Lawyer Reacts: Wings of Pegasus on Copyright & YouTube
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2024
- A real lawyer analyzes and reacts to Fil from Wings of Pegasus’s video on Copyright law and UA-cam, Dear Trolls I’m NOT Breaking the law on UA-cam. @wingsofpegasus
Disclaimer: This video is not legal advice. I do not warrant its accuracy. Do not rely upon it. No attorney-client relationship is created or implied.
Cool video! Thanks for the feature, I'll have to keep in touch in case I need you in my corner! I think it's always going to be difficult to play just a few seconds for me to demonstrate beyond doubt that vocal pitch lines are being calibrated to A440, as every now and again a natural voice can create this. So a few seconds 'could' be natural and not pitch corrected or auto-tuned, but 2-3 minutes is a clear unnatural manipulation. But I think it's just the nature of presenting the evidence and objective data. Unfortunately the copyright strike I received was issued without them seeing my video, but when I contacted them they did reverse it and remove the strike. So maybe from what you say this could have been because they hadn't followed the rules themselves! Interesting stuff!
Just adding this - So would you advise I dispute each copyright claim? I was under the impression if I disputed and it was rejected I could be issued a copyright strike, hence I didn't feel the risk was worth it!
Thank you very much for watching and commenting. It means a lot. Always feel free to email me directly: scott@lawbylg.com. Answering your questions:
(1) There are certainly times where you can play more than a few seconds of a song and have it still be fair use. Courts recognize that sometimes a fair user will need to use a lot of the original. The law is that you should not use more than reasonably necessary for your legitimate fair use purpose, such as teaching, commenting, or criticism. Since it's so hard to predict how much a judge will think is reasonably necessary, judges are supposed to not be too nitpicky if you use a little more than they think necessary and give a little leeway. But playing long, uninterrupted clips without comment or an apparent fair use purpose will be suspect. That's like the example I pointed out where you played a clip over two minutes long, and there wasn't an apparent reason for playing a clip that long. I assume it was to show how great the singing was without autotune, but I don't think that would fly with a judge.
(2) In terms of the copyright owners considering fair use when issuing a DMCA takedown request, just like my dog runs into the sandbox at the park even though there is a sign that says no dogs in the sandbox, sometimes not everyone pays attention to the rules.
(3) I would need to look at any particular video to opine, but generally speaking, if you are confident a video is fair use, if I were you, I would at least dispute a content ID claim once. Per Google's content ID policies and from talking with other music UA-camrs, my understanding is that you can dispute a content ID claim once without worrying much about getting a copyright strike. Most content ID claims are applied automatically. When you dispute it, they may realize it's likely fair use and not reinstate the content ID claim. Or they may just not act for some other reason. But, if they want to reinstate the content ID claim, they can just reinstate it, take your money, and they don't need to issue a DMCA takedown notice. You only force their hand if, after you dispute the claim and they reinstate it, you appeal their reinstatement of the content ID claim. At that point, they are forced to either backdown or issue a DMCA takedown notice, which would cause a copyright strike. If they do issue the copyright strike, you can dispute the DMCA takedown notice. Then they either have to backdown or file a lawsuit. And if your video is clearly fair use, you would have a decent chance of defeating a lawsuit and getting attorney's fees and being a hero the world over. But I understand you and other UA-camrs not wanting the risk and hassle of litigation even if you are confident your video is fair use.
By the way, here's UA-cam's nifty page on content ID claims and disputing them: support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=%2Cwhats-the-difference-between-the-dispute-and-escalate-to-appeal-options
@@LawLaughsMusic Great thanks for the info it's much appreciated!
@wingsofpegasus You are very welcome. Please feel free to email if you ever have a question or want to run a video by me. The way I see it, if you make a video showing how someone is using autotune, it is absurd that the musician who was using autotune (and his/her record company) is the one who is rewarded with the ad revenue. That would be like if someone who made a documentary about how athletes used steroids had to pay the athletes a 100% licensing fee for using video of them from their social media proving that they used steroids.
One aspect courts consider for fair use is how the use affects the market for the original. Not from a review saying the product is inferior because it is autotuned, but by supplanting the supply with your own. This obviously applies if you upload the original with no alterations (including comentary), but it also would apply if you were to, for example, demonstrate a subtle use of pitch correction that most listeners could not detect. This means people who just want to hear the song could choose to listen to your video instead of the original. This is where breaking that 2-3 minute section into smaller bits, even if the comentary with which you break it up is of minimal value, helps you.
It would be great to have you do a video together. On either UA-cam show. Maybe one each side.
Thank you for helping Fil out! He’s a stand-up dude and fantastic at what he does.
My pleasure!
Fil is one of the nicest guy on the internet. Anytime I’ve ever had a question. He’s answered every one I assume himself.He’s also very intelligent. Young men like him don’t grow on trees. He’s just a good dude was impression I got.
Yeah, it was great of him to comment on my video and have a back-and-forth.
This is terrific! I love it when someone explains the law so succinctly.
Appreciate it very much! I try.
