Fair Use Reaction Video was Copyright Claimed

BoozeandBS

I've Got It
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
172
Reaction score
67
Age
35
Location
New York
Channel Type
Youtuber
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 can accurately read word for word what someone says, but the tone, vocal infliction etc. is important to the message being sent. A lot of videos that I cover if I read it word for word people would think I'm satirizing their views. Showing their own words stops me from re-wording, or changing the tone that they said it in.


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?
The problem is people who need to be challenged, don't want to be challenged. You say 'being able to take criticism is a sign of a strong well balanced person'... unfortunately there are people who are unbalanced and weak minded influencing our society. Using their actual message, their actual words and infliction is important to keeping the message the same. You ever play that game telephone? basically you start with one message and then pass it to the next person, the further you get down the line the more the message changes. I reword their message, then another person hears my version and then they reword it etc. well then the message and story is completely different. Where as if the actual video was used as a video quote then it's one step less of rewording.

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.
I said it's the 'safe' way because your ability to criticize someone is dependent on people who will allow you to criticize them. You're being safe because you don't want to upset them. But countering bad ideas is more important than people's feelings.

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.
You are wrong about the News not being allowed to broadcast footage without permission. I worked as a video editor for an NBC News station... they take stuff without permission all the time. I know because I was sent the links to the footage to put into the system. CNN has a news database that has news stories on there stations can download and edit in their local reporter reading the news.

I remember one time they featured a story about an eagle picking up a baby in middle of a field. I said to myself that doesn't look real. A day or so later they run a retraction saying it was 2 college kids from Canada doing it as a visual effect in their film class. They put it on youtube as 'Eagle picks up baby'... next thing you know it's all over the news. When they found out about it they went on the news and said it was fake, and they were surprised it made it on the news. So yeah thats just one example of it.

I met a producer from the Daily Show, she explicitly said they don't get permission for any of the footage they use. They just care about the product and making it the best they can. They can get away with more than people on youtube because they have an army of lawyers that will take care of any issues that may come up.

So with all that said, why do you think they have Fair Use as a clause in copyright law? What function does it serve if not to allow people to critique other ideas? Why would they even make a Fair Use clause in the first place if it was to not be used?

The problem with the way the system is today is people with ideas like yours. You have this idea that people are willing to be criticized, but the people who need to be criticized are the people who don't accept any criticism. And then they go and push their agenda and get laws passed in their favor.

So I noticed you have videos of LEGOS on your youtube channel. Did you get permission to use their brand name in the titles of your video? You also shot a video on a lake, did you get a filming permit that day? Did you check with your local film department? Cause you can spend your life asking for permission for everything in your video, but the content is priority.

Now you see that I quoted you directly here, what would be more accurate me directly quoting you or paraphrasing the message you're saying? Exactly.

So for the original poster, unfortunately there are policies in place because of people like the person I responded to. Legally you can do it, but to bring it through the whole legal process isn't worth it given the amount of money it would cost to hire a lawyer. Which is why it's beneficial to false DMCA someone's video without taking into consideration fair use. Only thing you can really do is ask them to remove the claim, or delete the video re upload it but apply an effect to the footage and audio so it's not recognizable by the search algorithms.
 

Kelkschiz

YTtalk Mad
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
371
Reaction score
195
Age
46
Channel Type
Animator
I think we are going to have to agree to disagreeing on this one.
 

BoozeandBS

I've Got It
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
172
Reaction score
67
Age
35
Location
New York
Channel Type
Youtuber
I think we are going to have to agree to disagreeing on this one.

Lol not even a rebuttal? oh come on.

Can you at the very least say why you think there is a clause in the law titled "Fair Use"? Why add it if not for people to have the protection to use it?
 

Kelkschiz

YTtalk Mad
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
371
Reaction score
195
Age
46
Channel Type
Animator
Lol not even a rebuttal? oh come on.

Can you at the very least say why you think there is a clause in the law titled "Fair Use"? Why add it if not for people to have the protection to use it?
If you insist. In my opinion, and I am far from a legal expert, Fair Use exist for the cases where property rights have to be set aside for the greater needs of society. I think you can compare it to owning a house and it being disowned to strengthen a dike. in which case the owner still needs to be compensated.
Yes there are reasons to set aside property rights but they need to be serious and cause minimal damage to the property owner. Using significant parts of the original video, like the OP, does not honor the minimal damage part of Fair Use. But like I said I am not a legal expert. I am probably wrong about all of this.
 

Tarmack

Rhetorical Porcupine
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
1,926
There are a few common misconceptions in things said in this thread. (Also, I am not a lawyer. I've just done a lot of research on this topic)

The first is that the original claim of the video was intentional. Networks often enter all content, lock stock and barrel from channels claimed under the network CMS (Content Management System). They will block claim everything and apply standard monetization rules under ContentID which once applied is an automated system. These networks often deny the first claim because it doesn't hurt them to do so and they get revenue while a video is not under dispute. Whether you choose to appeal further is of course up to you, but I would ask, why are you concerned about getting a copyright strike if you're sure this is a fair use reaction video?

The second is the aspect of fair use and how it would likely apply in this case. There are a few things that apply under fair use which may not be readily apparent. A basic premise of the fair use doctrine existing is the idea that in order to make certain types of content, copyrighted content must be used and since those types of content are important to society, that content must be usable without the permission of the copyright holder. A news broadcaster must sometimes show copyrighted material in order to talk about an event related to it. A movie reviewer must show some footage of the movie in order to review it. An educator must sometimes show copyrighted material in the classroom in order to teach about things related to it. These are basic functions of fair use. Now, without knowing what video was claimed, I can only talk in generalities but for the most part the idea of using a portion of video footage wholesale is very unlikely to meet fair use criteria.

Using 3-5 minutes of a 6 minute video while cutting out the intro and speeding up the rest instantly indicates that fair use was not considered in the production of the content. First, if you can speed up the video because it was repetitive, then that use of content was unnecessary to your overall production and was merely background visuals. The only part that was important are the contextual portions that were not sped up. Second, half of a piece of content is unlikely to be considered of low substantiality. If I were to criticize movie dialog by playing a full half of the movie but just speeding up the pieces where nobody talks, this would be an equivalent example and if you feel that I would be legally protected in doing so, more research on your part is required. Meanwhile, if I showed a short clip of a piece of dialog and cut back to my face on camera talking about why that dialog piece was bad before cutting in to the next dialog piece that I wanted to present, that would be much closer to a fair use defensible situation.

Reaction videos are very rarely done in such a way as to be protected under fair use. And to echo the sentiments of "Here we go again", the number of people who find this forum and try to justify their video under fair use, long after they created the video is very high. If people had considered fair use first, most of those videos would have been made very differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shakycow