H3H3 Wins Lawsuit, Monumental WIN for Fair use laws

"React" channels should analyze the court's decision before thinking, "oh, this means that I can go ahead and swipe content". There is much more involved than just reacting.
 
CrazFrank said:
Ethan and Hila Klein from H3H3 prodruction got sued by Matt Hoss, another youtuber for "defamation,copyright annd others" have won the lawsuit. This is a big win for all of youtube and Fair use laws and abuse.

what do you guys think of this? I think this is GREAT!.So happy for them.

Video that got them sued: watch?v=CXUs5FOo-JE&t=129s
Click to expand...
they deserved it!! and its funny how they reuploaded the video right after the announcement
 
Gaijillionaire said:
The big question is, why didn't the copyright claim system catch them stealing video in the first place? I never heard of h3 until yesterday but I read the news and watched the channel. They clearly stole video and made a derivative production from it.

They should have LOST! Yea I'll say it, even though it won't be popular. Without the video that they stole, they'd have nothing on their own to present. Just commenting on it shouldn't protect them.

But in the digital era where it's easy to create something pulled from others it seems "unfair" if someone else says you can't. Had this video been on tv in 1990, the case would go the other way and no one would be surprised about it. But they rallied around the flag of "protect youtubers" to distract from the fact that they used video without permission. Even though the losing side was also a youtuber and no one cares about him.

I'm sure if a big movie studio put YouTube videos in a film people would cry foul saying it's not fair use. But because it's hip and trendy, doing it on YouTube makes it ok. I guess...


Let's try the same format of video but with a popular song, doesn't matter the singer. It's a guarantee that's you'd get your video taken down and if you sued, you'd lose easily. But again I guess it's "artists trying to make a living" or something.

Then just watching their videos, they come off as really scuzzy people. Their whole racket seems to be taking other videos and making comments on them, mostly mean ones at that.

I'm sure to get booed for what I've said but if someone agrees deep down with me then stand up and say so. After all your videos are now fair game for anyone to say and do almost anything they want with them and hide behind fair use because they talked over it.
Click to expand...

You have a valid point and noone cant deny that they did use scenes and clips of a video they do not own. But that is part of the side effect of something that is still new and growing, there are TONS of grey areas and who is to say "this is legal" or this "is illegal" other than courts? And that is what just happen, the law/court/judge has the last word, if he says "this is not illegal" then means they did not steal anything, thats how it works, just like alcohol once was illegal now is not and its the most normal thing ever to us, same thing will happen on youtube. So as the court states, Doing reaction videos were you take small clips of another creator and do commentary while not being a complete substitute of the original content (aka: old style reaction,put the hole video and watch me giggle) is 100% legal and NOT stealing.
 
CrazFrank said:
So as the court states, Doing reaction videos were you take small clips of another creator and do commentary while not being a complete substitute of the original content (aka: old style reaction,put the hole video and watch me giggle) is 100% legal and NOT stealing.
Click to expand...

You need to read the Court's complete ruling because she stated that it does not apply to the 'react' genre as a whole.
 
I have included a screenshot of the notation that "the Court is not ruling here that all 'reaction videos" constitute fair use. "

I'd love to leave a proper link for the complete ruling but the forum has decided that only prolific posters get the privilege.

800.jpg
 
Last edited:
CrazFrank said:
You have a valid point and noone cant deny that they did use scenes and clips of a video they do not own. But that is part of the side effect of something that is still new and growing, there are TONS of grey areas and who is to say "this is legal" or this "is illegal" other than courts? And that is what just happen, the law/court/judge has the last word, if he says "this is not illegal" then means they did not steal anything, thats how it works, just like alcohol once was illegal now is not and its the most normal thing ever to us, same thing will happen on youtube. So as the court states, Doing reaction videos were you take small clips of another creator and do commentary while not being a complete substitute of the original content (aka: old style reaction,put the hole video and watch me giggle) is 100% legal and NOT stealing.
Click to expand...
While the ruling will stand, it's going to have to lead to a revision of the 1976 act or lead to a Supreme Court case at some point. Yea just like OJ, the jury found he was not guilty so that means he didn't actually kill two people. Still without using another video, they have no video of their own. And so now that's ok to do? It just doesn't make sense to me. It may be fine with the law, but still, taking something without someone's permission IS stealing. I used to work in tv as a director and you bet your butt everything had to be cleared before going on air or I'd be canned immediately as the station could have faced big trouble. But again, millennials (i.e. someone born after 1995) seem to think everything is free and if it isn't then that's not fair to them for some reason.

I think "fair use" is transforming into "free use" it will not be a good thing in the end.
 
The suit was not monumental. Sure, them making a big deal about it keeps their views up, but outside of that the ruling is of no value since infringement suits are ruled on a case by case basis. And it certainly won't stop anyone else from suing for the same reason. A judge ruled their video was conforming to fair use at that time, it doesn't mean an appeals judge wouldn't overturn it or that the judge in your lawsuit with the same plead wouldn't rule differently. Besides, if that OJ quip proves anything, it's that courts don't prove right or wrong, they just prove who has the better lawyer.

