Why Do People Insist On Trying To "Buck" The Law?

MarkRodriguez2012 said:
As a reviewer, we should be able to show a little of what exactly we're reviewing, at least for context. Other than that... yeah, that's a grey are for sure.
Click to expand...
Reviewing legally falls under the Fair Use section of the Copyright Act.
@Idec Sdawkminn There is a thread in the Stickies section I saw yesterday regarding the difference between Parody and Satire. I would need to view your content to determine which you are actually doing; but it seems that a lot of people mix the two up.

And while Parody is considered Fair Use, it would seem that Satire is not. If you are doing true Parody, you are not violating copyright.
 
As a game reviewer, I show game footage relevant to what I'm talking about. I don't do this for movies cause I know no matter what, it's just asking to take my video down, so I don't bother.
 
MarkRodriguez2012 said:
As a game reviewer, I show game footage relevant to what I'm talking about. I don't do this for movies cause I know no matter what, it's just asking to take my video down, so I don't bother.
Click to expand...

I have plans in the future to do commentary/reviews with films, so yeah this is disheartening.
I do think most of the time you win copyright struggles if you persist, but then if the movie is anything big the Content ID crap starts all over again.
So at the worst I won't get to monetize my thing, but because I'm confident I can at least keep my content up (perhaps exuding the 2 weeks during DMCA takedown disputes), I'll probably still go ahead and use movie clips in the future.
 
Uncivilized Elk said:
I have plans in the future to do commentary/reviews with films, so yeah this is disheartening.
I do think most of the time you win copyright struggles if you persist, but then if the movie is anything big the Content ID crap starts all over again.
So at the worst I won't get to monetize my thing, but because I'm confident I can at least keep my content up (perhaps exuding the 2 weeks during DMCA takedown disputes), I'll probably still go ahead and use movie clips in the future.
Click to expand...
That's where you're taking a big gamble... even people like the Nostalgia Critic get some of their movie reviews taken down sometimes.
 
MarkRodriguez2012 said:
That's where you're taking a big gamble... even people like the Nostalgia Critic get some of their movie reviews taken down sometimes.
Click to expand...

And what, get strikes? I'm pretty sure he eventually beats the system because with the amount of videos he has he would have had 3 strikes by now for sure.

I had one of my videos taken down already. I got through DMCA and got it restored. It was immediately blocked worldwide by Content ID again. But if I wanted it back up and un-monetized for 30 days I could go through the dispute yet again.
Pretty sure you can just keep doing this indefinitely, but you'll never get monetization.
(I am instead choosing to take down this video though and re-upload a version where I edit the 1 min of Content ID matched stuff.)
 
UKHypnotist said:
@Idec Sdawkminn There is a thread in the Stickies section I saw yesterday regarding the difference between Parody and Satire. I would need to view your content to determine which you are actually doing; but it seems that a lot of people mix the two up.

And while Parody is considered Fair Use, it would seem that Satire is not. If you are doing true Parody, you are not violating copyright.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm familiar with the difference and all of my uses are parodies, so you don't need to view my content, but are of course still welcome and encouraged to. :p

However, falling under Fair Use or not doesn't affect whether a content owner will claim the content in your video or not. They still own the content in both cases and can still claim it as far as YouTube is involved. The distinction of Fair Use only happens after that in the courts.

But I was under the impression that you were opposing the use of copyrighted content and the intention of getting away with it on moral grounds. Your OP seemed to be written from the perspective that you don't think people should be using and benefiting from something that someone else made, regardless of the legality of it, and that it offends your sense of justice and fairness that they try.
 
Idec Sdawkminn said:
Yes, I'm familiar with the difference and all of my uses are parodies, so you don't need to view my content, but are of course still welcome and encouraged to. :p

However, falling under Fair Use or not doesn't affect whether a content owner will claim the content in your video or not. They still own the content in both cases and can still claim it as far as YouTube is involved. The distinction of Fair Use only happens after that in the courts.

But I was under the impression that you were opposing the use of copyrighted content and the intention of getting away with it on moral grounds. Your OP seemed to be written from the perspective that you don't think people should be using and benefiting from something that someone else made, regardless of the legality of it, and that it offends your sense of justice and fairness that they try.
Click to expand...

Oh no!

You've totally mistaken my meaning. If the use they are attempting to do has legality attached, I am all for it. I use Royalty Free footage in my own videos all the time; so there is no way I could be coming from that stance in the first place. However if someone is just trying to get away with making money off someone else's hard work without paying royalties where they are due, or against a content owner's specific usage policy, that is where my sense of justice gets offended. Examples follow.

1. People using music from a CD or MP3 song they bought but haven't done proper licensing of for use on YouTube.

2. People recording a TV show and putting that recording on YouTube without the production house's or channel's permission.

3. People putting Let's Play videos on YouTube and monetizing where the developer has specifically stated non-commercial use only.

Just recently I approached and got special permission from a software developer whose screensaver/music visualizer had a "non commercial" Creative Commons license attached to use the output of that software for monetized YouTube videos. Had he said no, certain videos I have up now would never have been posted.

And yes I am aware that the Fair Use allowance doesn't stop copyright owners from claiming videos; in fact on a different forum, someone recently stated that the Fair Use defence is confined to a court of law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top