Little help About the review Idea

[Tarmack]

reviews are fair use.

Fair use is only valid in a court room. It doesn't help with ContentID, and YouTube is not obligated to respect fair use over the content owner because YouTube is a private platform and no court hearing has rendered a verdict here. Anyone doing movie reviews, like @markkaz said, is just setting themselves up for a massive headache. Nothing but fighting ContentID on most of your videos. Requiring prescheduling, so that you can fight ContentID before setting a video live and losing the ad revenue.

Not worth it.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Fair use is only valid in a court room. It doesn't help with ContentID, and YouTube is not obligated to respect fair use over the content owner because YouTube is a private platform and no court hearing has rendered a verdict here. Anyone doing movie reviews, like @markkaz said, is just setting themselves up for a massive headache. Nothing but fighting ContentID on most of your videos. Requiring prescheduling, so that you can fight ContentID before setting a video live and losing the ad revenue.

Not worth it.

You apparently didn't read that a judge in the 9th district. Ruled that copyright owners have to apply fair use on YouTube or seek damages.

 

[Tarmack]

You apparently didn't read that a judge in the 9th district. Ruled that copyright owners have to apply fair use on YouTube or seek damages.

Yes, I actually read the ruling. It appears you just read about it from news sites.

I'll get you started. Be aware that its' 34 pages.
https://www.eff.org/document/9th-circuit-opinion-lenz

You'll note that in what will be a future case for damages against Universal, they don't have to prove that the work is not fair use, just that they considered it prior to issuing a DMCA takedown. As we know, fair use has a significant amount of grey and any nebulous territory gives very obvious grounds for "considering" fair use and still taking something down.

You'll also note that ContentID has nothing to do with the DMCA. A third party match isn't a takedown notice. It's a reassignment of ad revenue.

The reason that the ruling has value is because it affects automated takedown systems. It should, in theory protect against mass takedowns and the strikes that follow a takedown. Now, companies have to employ more people to look at various cases that the system cannot do automatically anymore. It will NOT reduce the hassle of a channel that want's to use copyrighted video and/or audio on YouTube, even if they're legally entitled to use that content.

A lot more has to change before it is less of a hassle to small content creators.