First of all, OP was turned down due to copyright strikes on his/her channel, but he claims there are/were none. That's the main subject of this thread, not whether he can or can't upload videos like that.
Second of all, you don't really prove that you have the licensing rights in advance, but rather once your videos received a strike, which you can then dispute (you can dispute them without providing anything anyway, lol, YouTube copyright system ftw...).
And third, fair use is fair use - but there are limitations to how much content he can use in a video. I'm not an expert in this area, so I'd rather not go too much into it, but using copyright content can be OK in certain scenarios.
I have read this entire thread.
Nowhere did the OP claim he had had a copyright strike; just allow me to quote you what he really said.
.They said that i have a bad standing youtube channel due copyright infringments,which none of my videos has copyrighted content.
In other words,
it was the network's review team, not the Content ID system who flagged the OP's channel for copyright infringement; so how could there be no infringements on his channel?.
If you would simply take the time to go to the OP's channel and view the content in question, you would see that none of it meets the criteria for exemption under the Fair Use Doctrine. It has no transformative value, being in most cases, cobbled together mashups of broadcast content
complete with the owning network's watermark clearly showing in many cases.
He isn't reviewing or critiquing any of the posted material. The purpose of the posting as he keeps stressing
is to earn money and get paid as quickly as possible, thus completely invalidating the Purpose principle: these are clearly unauthorized commercial-intent derivative works unless he can prove both usage, publicity, commercial and rebroadcast licensing rights from the proper owners.
I won't even go over the other two Fair Use factors as the paragraph above would prove bringing the other two in useless in a court of law which is the only place a Fair Use Doctrine test can truly take place. Any sane judge would look at the type and purpose of his use of copyright material and immediately find against him.
From YouTube Terms of Use I quote here:
"
7.4 You represent and warrant that you have (and will continue to have during your use of the Service) all necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions which are required to enable YouTube to use your Content for the purposes of the provision of the Service by YouTube, and otherwise to use your Content in the manner contemplated by the Service and these Terms."
I asked the OP if he could prove the paragraph above. It doesn't matter if YouTube has placed a strike against his videos or not.
If he cannot say yes when asked if he has all of the necessary licenses, rights, consents and permissions required, he is in violation of YouTube's Terms Of Use; and this is the actual reason the network he applied to rejected him, and any other network he applies to without such proof will reject his channel.
Two last things: from the YouTube Help section titled "What type of content can I monetize?"
Guidelines for content that you didn't create:
- Clear the rights to use and monetise this content on YouTube.
- Make sure that you understand how copyright works
The "that you didn't create" in the section title refers to source content used, as well as the completed video.
Now, from the section
Can I monetise my video if...
I made a recording from TV, DVD or CD?
Answer:
Although you may have recorded something yourself, the actual creator or author of the underlying content being recorded (e.g. producer of the TV show being displayed on the TV) may hold many of the rights needed to commercially exploit this content.
If you want to monetise your recording of a TV show, DVD or CD, you would need to get explicit written permission from the applicable rights owner of the audio and/or visual elements that you recorded.
So again, it must be asked whether or not the OP has the needed permissions for his content and can prove that.
I do wish that people who have been on YouTube for less than half a decade and are most likely far behind me in experience and knowledge of the responsibilities attached to the creation and publication of what is in effect, online broadcast media, would stop trying to second guess me.
I am 60 years old and I came to YouTube as a creator in 2006; YouTube was just over a year old when I posted my first video.
I've seen all of the changes in both the site interface and Terms of Use from that day until now. I've had to fight for my creator's rights against the likes of firms such as VIACOM International, who tried to take down several videos containing only legally licensed stock footage and my own voice! I once even had to take on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) itself after they blocked worldwide, an original Public Domain clip from NASA saying it was a piece of a documentary produced by them in 2010.
They had to retract and quickly, when it was pointed out to them that my YouTube video publication preceded the date of first broadcast of their documentary by a full four years!
You'd think that after winning rights fights at
that level, I'd know what I'm talking about; wouldn't you?
