Currently Fighting Two Claims on My Latest Project

[daniel burgio]

Right, arguing that the master recording is part of the bigger intro that you're parodying as a whole would be admitting that you're sampling (generally, samples don't use a large part of the original master recording, right). The problem is there isn't a lot of case law to suggest that sampling can be parody.

I mean, realistically, this is not going to go to court, and that's ultimately the only place where the arguments matter. Although I think it would be great if there were more copyright infringement cases that made its way to court (so we could have more established precedent about what is OK and what's not), that's realistically not going to happen because no one wants to spend the time and money on it.

There's a counter claim process that takes place after my appeal fails. It basically calls the claimant's hand. They either have to take legal action or drop the case.

 

[Shakycow]

There's a counter claim process that takes place after my appeal fails. It basically calls the claimant's hand. They either have to take legal action or drop the case.

More like it calls your hand.

If they go that route, it would take their staffed lawyers all of 2 seconds to file a case against you and present the paperwork to YouTube.

At that point, if you wanted to press it further, you'd have to lawyer up, travel to wherever the case was filed, and put a lot of money out...and, if you happened to lose, you'd be responsible for the copyright infringement fines (could be anywhere between $200 and $150,000) as well as the copyright holders legal fees.


The reason there aren't more cases regarding copyright is simply because the companies who hold the majority of copyrights have far more money, can hire better lawyers, drag out the case as needed, and the added risk of possibly bankrupting fines/ fees scares most average people away.

Even to win a case would easily cost tens of thousands of dollars...not something many could afford of find worth it in regards to keeping a video up on YouTube.[DOUBLEPOST=1470704290,1470703998][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, I could just argue that the master recording is part of the bigger intro that I'm parodying as a whole.

...which you would almost certainly lose since, as I mentioned earlier, the music has completely separate copyrights from the show/ movie.

I wouldn't be surprised if they waited until the last possible moment, release the claim, then, 5 minutes later file another one...and continue to do that indefinitely on you.

 

[daniel burgio]

Well, supposedly they're working on stopping the same claim from being made repeatedly... some day.... And if I'm wrong, I'll just use FUPA. I'm sure H3H3 and Phillip DeFranco will just give me the money in that fund.

Edit: Alright, done pooping and showering, so I can edit this. The fact that I used the tracks alone does definitely make things shaky at best for me, and the Star Wars track was technically from a different scene, so that is no bueno at all. That was made pretty apparent after what subersiveasset said about fair use where music is involved. The funny thing is, I was just going to sing a stupified version of the Doctor Who theme, but got lazy/opted for the real thing for dramatic reasons. And I'm willing to bet that the videos I ripped the songs from are monetized by the people that uploaded them... the irony...


UPDATE (and a huge one at that): The Doctor Who claim was removed!!! They actually just let it go! That's actually pretty awesome, whether it was apathy or an actual realization that I was doing no harm.