4 ms·

Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.

by anankaie 3y ago

kouru225 3y ago
>100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me
- Izkata 3y ago
  The comparison to the Trump clips they cut with is the commentary.
- woooooo 3y ago
  Clips of public figures saying things are fair use, period. How do you think any news media functions?
  - kouru225 3y ago
    No. As someone who works in documentaries, you absolutely have to license footage of public figures, including news footage. There’s a reason most news media shoot their own footage. If you are commentating on it and making significant changes, then it can be fair use.
    - beauzero 3y ago
      Is that why reaction videos get away with playing a whole clip? I have always wondered about that.
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on it. The funniest thing about copyright issues is that whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      > Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example. And many of those rights-holders only allow it because YouTube built a mechanism that helps them detect these uses and then automatically siphon off ad revenue it generates.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > How do you think any news media functions? Why do you think all of the media responses to viral things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can we use your footage"? If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.
- tiahura 3y ago
  It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair use. Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary, the act of selectively piecing together these clips communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is transformative—adding new meaning or context—it's generally favored under fair use.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Thank you for explaining this. It is obvious if you think about it, but some commenters seem to think copyright can be used as some kind of loophole to shield public figures from exposure of their public behaviour.
  - kouru225 3y ago
    You can do that if you want to risk a legal battle, but Youtube doesn't care about your legal battle until its over. The fact of the matter is that footage can be copyrighted and videographers have the right to protect their copyright. If I go film Trump giving a speech with the sole purpose of selling that material to news agencies and you decide to release that footage on your own platform, then you're at risk of infringing on that copyright. The only way to completely decide if you're infringing on their copyright is through a court case. Currently, outside of unique cases like "response videos," it's common for Youtube to side with the copyright owner. So I'm betting Youtube demonetized it for infringing on copyright.
    - tiahura 3y ago
      I agree that YouTube will often side with the copyright holder - I’m a Rick Beato fan, and there’s a practical risk of demonetization or removal on that platform. However, it’s crucial to differentiate between what YouTube decides to do and what the actual law permits under fair use. YouTube’s policies don’t necessarily reflect a balanced interpretation of copyright law. When it comes to copyright law itself, montage videos of politicians that serve a transformative purpose, such as critique or commentary, fit squarely within the realm of fair use, as established by various court precedents. So, while you may face a challenge on platforms like YouTube, the underlying legality of such videos is more accommodating than those platforms might suggest.

Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.

kouru225 3y ago

>100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me

Izkata 3y ago
The comparison to the Trump clips they cut with is the commentary.
woooooo 3y ago
Clips of public figures saying things are fair use, period. How do you think any news media functions?
- kouru225 3y ago
  No. As someone who works in documentaries, you absolutely have to license footage of public figures, including news footage. There’s a reason most news media shoot their own footage. If you are commentating on it and making significant changes, then it can be fair use.
  - beauzero 3y ago
    Is that why reaction videos get away with playing a whole clip? I have always wondered about that.
- SR2Z 3y ago
  The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on it. The funniest thing about copyright issues is that whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example. And many of those rights-holders only allow it because YouTube built a mechanism that helps them detect these uses and then automatically siphon off ad revenue it generates.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > How do you think any news media functions? Why do you think all of the media responses to viral things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can we use your footage"? If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.
tiahura 3y ago
It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair use. Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary, the act of selectively piecing together these clips communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is transformative—adding new meaning or context—it's generally favored under fair use.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Thank you for explaining this. It is obvious if you think about it, but some commenters seem to think copyright can be used as some kind of loophole to shield public figures from exposure of their public behaviour.
- kouru225 3y ago
  You can do that if you want to risk a legal battle, but Youtube doesn't care about your legal battle until its over. The fact of the matter is that footage can be copyrighted and videographers have the right to protect their copyright. If I go film Trump giving a speech with the sole purpose of selling that material to news agencies and you decide to release that footage on your own platform, then you're at risk of infringing on that copyright. The only way to completely decide if you're infringing on their copyright is through a court case. Currently, outside of unique cases like "response videos," it's common for Youtube to side with the copyright owner. So I'm betting Youtube demonetized it for infringing on copyright.
  - tiahura 3y ago
    I agree that YouTube will often side with the copyright holder - I’m a Rick Beato fan, and there’s a practical risk of demonetization or removal on that platform. However, it’s crucial to differentiate between what YouTube decides to do and what the actual law permits under fair use. YouTube’s policies don’t necessarily reflect a balanced interpretation of copyright law. When it comes to copyright law itself, montage videos of politicians that serve a transformative purpose, such as critique or commentary, fit squarely within the realm of fair use, as established by various court precedents. So, while you may face a challenge on platforms like YouTube, the underlying legality of such videos is more accommodating than those platforms might suggest.