02-21-2016, 08:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2016, 08:35 PM by SamuraiGaiden.
Edit Reason: Typo
)
Its no secret that YouTube has a problem with fair use. But I agree with Cool that a lot of people who cite fair use do not know what Fair Use means.
I often see people on YouTube cite Fair Use when uploading entire episodes of a show, entire movies, or entire songs and albums thinking they can get away with it with a line that says, "I don't own the rights to this, I upload it under Fair Use." No, you upload it as a form of piracy.
For instance Fair Use is often cited for Let's Plays, even though Fair Use would give them almost 0% coverage in reality. 90% of the legal coverage Let's Plays get are companies letting them go because of the possibly marketing advantages.
That being said, Cool's right about his location affecting things, too, legally. U.S. Fair Use laws do have some effect on things with YouTube being based in America, but not enough to matter. He is British, therefore he is not protected under U.S. laws, even if he's dealing with a U.S. company.
If he put something up that was owned by MGM and they sued him for it, they would have to sue him in U.K. courts, because he's a U.K. citizen. You can't play it both ways.
And with all that being said...I can agree with RS, as well, because YouTube has a very broken system. Robin's video (the anime one) is a little more correct, but RS's line here is a bit misleading (although, admittedly, it is the narrative the #WTFU people are also using):
They are making reviews and top 10 lists and the like, using media owned by the original creators (or the companies that own them, as the case usually is). Now they are doing reviews, so they are covered under Fair Use and should be protected from these claims.
I don't know for sure in Doug's case because I've never really watched his videos whether any of what he uses is legitimate Fair Use, even if he was American.
One thing I will note, though..
The most contentious would be abridged series, I think. They are...technically parody, however they are also using copyrighted material in what could be construed as a very non-Fair Use way. Creating a comic parodying how insane Connor is in AC3 compared to his father and descendants would be Fair Use, like I did a few years ago on my site.
VG Cats is a good game parody comic, everything they do would be fairly Fair Use cohesive. But Team Four Star, much as I love their content, is not really true to Fair Use's parody protections. The rumor goes that the company who owns it refused to let them continue the series and that's why they aren't doing it. Whereas the DBZ abridged stuff has not been met with strict legal claims.
A good video on things is Adam Buckley's, although he is Canadian so he still has argument against him for Fair Use, but it explains Youtube's content ID system decently well without all the vitriolic falsities that other Fair Use complainers have.
I often see people on YouTube cite Fair Use when uploading entire episodes of a show, entire movies, or entire songs and albums thinking they can get away with it with a line that says, "I don't own the rights to this, I upload it under Fair Use." No, you upload it as a form of piracy.
For instance Fair Use is often cited for Let's Plays, even though Fair Use would give them almost 0% coverage in reality. 90% of the legal coverage Let's Plays get are companies letting them go because of the possibly marketing advantages.
That being said, Cool's right about his location affecting things, too, legally. U.S. Fair Use laws do have some effect on things with YouTube being based in America, but not enough to matter. He is British, therefore he is not protected under U.S. laws, even if he's dealing with a U.S. company.
If he put something up that was owned by MGM and they sued him for it, they would have to sue him in U.K. courts, because he's a U.K. citizen. You can't play it both ways.
And with all that being said...I can agree with RS, as well, because YouTube has a very broken system. Robin's video (the anime one) is a little more correct, but RS's line here is a bit misleading (although, admittedly, it is the narrative the #WTFU people are also using):
Quote:This second video here is very important as the title suggests, because it shows that claims can be made on content that you yourself create.That's actually not the case in either situation. The content claims come from the resources they've used from the media in question. Robin even admits that she used far more of an episode from an anime than she should have in one video and that got her caught. But to say that the videos Anime Network produces are entirely theirs is not technical factual.
They are making reviews and top 10 lists and the like, using media owned by the original creators (or the companies that own them, as the case usually is). Now they are doing reviews, so they are covered under Fair Use and should be protected from these claims.
I don't know for sure in Doug's case because I've never really watched his videos whether any of what he uses is legitimate Fair Use, even if he was American.
One thing I will note, though..
Quote:This negatively impacts the potential market value of the copyrighted work (essentially "why bother buying/renting/watching the movie when I can get the abridged version from this guy's YouTube video?"), therefore the use isn't in Fair Use.Fair use isn't really dictated by the potential market value of a piece of media. It protects critics who might say that a movie is not worth watching or a game that isn't worth playing. It allows teachers to use a piece of media in a class to show, "This is how to make a crappy, unreadable comic."
The most contentious would be abridged series, I think. They are...technically parody, however they are also using copyrighted material in what could be construed as a very non-Fair Use way. Creating a comic parodying how insane Connor is in AC3 compared to his father and descendants would be Fair Use, like I did a few years ago on my site.
VG Cats is a good game parody comic, everything they do would be fairly Fair Use cohesive. But Team Four Star, much as I love their content, is not really true to Fair Use's parody protections. The rumor goes that the company who owns it refused to let them continue the series and that's why they aren't doing it. Whereas the DBZ abridged stuff has not been met with strict legal claims.
A good video on things is Adam Buckley's, although he is Canadian so he still has argument against him for Fair Use, but it explains Youtube's content ID system decently well without all the vitriolic falsities that other Fair Use complainers have.