How does this guy not get copyright?

As others said, he can argue fair use. If your content is used to educate, it falls under fair use. You can show a video of South Park and provide facts or whatever, and since it's used to inform or educate, you get away with it. It is a fine line really, but it could be why channels such as WatchMojo, and Top 5 channels, get away with it.
 
BrendenTurtle said:
As others said, he can argue fair use. If your content is used to educate, it falls under fair use. You can show a video of South Park and provide facts or whatever, and since it's used to inform or educate, you get away with it. It is a fine line really, but it could be why channels such as WatchMojo, and Top 5 channels, get away with it.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure WatchMojo does extensive licensing.
 
Fair Use on current YouTube is like a lottery , a lot of things can get a lot of people in the deep end of copyright problems, you have false claims you have real claims, none of it helps anyone. Top Trends might be banking on no one trying to take him to court over a topic that could be argued as transformative. Even the example of RWJ vs Jukin wasn't that clear cut, the court only found a part of Ray's videos as "not fair use" because of the commentary not being sufficient enough, the more you add to the original video the more you can get away with. Even then none of it helps when someone can just give you a false claim.
 
Sin B said:
Fair Use on current YouTube is like a lottery , a lot of things can get a lot of people in the deep end of copyright problems, you have false claims you have real claims, none of it helps anyone. Top Trends might be banking on no one trying to take him to court over a topic that could be argued as transformative. Even the example of RWJ vs Jukin wasn't that clear cut, the court only found a part of Ray's videos as "not fair use" because of the commentary not being sufficient enough, the more you add to the original video the more you can get away with. Even then none of it helps when someone can just give you a false claim.
Click to expand...

the Jukin case is definitely something people should pay attention to. Though it was settled before the jury could come to its final conclusions, all indications are that they were set to decide that RWJ did not have fair use for ANY of the 48 videos Jukin alleged infringement for.

This would be a devastating finding to most reaction videos.

The fact that we don't have a lot of court cases saying what is fair use means that everyone is just walking around in the dark...
 
subversiveasset said:
the Jukin case is definitely something people should pay attention to. Though it was settled before the jury could come to its final conclusions, all indications are that they were set to decide that RWJ did not have fair use for ANY of the 48 videos Jukin alleged infringement for.

This would be a devastating finding to most reaction videos.

The fact that we don't have a lot of court cases saying what is fair use means that everyone is just walking around in the dark...
Click to expand...
Giving fair use to a trial by jury to me is so ridiculous, the jurors are random people in what 99.9% of cases with no background in law or anything even remotely close to it. Having them give the final say on something that is so erratic like fair use is a recipe for disaster. People give reaction channels a lot of beef and some deserve it fairly enough, but when they're adding a commentary to go along with the video I do think regardless of the content used they should have the right to do so, but I'm sure a lot disagree with that opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top