Fair Use?

[Zelig]

Seems to be from what I've observed. It seems the vast majority of DCMA requests and copyright infringement complaints are against Youtubers that monetize their videos.

Again, what youtube prohibits is much broader than what is legal.

 

[Commodore]

Well, as I pointed out in my post, that's simply not right. Since you mentioned Angry Joe and the like though, I'm sure you're aware that he usually gets his videos restored because he has not broken the law on fair use, but whoever's claiming the copyright is probably doing it cynically, either to shut down negative commentary or to grab the revenue off popular videos.

Yeah, he does get his videos restored eventually, but he, by his own admission, loses out on a lot of revenue while the videos are down. So it seems to me, the best way to avoid that headache and distress would be to just focus on creating original content and avoid using anything that could be considered copyrighted material in your videos.

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, he does get his videos restored eventually, but he, by his own admission, loses out on a lot of revenue while the videos are down. So it seems to me, the best way to avoid that headache and distress would be to just focus on creating original content and avoid using anything that could be considered copyrighted material in your videos.

I consider everything on youtube to be under copyright to me.

Nonsense considerations shouldn't be pandered to.

 

[BvBPL]

Not to mention most people who post Let's Play videos try to monetize them. For Fair Use to apply, one cannot be attempting to make financial gain from the copyrighted material unless they have the express permission of the copyright owner.

Actually, you can lawfully claim fair use for a commercial purpose, but it has to be very limited and quite transformative. Commercial reviews, for example, do not need to be licensed by the creator if the use of the source material is limited.

Let's Plays, however, do not represent a limited use of the source material at all. So even if it was totally non-commercial, most Let's Plays would fail on a fair use copyright analysis.

 

[Commodore]

Actually, you can lawfully claim fair use for a commercial purpose, but it has to be very limited and quite transformative. Commercial reviews, for example, do not need to be licensed by the creator if the use of the source material is limited.

Let's Plays, however, do not represent a limited use of the source material at all. So even if it was totally non-commercial, most Let's Plays would fail on a fair use copyright analysis.

It's the Let's Play videos I'm referring to. You got these Youtubers who are just trying to take the lazy way out of life by trying to monetize videos of their game sessions, and then wonder why they are getting slapped with DCMA takedown requests.

 

[wolfigor]

Let's Plays, however, do not represent a limited use of the source material at all. So even if it was totally non-commercial, most Let's Plays would fail on a fair use copyright analysis.

As far as I know it was not really tested in court, so this is one of the interpretations.
One could equate LetsPlay video to showing an entire movie with personal commentary instead of original audio.

However in a game there is player action: is it transformative enough?

What is instead of showing the full game length I show only key parts in a montage (maybe from different sessions)?

What if there are comparisons to other games (videos)?

I my personal view it isn't all black and white.


Anyway, the biggest problem is that it was not tested in court and it's unlikely that it will ever be.

Most people do not have the cash reserves and money to go to court against a big company.
As soon as there is DMCA take-down request, people will bow regardless if their work could be fair use.

1. It's not too difficult to find hosts who put some effort into tossing spurious DMCA complaints.
2. I'm not suggesting publish infringing content, content under fair use specifically does not infringe, and I wish more lawsuits were brought against publishers so that the copyright holders would lose the cases and establish precedence.
3. Someone's always paying for the bandwidth.



I would say it's "not very practical" rather than "horrible" - which mostly indicates the sad state of affairs with the copyright chilling effect.

Since YouTube isn't an option anyway (since they'll remove your non-infringing content if big media doesn't like it), your choice is between "not very practical" and "not at all".

It's an horrible suggestion when given to someone who has no clue about what are the potential consequences..

It's impractical for others.

YouTube offers the easy way to monetise videos: uploaders do not have to care about hosting, quality of service, scalability, deals with advertisers, transactions, and so on.
Building your own service then you have to do all by yourself.
It's not impossible but it's an extra overhead that takes lot of time and resources to do right.

2. I'm not suggesting publish infringing content, content under fair use specifically does not infringe, and I wish more lawsuits were brought against publishers so that the copyright holders would lose the cases and establish precedence.

I agree with this sentiment.
Completely.

The main issue it's practical.
One may reject the takedown request, sure of being on the right side of fair use.
But going to court is insanely expensive even when you win... and you can never be 100% sure you are going to win.

This is the real power of corporations: they have the money to go to court, while the average person does not.
The cost of litigation is the biggest problem.

 

[Zelig]

But going to court is insanely expensive even when you win... and you can never be 100% sure you are going to win.

I'm in favour of mass self-representation (not just for copyright disputes, for everything) to clog up the courts in order to force reform on this front.

 

[Samson]

Yeah, he does get his videos restored eventually, but he, by his own admission, loses out on a lot of revenue while the videos are down. So it seems to me, the best way to avoid that headache and distress would be to just focus on creating original content and avoid using anything that could be considered copyrighted material in your videos.

That is one way. Another would be, that if you are in business, then do not use a free 3rd party hosting over which you have no control.