8 ms·

To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer

To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.

smacktoward 7y ago
> To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged as fair than non-transformative ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses are fair. (And even putting that aside, using a portion of a copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work commenting on it could be considered transformative of the original.)
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.
  - Keverw 7y ago
    There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a bit worried something might have had happened to him. I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/vid...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
Teever 7y ago
> There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. Why? Isn't that like saying that law enforcement should prioritize the return of stolen diamond to a wealth person over the return of a a stolen car to a middle class person? Where's the utility in that?
iso1631 7y ago
I understand it's a review of the 45 minute episode, not the 30 second trailer. Having seen the episode, the "heart" of the episode is certainly not in any of the trailers. I haven't seen this review, but 1% of the total runlength for a review seems quite reasonable. Apparently it's quite common on youtube for people to take entire pieces of someone elses work (like 30 seconds of a 30 second piece), say "hmm, that was interesting", and post it online. MxR Plays v. Jukin [1] was a recent case, where they refused to pay the really reasonable license fee for the video, posted the video in full, said "no, not funny" or something, and then sold it for profit. The original video is something like 10% of the entire piece rather than 99%. The couple of question then posted videos admitting they were breaking the law. My knowledge of this case mainly comes from LegalEagle reviewing it [2]. To me they haven't got a case (unlike this angry joe guy), but apparently they might have. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q

smacktoward 7y ago

> To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged as fair than non-transformative ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses are fair. (And even putting that aside, using a portion of a copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work commenting on it could be considered transformative of the original.)

henryfjordan 7y ago
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.
- Keverw 7y ago
  There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a bit worried something might have had happened to him. I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/vid...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Teever 7y ago

> There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. Why? Isn't that like saying that law enforcement should prioritize the return of stolen diamond to a wealth person over the return of a a stolen car to a middle class person? Where's the utility in that?

iso1631 7y ago

I understand it's a review of the 45 minute episode, not the 30 second trailer. Having seen the episode, the "heart" of the episode is certainly not in any of the trailers. I haven't seen this review, but 1% of the total runlength for a review seems quite reasonable. Apparently it's quite common on youtube for people to take entire pieces of someone elses work (like 30 seconds of a 30 second piece), say "hmm, that was interesting", and post it online. MxR Plays v. Jukin [1] was a recent case, where they refused to pay the really reasonable license fee for the video, posted the video in full, said "no, not funny" or something, and then sold it for profit. The original video is something like 10% of the entire piece rather than 99%. The couple of question then posted videos admitting they were breaking the law. My knowledge of this case mainly comes from LegalEagle reviewing it [2]. To me they haven't got a case (unlike this angry joe guy), but apparently they might have. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q