Fair Use Reaction Video was Copyright Claimed

[Dewmonic Abyss]

So, I made this video criticizing and stating my opinion on these trending food challenge videos. I used one YouTube video in the reaction video. My video is about 19 minutes long, and the video I used was 6 minutes long. I didn't use the full 6 minutes. In fact, I sped up a majority of it, since the original video was pointless and repetitive, and I left the outro out. So, I might have used about.. 3-5 minutes of the original video. Well, the network of the YouTuber who's video I reacted to claimed my video. I disputed the claim with good reason. The dispute was rejected. I am afraid of appealing the dispute, out of fear of getting a strike. I do not want, under any circumstances, for this video to be monetized and claimed under another user. I am being robbed of my original content, and viewers are being robbed of experiencing it by advertisements. How can I remove this claim? I've tried contacting the YouTuber directly, through multiple different platforms, yet there is no response. I have a feeling the network would have much more power than I, a YouTuber with only 60 subs and unmonetized. Help?

 

[Shakycow]

Here we go again...

First, and most importantly, only a court can decide what is fair use. Not you, not me, not YouTube. If you think you have a case and are willing to go through the legal hassles and expenses, by all means hire a good lawyer and appeal the dispute.

That said, I'd wager that the first person to go to court attempting to say a reaction video is fair use will find a courtroom laughing at them.

It doesn't matter if you showed their full video or only 1 second of it. You still used someone else's footage without their permission or the proper rights.

You admitted to have used more than half of the original work, editing out the non-important and showing everything that you feel matters in it. That alone instantly violates one of the four factors in deciding fair use.

You're best case scenario right now is the 3rd party claim where they put on ads and your video stays where it is. Your other options would be to delete the video or accept a strike if you decide to push the matter further.

Fair use is an extremely gray area, but it's foolish to think reaction videos and compilations would pass the tests required.

 

[Dewmonic Abyss]

Here we go again...

First, and most importantly, only a court can decide what is fair use. Not you, not me, not YouTube. If you think you have a case and are willing to go through the legal hassles and expenses, by all means hire a good lawyer and appeal the dispute.

That said, I'd wager that the first person to go to court attempting to say a reaction video is fair use will find a courtroom laughing at them.

It doesn't matter if you showed their full video or only 1 second of it. You still used someone else's footage without their permission or the proper rights.

You admitted to have used more than half of the original work, editing out the non-important and showing everything that you feel matters in it. That alone instantly violates one of the four factors in deciding fair use.

You're best case scenario right now is the 3rd party claim where they put on ads and your video stays where it is. Your other options would be to delete the video or accept a strike if you decide to push the matter further.

Fair use is an extremely gray area, but it's foolish to think reaction videos and compilations would pass the tests required.

Thank you for the response, but it seems there's a misunderstanding. I didn't reveal enough information which had corrupted your response, so I apologize. That's an error on my part.

For one, the nature of my video isn't just a reaction alone. It's not a video where something happens and I'm like 'That's cool.' It's a video where I criticize the content of the work. Response video might be the proper term for it. And I believe criticism is covered under fair use, though I can't declare that for my video.

Honestly, the 'Here we go again' was simply unnecessary and quite condescending, but I'll ignore that for the sake of being civil.

Second, when you say I violated one of the four factors with the editing.. That's also a misunderstanding, and again, I apologize for that. The factor you're referring to is the amount and sustainability. I don't believe I was using the heart of the video. I was using the parts I could respond to. The parts I edited were used in such a way for comedic value and to help reiterate my points. One of my points was that content such as the one I showed was pointless and repetitive. I reiterated that by speeding up a bit of the video and had an overlay titled 'More pointless, repetitive eating' I didn't pick out a heart of the video. I just kept the start and end, for commentary sake.

And the best case scenario you're providing is actually what I'm trying to avoid. I requested for legitimate advice, not criticism of me and a patronizing response. If that was not your intention, then fair enough, but that's just simply how it came across.

 

[Shakycow]

I didn't intend to come across as patronizing, but this is a subject that tends to pop up more than just fairly often.

If it were an eating video that you used, what would you consider the "heart of the video" if it wasn't the beginning, ending, or constant repetitive eating shown throughout it? And, in what would likely be another factor violation... if someone were to watch your video, would there be ample reason for them to watch the original source?

Criticism is covered under fair use, but typically only in short quotes or segments... a line from a song, scene from a movie, paragraph from a book, etc. Whereas you used the majority of the work in your own.

The best case scenario is exactly what I said. That you're looking to avoid that outcome is irrelevant and it doesn't change that that's still the best case you can look for.

If you're not content with my advice, that's fair.
I'll happily invite @Tarmack , @subversiveasset or anyone else to voice their expert opinions on the matter.

 

[Kelkschiz]

Honestly, the 'Here we go again' was simply unnecessary and quite condescending, but I'll ignore that for the sake of being

Speaking Of being civil. I think it is civil to ask someone before using their creative work in your creative work. Not only is it civil it can avoid a lot of frustration and worrying. Yes a court may deem it fair use, but only if you actually go to court. Barring that the best recourse is to be courtious, if not for courtiousness sake then for pragmatism.

 

[Dewmonic Abyss]

@Shakycow
Fair enough. I'm new to the site, so I'm unaware of what's commonly talked about on the forums. Though, I do believe my situation is unique in several different aspects.
As for what I think is the heart of the video, I honestly didn't see any of that in the original work. All I saw was a stomach, in a literal sense. The heart is something my own work developed. Something I transformed, a message I'm trying to show, that's not in the creator's work. As for there being ample reason to watch the original source, I have credited and linked in the description, since my video was uploaded. Ample reason's very debatable. In my opinion, my video would give ample reason, considering my audience isn't an audience that would ordinarily watch "food challenges". This would give them the creator's name, which I did mention, and an opportunity to see for themselves if my opinion is valid. I'm not claiming the original video as my own and stated so. I can't exactly claim anything can give ample reason to see the original source. It's the same argument with Let's Plays, whether or not these videos give the viewers an ample reason to play the games, themselves. It's personal audience preference.

