms, contracts, and compliance departments worldwide.

What Did Reuters Pay for This? Likely Nothing.

Here’s where the commercial reality kicks in.

The source of the video was CCTV+, a state-run video distribution arm of the Chinese government. CCTV+ is known to provide free access to “news” packages — particularly to foreign media partners — as part of China’s wider soft power strategy.

Source: According to the International Federation of Journalists’ “The China Story” report, CCTV+ engages in content exchange agreements with agencies worldwide, offering free footage with a pro-China editorial slant — often without requiring formal licensing fees or usage contracts.

So while Reuters likely paid nothing to receive this content...

Reuters and its media partners likely generated substantial revenue from the global distribution of this content:

Reuters didn’t just receive the video—they monetized it through global syndication, in line with their regular business model.

Through their own syndication platforms, this content was redistributed to paying clients around the world. Major broadcasters typically pay between $1,000 and $5,000 per video license, depending on territory, usage rights, and scope.

With multiple known clients reusing the clip, a conservative estimate puts earnings north of $50,000 in revenue generated — from a propaganda-laced video featuring unlicensed material:

Footage that was mine. Used without permission. Syndicated for profit. Framed in a military message I would never consent to.

This Isn’t Just a Mistake — It’s a Pattern

If Reuters continues to treat this as “just a licensing mix-up,” they willfully ignore the scale and the consequences of this act.

Because this wasn’t an isolated slip-up. It was a monetized shortcut — one that benefited from a broken content pipeline, weak compliance checks, and the illusion of neutral syndication.

And that shortcut just ran headfirst into a creator who documents everything, registers everything, and won’t back down.

More Soon. Or as they might say in their damage control room…

“Pending resolution.”

The term PLA Propaganda Video refers to any audiovisual production created, published, or distributed by the infringing parties—including their official platforms, affiliates, and third-party collaborators—that incorporates our original our Taipei drone footage within a militarized, political, or state-sponsored narrative. This includes, but is not limited to, content depicting simulated conflict, military drills, geopolitical messaging, or any state-affiliated media targeting Taiwan. The definition covers any such videos or clips previously published on the infringing parties’ YouTube channels, Facebook pages, websites, or other digital platforms—regardless of whether our footage was edited, reframed, color-graded, sped up or slowed down, or otherwise integrated into composite sequences. All such uses are considered unauthorized and constitute copyright infringement of our Taiwan drone footage.

No license, permission, or implied authorization has ever been granted by us to any of the infringing parties—obviously including Reuters and CCTV—directly or indirectly, for the use of this footage in any form.

Summary of the Article

This article documents how one of the world’s most respected news agencies, Reuters, became the global distributor of a Chinese military propaganda video—using my copyrighted footage without license or credit. While Reuters remains silent, the first precedent has now been set: a major Asian news outlet has acknowledged the full scope of harm—including emotional distress, reputational damage, legal and administrative costs, and the immediate material loss of missing licensing fees—and compensated these in line with our post-licensing practices.

As justice moves forward, every party involved will be held accountable, one by one. This case now sets a new standard for copyright enforcement and industry responsibility worldwide.

⚠️ The warning is real: The first infringing YouTube channels have already been removed, and every next step will be just as decisive. Several of the largest channels on YouTube now stand on the edge, facing imminent removal for repeated violations of YouTube’s Terms & Conditions regarding the distribution of copyright-protected material—some of them have already received two fully justified YouTube Copyright Strikes.*

*Copyright Strikes are official legal actions under YouTube’s copyright enforcement system and can have severe financial and reputational consequences for channel owners. Accumulating multiple copyright strikes will inevitably result in permanent channel termination for breach of YouTube’s Terms and Conditions—a policy to which every creator has automatically agreed by opening a channel.

#MicDrop #RealJustice #RealTruth #RealTransparency #OneManWolfPack #ContentCreator

About the Author

Miroslaw Wawak is a world-traveling filmmaker, drone pilot, and founder of One Man Wolf Pack — also internationally known from the Netflix production “Crime Scene Berlin: Nightlife Killer” (↗️IMDb), where his story was featured as a survivor and main protagonist. Having explored and documented 222 countries, his original and unqiue aerial footage has been featured in international media, Hollywood trailers, and major global events.

Beyond his creative work, Miroslaw is a passionate advocate for creator rights, transparency, and social impact—regularly supporting community projects and defending his original work against unauthorized use worldwide. He’s taken legal action against everyone from international broadcasters (e.g. ESPN, TyC Sports) and tech giants (e.g. Facebook, YouTube) to national icons (e.g. Deutsche Welle, Globo, BAND/Radio Bandeirantes)—even religious institutions—when they violated his copyright.

Through exposing countless violations of his copyright and collaborating with top intellectual property attorneys around the globe—including landmark legal battles from Europe to the Americas and as far as Bermuda—Miroslaw Wawak has acquired an unmatched expertise in defending his rights and bringing every discovered infringement to justice.

His most recent victory in a precedent-setting case against the BAND network in Brazil proved not only the financial strength but also the strategic determination and domination behind his enforcement efforts.

↑ Back to Top