.

/watch?v=mbNyznJprMg < is the audio royalty free (and if so do you state all necessary clauses in the description?

/watch?v=yvdH3vW2frw < Remixes don't fall under fair use. If you didn't write the original, you can't use it without permission

Also check your settings. Is everything in good standing? Any outstanding copyright claims or strikes going on?
 
Contact Socialblade that you own rights to it and you ask permission from Pewdiepie and other Youtubers as you said. Maybe it will help you
 
Frankie said:
It's called copyright law. If you remix a Lady Gaga song, it ain't fair use.
Click to expand...

According to copyright.gov, fair use is determined by:
  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
It makes the difference if a Lady Gaga song is remixed to simply make a profit, or to promote awareness for a charity. Whether is it a long sample or a short snippet/interpolation, as well as if it competes with the original work if it is for profit all need to be taken into account of as well.

"It ain't fair use" is a fairly brash thing to say because you fail to specify the remix's correlation (or lack thereof) to any of these pillars for fair use. You could be wrong or correct; but since you left this in the unknown it would be silly to draw this conclusion.

Copyright law is a pain either way; which is why it is more concisely decided by a judge than us.

With that said, networks occasionally play the role of the arbitrator when it comes to copyright because they do not want someone in their network who is bound to be a liability for them. Even though there are clauses in the contracts partners sign that make partners assume responsibility for their own content, they don't want to make money off of content that's infringing copyright because it makes the network look bad, especially to YouTube.

I wouldn't blame you for taking that stance, though, that remixes are not fair use. The video I linked is fairly recent and is supposed to replace the Happy Tree Friends one which didn't go into as much detail about fair use.

Hopefully you don't take my response as a disrespect to your authoritah; mods can get it wrong sometimes! Hopefully it's been an enlightening experience for you. As commentators, we often rely on fair use to publish and monetize our content, so it is always good to be familiar with the law of the land.
 
Just an added note on the topic of fair use. Fair use doesn't by necessity indicate royalty free.

Weird Al doesn't technically have to ask permission to do the parodies that he makes (he does ask permission as it happens, but isn't legally required to do so). However, he does have to pay royalties when he makes money.

So, a remix can be fair use, but that doesn't necessarily free you from financial obligations.
 
Tarmack said:
Just an added note on the topic of fair use. Fair use doesn't by necessity indicate royalty free.

Weird Al doesn't technically have to ask permission to do the parodies that he makes (he does ask permission as it happens, but isn't legally required to do so). However, he does have to pay royalties when he makes money.

So, a remix can be fair use, but that doesn't necessarily free you from financial obligations.
Click to expand...

Great post, I was waiting for someone to point that out.

This goes back to whether or not the remixed work competes with the original on a market basis. Since parody (what Weird Al does) is held to a stronger standard of fair use than mere satire or a derivative work (such as remixes outright), you're right, he is under no obligation to pay royalties to these artists or the labels who own their music. He does it anyway, though, because it's a polite thing to do. An artist does not need to obtain a license or royalties for a parody to be fair use though, refer to Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., where a judge ruled that just because a sample makes a parodying artist money, it does not automatically make the use unfair. Commerical usage is only one factor of the four pointed out in my post above that need to be taken into account for fair use.

Going back to what Frankie said in a slightly different scenario; selling a Lady Gaga remix (as in, a mashup) would likely be considered unfair (but possibly not if it were distributed for free and the use minimal), whereas a mere parody of Born This Way could be ruled as fair, even without a license.

Ultimately it is up for a judge to rule whether a use is fair or not, should it come to a lawsuit. I believe the reason why everyone has become an arbitrator of fair use is because the law is widely seen as subjective, and of course we don't want to see people getting strikes that they don't know how to respond to. What I hope to do by posting here is clarifying this and expand everyone's horizons instead of seeing these vague black-and-white answers all the time.

beer3master said:
I contacted SocialBlade Support and I think it was another automated message. They didn't say why they rejected. They only gave me a link to partner.makerstudios.com or something like that. What should I do?
Click to expand...

New support system; their last one wasn't all that good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top