But as far as comparing the legal requirements of a television studio to a YouTuber... that's like maintaining a 12 y/o girl in pigtails running a lemonade stand in her front yard be held to the same legal requirements as a commercial restaurant.
 
Gaijillionaire said:
The big question is, why didn't the copyright claim system catch them stealing video in the first place? I never heard of h3 until yesterday but I read the news and watched the channel. They clearly stole video and made a derivative production from it.

They should have LOST! Yea I'll say it, even though it won't be popular. Without the video that they stole, they'd have nothing on their own to present. Just commenting on it shouldn't protect them.

But in the digital era where it's easy to create something pulled from others it seems "unfair" if someone else says you can't. Had this video been on tv in 1990, the case would go the other way and no one would be surprised about it. But they rallied around the flag of "protect youtubers" to distract from the fact that they used video without permission. Even though the losing side was also a youtuber and no one cares about him.

I'm sure if a big movie studio put YouTube videos in a film people would cry foul saying it's not fair use. But because it's hip and trendy, doing it on YouTube makes it ok. I guess...


Let's try the same format of video but with a popular song, doesn't matter the singer. It's a guarantee that's you'd get your video taken down and if you sued, you'd lose easily. But again I guess it's "artists trying to make a living" or something.

Then just watching their videos, they come off as really scuzzy people. Their whole racket seems to be taking other videos and making comments on them, mostly mean ones at that.

I'm sure to get booed for what I've said but if someone agrees deep down with me then stand up and say so. After all your videos are now fair game for anyone to say and do almost anything they want with them and hide behind fair use because they talked over it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand Fair Use doctrine very well (Google "What is Fair Use")

Studios putting YouTube videos in a movie is NOT fair use. H3H3's usage falls under fair use because they were using the clips for critical commentary; the EXACT reason this kind of law exists.

This law also protects music critics, movie critics, gaming critics, literary critics as well as usage of copyrighted materials in a classroom setting (film school for example.) If someone wanted to use my videos for critical commentary they'd be well within the law to do so. Heck, I make gaming reviews and if this law didn't exist I'd have to PAY to license every single bit of footage I needed.

Gaijillionaire said:
While the ruling will stand, it's going to have to lead to a revision of the 1976 act or lead to a Supreme Court case at some point. Yea just like OJ, the jury found he was not guilty so that means he didn't actually kill two people. Still without using another video, they have no video of their own. And so now that's ok to do? It just doesn't make sense to me. It may be fine with the law, but still, taking something without someone's permission IS stealing. I used to work in tv as a director and you bet your butt everything had to be cleared before going on air or I'd be canned immediately as the station could have faced big trouble. But again, millennials (i.e. someone born after 1995) seem to think everything is free and if it isn't then that's not fair to them for some reason.

I think "fair use" is transforming into "free use" it will not be a good thing in the end.
Click to expand...

TV stations and movies using clips isn't fair use as they aren't transforming it, nor as they making any critical commentary.

I'm sorry you're upset that someone could take your videos for this purpose but I vehemently disagree that this law should change. As if we need to give big studios even MORE ammunition to take us down with.
 
Cidsa said:
I don't think you understand Fair Use doctrine very well (Google "What is Fair Use")

Studios putting YouTube videos in a movie is NOT fair use. H3H3's usage falls under fair use because they were using the clips for critical commentary; the EXACT reason this kind of law exists.

This law also protects music critics, movie critics, gaming critics, literary critics as well as usage of copyrighted materials in a classroom setting (film school for example.) If someone wanted to use my videos for critical commentary they'd be well within the law to do so. Heck, I make gaming reviews and if this law didn't exist I'd have to PAY to license every single bit of footage I needed.



TV stations and movies using clips isn't fair use as they aren't transforming it, nor as they making any critical commentary.

I'm sorry you're upset that someone could take your videos for this purpose but I vehemently disagree that this law should change. As if we need to give big studios even MORE ammunition to take us down with.
Click to expand...


Well, if the h3h3 video was done by a big movie studio in the exact same way and shown in a theatre, I think people wouldn't be congratulating the big studio on winning fair use

When I worked in news the clips were commentary as for a simple example the sports anchor reported on the events of a sports game airing on another channel. But the networks have sharing agreements so it is a little different. But if something aired without sourcing it, oh big trouble.

I think the word transformative really gets stretched here. Yes it's not the whole movie and yes they put themselves staring at the camera talking about it. Personally that's not transformative to me. Also the much quoted 1976 copyright act says education or non profit tips the favor to fair use. But there's nothing learned from the video and they profited from it.

Still the "good guys" won so everyone is happy.

it's not really about me or my video ms but now the definition has been blown wide open and how will this affect YouTube is not known. That's all. If you have had your video stolen for "commentary" and feel it's not fair use, now you might feel unable to fight it knowing you might lose , citing this case as precedent. And have fans angry at you too[DOUBLEPOST=1503921628,1503921395][/DOUBLEPOST]As a side note. I too made a transformation video but it got taken down and I don't see anyone caring!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top