received 2 copyright strikes from different people need help!

[Doug]

so ill make this short and sweet, i started a political youtube channel it started blowing up 1 million hits a day still as we speak, i started to get content from other channels that had political videos because I saw that they were using news clips from fox news and msnbc and cspan and much more but what they were doing was they were putting a little 2-3 seconds intro graphic before the video started and after, so essentially its like you click play on the video it shows CHANNEL LOGO then cuts to the actual fox news clip anywhere from 2-7 minutes then they have a CHANNEL LOGO for the outro when the video stops with some music for 1-2 seconds. Now I got a copyright strike from one of them and i tried resolving it and he basically was like i went through hours of cspan and fox news clips to get these clips thats why im doing this , now i was taking the video from his channel and then cutting the intro and outro and then using some of the clip not all and in some instances all but never the intro or outro or music i still do not understand why someone thinks they can put a outro and a intro to a fox news clip and then claim it as there own. is this legal?

now my second questions is when i first started i didnt really know much about fair use so i was ripping compilation videos off of peoples youtubes channels, they were sjw and black lives matter compilation videos that were essentially 3-4 news clips edited together to make a long clip but essentially not editing the news clips just showing the 3-4 minute section they wanted again fox news msnbc all these huge brands and then what he would do is basically barely added anything, he added question marks here and there to the video and a cuple ding sounds but other than that it was essentially 4 news clips all pretty lengthy not like mashup just like showing 4 news clips one after the other and adding question marks and sound dings. Now is this legal to counterstrike me on ?

my question is simple are those both legal things people had the right to do to me, and is there some type of way if i do counter notification that they could get me to pay there legal bills if the videos werent registered prior also what is the likeliness that someone would take me to court over 7k views on the sjw compilation video and about 100k views on the guy who just posts a 2-7 minute fox news clip and then puts a outro and intro to there video that i also removed before posting to youtube.? any advice would be cool thank you

 

[subversiveasset]

so ill make this short and sweet, i started a political youtube channel it started blowing up 1 million hits a day still as we speak, i started to get content from other channels that had political videos because I saw that they were using news clips from fox news and msnbc and cspan and much more but what they were doing was they were putting a little 2-3 seconds intro graphic before the video started and after, so essentially its like you click play on the video it shows CHANNEL LOGO then cuts to the actual fox news clip anywhere from 2-7 minutes then they have a CHANNEL LOGO for the outro when the video stops with some music for 1-2 seconds. Now I got a copyright strike from one of them and i tried resolving it and he basically was like i went through hours of cspan and fox news clips to get these clips thats why im doing this , now i was taking the video from his channel and then cutting the intro and outro and then using some of the clip not all and in some instances all but never the intro or outro or music i still do not understand why someone thinks they can put a outro and a intro to a fox news clip and then claim it as there own. is this legal?

They probably don't have a valid copyright claim (their material is likely still infringing on fox news, msnbc, cspan, etc., and probably does not count as fair use), but you are also in the wrong, both because you're infringing on fox news, msnbc, cspan, etc., *and* this users *compilation* of such (whether that compilation is fair use or not is a different question, but their "compilation" is a derivative work that itself has a copyright. EDIT: I think I will officially put a note on my previous posts that the compilation can only have a copyright if it was lawfully produced. If these YouTubers don't have permission from Fox and the rest though, then they may not have a copyright on the compilation.

now my second questions is when i first started i didnt really know much about fair use so i was ripping compilation videos off of peoples youtubes channels, they were sjw and black lives matter compilation videos that were essentially 3-4 news clips edited together to make a long clip but essentially not editing the news clips just showing the 3-4 minute section they wanted again fox news msnbc all these huge brands and then what he would do is basically barely added anything, he added question marks here and there to the video and a cuple ding sounds but other than that it was essentially 4 news clips all pretty lengthy not like mashup just like showing 4 news clips one after the other and adding question marks and sound dings. Now is this legal to counterstrike me on ?