@@LawLaughsMusic I also follow Fil Henley on UA-cam. I love how you gave examples of his videos and what falls under fair use and copyright. Your video was very informative. Thanks for doing it.
You're right, UA-camrs generally can't afford to dispute copyright strikes, and the big companies (not just in music) exploit that a lot by striking videos that are clearly fair use as they don't want criticism out there. There's even a case where a show on Netflix illegally used a UA-cam creator's content (which didn't include anything but his own content) and quite a long clip of it. Then when the UA-camr did a livestream talking about it and used that show's footage of his stolen content (which they had simply played, no voice overs), Netflix issued a copyright right strike on the UA-camr's livestream video.
This UA-camr is fighting the strike, of course. He's also fighting because of them breaking his copyright. He has funds to start the case and has many subscribers who are prepared to donate to crowd funding if he needs more funds as no one likes a big powerful bully. He may not need more as it could be just caught up in Netflix's strategy to strike just about any identified use of their shows (whether fair use or not as they have the power and know most can't afford to challenge them) and also because the show was made by a third party. So, there's a chance Netflix may not be aware of the illegal use of the UA-camr's content. Or if aware, they didn't care as knowing their legal power they took a punt that they'd get away with it.
Thanks for the comment. I previously made a video on this channel about the Fighter and the Kid podcast abusing DMCA takedown notices to bring down a critical channel during the time it took for them to lose their BS court case. Judges can help discourage this by awarding attorney's fees in these situations. (I am not saying that would solve the problem. But it would help.)
@@LawLaughsMusic I guess awarding attorney's fees might discourage some, but it probably wouldn't work with goliath's like Netflix as the cost might seem like peanuts to them. However the bad PR when they lose might have some affect on Netflix as the channel I was referring to is quite big, nudging close to a million subscribers, and the media might pick up the story. Also UA-cam might take notice about them abusing their copyright strike system and fix it so when an abuse as obvious as this happens, they can look at it properly in house when the channel appeals to them and just remove the strike themselves. Also hopefully send the abuser a warning too.
There's one big thing I really don't understand... and I hope you can shine some light on that... I've seen reaction videos where the songs are played nonstop, or at least in big chunks, without any spoken commentary, and they don't get blocked... In the meantime these educational videos are blocked because Fil is demonstrating guitar technique and not even playing the song itself (his recent David Bowie example). Is there any possible explanation for this? Or is UA-cam just censoring the most interesting content creators and not even looking at the ones I just described, where you could really not say it is fair use?
Probably the videos playing recorded music that aren’t fair use are being demonetized and the copyright holders have chosen to take the creator’s ad revenue rather than block the video. But some copyright holders choose to block or at least block in certain situations.
@@LawLaughsMusic I see what you mean. That might indeed explain it. Thanks for your reply!
Really Helpful - I watch Phil's videos and this perspective is very interesting. I got a copyright claim on one of mine - from Sony. Did I want to dispute it? Yes - I wrote it, played it and recorded it. They removed the claim,
Awesome, and thanks for the comment
Who is Phil?
Thanks for featuring Fil Henley's analysis videos in your video. I've been watching his analysis videos for a little over 4 years. Because I'm also a musician and songwriter, Fil reminds me of what I've learned and teaches me new things, the latter more recently being about auto tune, pitch correction, and fair use. I myself am considering to record my own music compositions but don't know too much about the recording aspect. Anyway, thanks again for your feature!
My pleasure. Thank you for commenting. And yes, videos like Fil’s are very important and need to be protected.
Very informative. What interests me most about not only Fil's videos but also hundreds of others which are similar to some of his, is where an original clip is used to enable a guitar tutor to demonstrate how to play a particular riff. This method, in Fil's case, appears to have breached the you tube copyright threshold according to a video which he featured 8 days ago. The sole purpose of showing a clip is therefore , in these circumstances, to show you how to play the guitar. Surely that must count as fair use.
Correct, almost assuredly fair use. It’s not that the video broke UA-cam’s rules. But UA-cam doesn’t get involved in deciding fair use.
Therein hangs a problem! (3:20) Situation: You're out with your video camera, shooting a scene for your video to be uploaded to YT. The video could be about anything at all, perhaps at a railway station videoing a vintage locomotive, someone walks past with a radio blaring out at or near full volume and a song is playing. It's only heard momentarily, about 30 seconds or so. You *SHOULD NOT GET PINGED FOR COPYRIGHT FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL!* You didn't want the song in your video because it turned up just as the loco you were shooting video of just started to depart. You wanted the sound of the loco itself but that song interfered with your shot. *UA-cam has a hell of a lot to answer for!*
Great comment. I remember a while back on a personal channel posting a video from an amusement park where I didn't even realize there was a Tom Petty song playing in the background. Whoever administered his rights demonetized the video (which caused ads to be played), and the video had like 10 views.
@@LawLaughsMusic Exactly! You were innocently shooting your video and the Top Petty song "invaded" your audio track. You didn't want it there, it was purely by accident that it was there. You *SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED* for something beyond your control.
Please comment on why he got his video taken off UA-cam a few days ago because of his playing riffs on his guitar! That makes zero sense!
