> BTW, IANAL and all that but I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court. Surely he monetizes his videos on t

> BTW, IANAL and all that but I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court. Surely he monetizes his videos on top of asking for donations and putting ads on his website. Given his number of subscribers he probably makes a significant amount of money from these videos. Also not a lawyer (and I think that Google sucks for not disclosing what is allegedly being infringed and what is allegedly infringing), but I suspect this is not a slam-dunk case of fair use. Running through the 4-factor test (https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/fairuse/fourfactor https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/fairuse/fourfactor), it really feels like a fair-use claim would hinge on how transformative the work is: 1. The fact that he's monetizing it at all (even if not in a quid-pro-quo exchange of content for money) I suspect undermines the "non-profit" argument, even if the purpose is educational. 2. Music is pretty clearly in the "imaginative or highly creative" bucket. 3. He states that he "uses no more of the original subject matter than is necessary". Which implies that he might be using more than just a little (or even all of it). But that kinda seems to contradict what he says elsewhere in the video, which that he "doesn't use any resources or materials which are distributed or sold at a premium" and "every thing I've ever created has been 100% self-generated". 4. The website (https://www.goliathguitartutorials.com/ https://www.goliathguitartutorials.com/) he mentions in the video has guitar tabs and (broken) links to Youtube videos which share names of popular artists and their songs. Without seeing the videos, I would infer that his lessons teach how to play popular commercial songs, which do have an established market for licenses he is avoiding. It's hard to judge because we can't see the videos... but it kinda looks like this falls firmly under "not fair use" unless he's writing music that is only very loosely inspired by the songs it is named after.