Again, these users are probably violating copyright (because they do not have permission to use those other youtubers' videos, and their compilations probably don't count as a fair use), but you are *also* in the wrong, because you are violating both the original users' copyright (the original clips) and this compiler's copyright (to the extent that the compilation is a derivative work). EDIT: I think I will officially put a note on my previous posts that the compilation can only have a copyright if it was lawfully produced. If these YouTubers don't have permission from Fox and the rest though, then they may not have a copyright on the compilation.

my question is simple are those both legal things people had the right to do to me, and is there some type of way if i do counter notification that they could get me to pay there legal bills if the videos werent registered prior also what is the likeliness that someone would take me to court over 7k views on the sjw compilation video and about 100k views on the guy who just posts a 2-7 minute fox news clip and then puts a outro and intro to there video that i also removed before posting to youtube.? any advice would be cool thank you

This is one of the videos that the guy makes with news clips who copyright striked me can he then copyright claim this after posting? watch?v=jtwOzyI4sUk (notice the outro clip at the end this is what he claims is why he copyright strikes even tho i took it out of the video)

and heres the other guy who copyright striked me with all the sjw and cringe compilation stuff is this stuff copyrightable ??? watch?v=awxDpGcQVYQ

So, what happens is when you get a copyright strike, you have the option to counter-notify. If you do this, you have to provide information to YouTube (which they may provide to the original copyright striker). The person who struck you then has a period of time (I believe it is 10 days) to file an injunction or a lawsuit to prevent the video from going back up. The question is if you think they will actually file that lawsuit/injunction or not, but that's certainly a possibility.

 

[Doug]

yes i totally understand i was in the wrong i found this out because of the copy right strikes but i feel like more or less they are bullying me one is asking me for 2k to lift a strike the other said deal with it but it really pisses me off because wether fox news dinged me or msnbc or cspan or anything im ok with that but random youtubers doing the same thing i was doing im not too happy about that i have since removed all of the vids that were not compiled by me personally and edited but im just confused on these peoples copy right strikes if you do watch the clips i put in my original post let me know some specifics thanks for all the answers so far i dont claim to be in the right but i want to make sure there not either and that if i counter notify which i already know the process if they have any legitimate grounds to stand on and what they could get from me i am indigent and like i said before one video had 7k views the other had like 100k. 7k from the compilation sjw guy and 100k from the guy who literally just uses news clips and copyrights people for using news clips that he is just re using

 

[subversiveasset]

yes i totally understand i was in the wrong i found this out because of the copy right strikes but i feel like more or less they are bullying me one is asking me for 2k to lift a strike the other said deal with it but it really pisses me off because wether fox news dinged me or msnbc or cspan or anything im ok with that but random youtubers doing the same thing i was doing im not too happy about that i have since removed all of the vids that were not compiled by me personally and edited but im just confused on these peoples copy right strikes if you do watch the clips i put in my original post let me know some specifics thanks for all the answers so far i dont claim to be in the right but i want to make sure there not either and that if i counter notify which i already know the process if they have any legitimate grounds to stand on and what they could get from me i am indigent and like i said before one video had 7k views the other had like 100k. 7k from the compilation sjw guy and 100k from the guy who literally just uses news clips and copyrights people for using news clips that he is just re using

keep in mind that removing videos doesn't remove the strike. In fact, you might have limited your options to address the strikes.

Are they being particularly harsh about it? Yeah, probably. But did you infringe upon whatever copyright they had? Yes. Do they probably have a lot of copyright? Probably not. The extent of their copyright may just be in the compilation, but that's still work they did that you didn't. EDIT: I think I will officially put a note on my previous posts that the compilation can only have a copyright if it was lawfully produced. If these YouTubers don't have permission from Fox and the rest though, then they may not have a copyright on the compilation.

If you don't want them to be in the right...then don't use their material. If you could honestly say, "Hey, I got these clips from a different source, not your compilation" then their copyright claims would be defeated.

But if your video used the same clips in the same order, then you're going to have a tough time making that claim, especially when here on this forum you have a thread admitting to your use of their compilation videos.

 

[Doug]

this is what i dredged up a minute ago what does this exactly mean when it comes to the compilation video?
Copyright Protection in Compilations and Collective Works The copyright in a compilation of data extends only to the selection, coordination or arrangement of the materials or data, but not to the data itself. In the case of a collective work containing “preexisting works”—works that were previously published, previously registered, or in the public domain— the registration will only extend to the selection, coordination or arrangement of those works, not to the preexisting works themselves. If the works included in a collective work were not preexisting—not previously published, registered, or in the public domain or owned by a third party—the registration may extend to those works in which the author of the collective work owns or has obtained all rights.
also it states something about copyright registrations and limits on the claim because of the work itself they do not own? any of this sound good

 

[subversiveasset]

this is what i dredged up a minute ago what does this exactly mean when it comes to the compilation video?
Copyright Protection in Compilations and Collective Works The copyright in a compilation of data extends only to the selection, coordination or arrangement of the materials or data, but not to the data itself. In the case of a collective work containing “preexisting works”—works that were previously published, previously registered, or in the public domain— the registration will only extend to the selection, coordination or arrangement of those works, not to the preexisting works themselves. If the works included in a collective work were not preexisting—not previously published, registered, or in the public domain or owned by a third party—the registration may extend to those works in which the author of the collective work owns or has obtained all rights.
also it states something about copyright registrations and limits on the claim because of the work itself they do not own? any of this sound good

What this is saying is that to the extent these YouTubers have copyrights, it ONLY is in their selection and arrangement of the compilation. They do not own the preexisting works themselves.