As for criticism only typically be covered under short segments, I appreciate that acknowledgement. That gave me a little bit more insight into the matter. Unfortunately, it only asks more questions. In the case of a book or a movie, that's a much larger piece of content, rather than a six minute YouTube video. It would make more sense to quote a paragraph from a book, because a book generally has lots of paragraphs, but it would not make sense to criticize only a minute of a YouTube video, as that would not give substantial evidence to prove a point. But thank you for the new insight.

@Kelkschiz
Couldn't miss on the opportunity to burn me, I see. But that's something I have to question, on it's own. I've already tried reaching out to the original content creator on multiple different platforms, politely, in regards to the copyright claim. I have not gotten any responses. You're kinda asking for the impossible here. It's not easy to reach out to bigger content creators on YouTube, who already are at a celebrity status and get hundreds of messages on multiple different platforms at once. As I've stated, I am small. I have no power, influence, credibility, or reason to be paid any heed to, other than randomly being drawn out of a hat to be responded to. There is absolutely no point in waiting and asking at this point as you can only wait so long as a YouTuber before you have to deliver content. You have to maintain a schedule. So, if you have advice on contacting busy, less-likely to respond YouTubers, I would love to hear it.

 

[Kelkschiz]

People making let's plays face the same issue. There are plenty of game developers who take issue with content creators using their work without permission. The best way to operate is to ask first. Getting no answer is the same as getting no permission. If you get no permission then: act, paraphrase, describe,etc (be creative)to represent the video you have no permission to show. Use a couple of slides at most. If you use more than that without permission, then expect what you got.

 

[BoozeandBS]

People making let's plays face the same issue. There are plenty of game developers who take issue with content creators using their work without permission. The best way to operate is to ask first. Getting no answer is the same as getting no permission. If you get no permission then: act, paraphrase, describe,etc (be creative)to represent the video you have no permission to show. Use a couple of slides at most. If you use more than that without permission, then expect what you got.

I disagree with your logic there. It is detrimental to having actual criticism. Do you really think someone is going to agree to let you feature their content if you are going to say how wrong the person is? People do not like to be challenged and featuring some else's footage is the only way to accurately depict their point of view. I worked for the News and they would use whatever they wanted because legally they were allowed to. Of course your way of going about things is the 'safe' and pleasant way. But if you want to make a change in the world, if you want to show how people are wrong in what they're doing, then you have to care about putting out your message, not how people are going to feel upset you said mean things about them. It's one thing if someone just re-uploads your video any monetized it. but actually creating a debate is the very purpose of fair use.

 

[Kelkschiz]

I disagree with your logic there. It is detrimental to having actual criticism. Do you really think someone is going to agree to let you feature their content if you are going to say how wrong the person is? People do not like to be challenged and featuring some else's footage is the only way to accurately depict their point of view. I worked for the News and they would use whatever they wanted because legally they were allowed to. Of course your way of going about things is the 'safe' and pleasant way. But if you want to make a change in the world, if you want to show how people are wrong in what they're doing, then you have to care about putting out your message, not how people are going to feel upset you said mean things about them. It's one thing if someone just re-uploads your video any monetized it. but actually creating a debate is the very purpose of fair use.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

I 'actually' disagree with your logic, if you mean to say that the only way to accurately depict someones opinion is to show a significant part of footage in which that opinion in expressed. A well founded opinion is based on reasons. Both the opinion and the reasons behind it can be accurately paraphrased when done with integrity. In fact when you are criticizing actual footage you are doing the same thing, at least in your head. It is not possible to criticize without identifying the opinion and reflecting on the reasons behind it. I think that when you make the effort to faithfully represents someones opinion you are in fact more likely to change peoples minds. Because doing it like that shows you care enough to put real effort in. Also, If you do it well you are precise and concise, which means you keep the attention of your audience. However if you use the original footage and the argument is all over the place then you are likely to loose your audience's attention.

I do think that some people will allow the use of their material even when it is used to express criticism. Being able to take criticism is a sign of a strong well balanced person. Of course not all criticism has integrity. In some cases criticism is expressed with a motive other than to faithfully represent your opinion. If you grant a skilled opinion maker access to your source footage then there is a good chance he can use it to make it seem as if you have the opposite opinion you actually have. So whenever deciding to grant someone the right to use your footage, trust is an important consideration. Do I trust this person to handle my property with integrity?

Obviously I don't agree that the way I described to criticize is 'safe' pleasant and won't change the world. Because, as said, doing it that way may actually get you the permission to use the footage. But more importantly an effective criticism stands on it's own, it has clear compelling logic and is ruthlessly fair.

On a side note, I am pretty sure that the news is not allowed to broadcast any footage they like without coming to some agreement with the right holders. As far as I know they have a fairly sizable budget to obtain footage. If it were true that news companies could use footage without paying for it, then I think there wouldn't be nearly as many journalists and cameramen in the field making footage.

 

[subversiveasset]

I didn't use the full 6 minutes. In fact, I sped up a majority of it, since the original video was pointless and repetitive, and I left the outro out.

I just want to amplify what @Shakycow has already said, but based on this, I would say this does not sound like fair use. If you went into a court with this as your defense, I don't think you would do very well.

Practically, the only thing you can really do is:

1) Talk to the copyright owner about this
2) Try to appeal, at the risk of getting a strike or getting into a lawsuit.

You may not like this. You may think that this harms criticism (and perhaps it does), but that's how the system works.