So, like I mentioned in my previous comment, you would be able to defeat their copyright claim if you could say that you did not infringe on their selection and arrangement. That is, the use of the specific news clips infringes on the various news stations' copyrights, not on those YouTubers...so if you said, "I actually didn't get the content from your channel/video, and didn't use your compilation" then you wouldn't be infringing these youtubers' copyrights (but you'd still be infringing the news stations' copyrights)

EDIT: I think I will officially put a note on my previous posts that the compilation can only have a copyright if it was lawfully produced. If these YouTubers don't have permission from Fox and the rest though, then they may not have a copyright on the compilation.

 

[Doug]

well it was only 1 video thank god but i know the videos that they used , its like me pre recording 10 baseball games shown on espn i find my favorite parts and then i splice em together in a 10 minute clip i cant go around policing that 10 minute clip like i said before i understand that i was in the wrong i didnt delete the videos that were striked down tehre still up but any other video that i thought was fair use that i took those are the ones i took down not the copyright strikes, im just trying to find out if the people are compiling these videos i get thats ok to do but i dont think its ok to then claim that u can copyright strike people for using videos that arent owned by you that u compiled again i know 100 percent i was in the wrong because i thought it was fair use im just trying to find out if they are in the wrong as well for actually telling me hey i took 5 fox news clips compiled them and now i own them and can copyright strike u thats what im trying to get at[DOUBLEPOST=1473648680,1473648543][/DOUBLEPOST]great answer that basically took care of alot of my questions now hers another part what if i took out there intro and outro and did put it into movie maker and shorten it some does that count for anything most the people say that shows intent that u wanted to steal it but then honestly like i have explained to tehse youtubers i literally didnt know that taking fox news clips and compiling them was something that was protected under copyright so that is why i took out there intro and outro because i thought that was the only thing that was actually copyrightable someones graphics and unique sounds[DOUBLEPOST=1473649105][/DOUBLEPOST]last question would you counter notify these 2 strikes if you were me? and what do i stand to lose if im indigent and the court says ya u lose? one video has 7k views like 2-5 dollars and then another video had 100k views around 100-200$

 

[subversiveasset]

I actually think there might be something that could help you.

Even though compilations do have copyrights associated, it only works if the compiler lawfully used the related copyright works.

"In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."

This could mean that to the extent the other YouTubers don't have permission and aren't in fair use, that copyright protection does not extend to the compilation.

last question would you counter notify these 2 strikes if you were me? and what do i stand to lose if im indigent and the court says ya u lose? one video has 7k views like 2-5 dollars and then another video had 100k views around 100-200$

Ultimately, it's a question of whether you think they will file a lawsuit. Like, do you think *they* have the money to file a lawsuit (even if they think they could win)? I tend to think that YouTubers would not have the time/money/energy to even file, so it's unlikely that it'll even go to court. So it's probably not as risky to try to counternotify.

But if it were Fox News putting the copyright strike? I wouldn't try to fight that, personally.

 

[Shakycow]

what do i stand to lose if im indigent and the court says ya u lose? one video has 7k views like 2-5 dollars and then another video had 100k views around 100-200$

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

• Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
• The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed.
• Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
• The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.

Even if someone is fined the absolute minimum ($200), the total owed thanks to lawyer fees and court costs would still likely be in the tens of thousands.

Now, will the people with claims against you take you to court? Probably not. I'd actually be shocked if they did, but that ultimately means very little since you still don't own the rights to post the material and either FOX, MSNBC, or anyone else who's footage was use could easily give you a strike and the chance of them taking you to court would be significantly higher.

 

[Doug]

ok now shaky cow what is this i see in the law about if they do no pre register there copyright then someone cannot be liable for the attorney fees also subversive awesome work im thinking i should counter notify i just dont want someone really wanting to make some money trying to does the court look if im indigent if that matters?