I would like to, but I feel I would need to see the blocked video. Otherwise, it’s hard for me to assess what happened.
@@LawLaughsMusic he shows it! The video is entitled: “UA-cam is asking ME to trim ME out of MY video!!!”
Yes, I watched it again more carefully and you are right. Thank you very much. I’m going to hopefully film a reaction video today.
@@LawLaughsMusic Excellent! Thank you!
The system is just broken.. I had entire videos claimed of me making modular patches.. Where I actually walk people through my creative choices and how to go about making a patch.. and none of the note material used was borrowed from existing material...
The whole copyright law needs to be revised to better reflect the current landscape...
That sucks. Did you dispute the claims?
@@LawLaughsMusic No, I didn't.. I don't have the means to get a lawyer.. And I was afraid that they might find a reason, and I would lose my channel...
I just took the vids down..
3:55 "Oftentimes ... the copyright owner will not reinstate the claim."
YT's content ID system is fundamentally flawed, in favor of big (rich) media organizations who own many copyrights, and puts ridiculous burdens on small players like myself who must prove ourselves innocent under a presumption of guilt. I'll give myself as the example. This has happened to me 3 times.
I will use a piece of very old classical music (think Beethoven), whose compositions are public domain. ONLY _individual performances_ are copyright. I will use a _public domain_ or _Creative Commons_ performance in my video, and credit it clearly both in the video and the description to alert YT. Then some completely unrelated media organization will claim a copyright violation, based on their ownership of a completely different performance of the public domain music. This happens automatically because of the way YT's content ID system works.
I must then take time to contest their claim by pointing out that the specific performance I used is not _their performance._ This has happened to me 3 times and every time I have won. But in fact, I have lost because it is MY time that is consumed, while the YT content ID system virtually eliminates any time loss by the abusive copyright claimant. The abusive claimant experiences no "pain" for their false claim, while I, lawfully within my rights, experiences the pain of lost time and possibly lost revenue.
Very good comment. It seems I came off as less pro-creator and pro-fair use than I am. Anyway… Probably UA-cam should either not allow classical performances to be put into the content ID system because of the likelihood of false positives or tweak it to be less likely to have false positives (even if it means an uptick in false negatives). The way I see it, UA-cam has the content ID system to give copyright owners a way to have a financial incentive (taking the ad revenue from the person who posted the video) not to send DMCA takedown notices and remove videos. That way the videos remain on UA-cam and Google gets its 55% share of the ad revenue. The content ID system allows for a lot of copyrighted music to be used on UA-cam in situations that are not fair use. On the one hand, when that works as intended, that’s a win-win for everyone. But the problem is when it doesn’t. Then it can be abusive. Generally, I want to see UA-cam doing more to adopt its practices to prevent the abuse. I understand that it’s impractical for them to turn into a copyright court that decides every copyright dispute. Also, I understand they have to comply with the DMCA. But UA-cam could do better. Part of that may be that as long as Google gets their 55% of the ad revenue, it doesn’t matter much to them who gets the 45%. And to the degree they have an interest, it might not align with what is fair. For example, they have much more incentive to keep the record companies happy than individual UA-camrs.
@@LawLaughsMusic And yours is a very good reply. My comment was not intended to be a critique of your video, but simply to share a different but related problem that highlights problems with YT's system.
Thank you for your video. I found it very informative.
My pleasure! And I didn’t take it take it as criticism. I’m married with children. I know what real criticism is.
Great video, Scott. I will say that your comment about the copyright owner having to pay legal fees if they lose the suit is a bit... glib. I was the subject of a copyright lawsuit (I won't go into details). It was Re. Dick. You. Luss. And 3 years and $300,000 of lawyer's bills later, the court agreed to dismiss it. But in our case--and in many, many on this side of the pond; it is different in Europe--the court "invited" us to make further motions to possibly get our legal fees from the plaintiff. We chose not to, for reasons that are likely obvious (the tit-for-tat of appeals, the risk of NOT winning our motion). It's my understanding that while copyright suits are one of the few here in which defendants can get their legal fees back when they win (it's AUTOMATIC in Europe and they have WAY fewer suits), it doesn't often go that way. It didn't for us. And while we struggled on for several years, we never really recovered from the financial blow.
Great post. Yes, civil litigation sucks and is a pain. And I say that as a civil litigator. A slam dunk, clear fair use case would likely end quicker and easier than your case. But it might not. But 3 years and $300k in fees for a full blown civil litigation doesn’t surprise me. Both numbers could be worse. Really a problem here how expensive and time consuming litigation is.
What about videos that are non-monetized are they also subject to copyright strike?
Yes, videos that are not monetized can receive copyright strikes. They also can have content ID claims put on them where the copyright owner causes ads to be played on the video so the copyright owner can then take the 55% share of the revenue that typically goes to the video creator (with the other 45% going to Google).
@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you, that`s good to know.
I have a question, if its not out of line to ask in a youtube comment section. I'm into car audio and listen to lots of "rebassed" tracks and even make them but have not yet shared any because I never was sure if it is legal. Many people openly share libraries and have youtube channels with commercial songs, not for sale. They have the bass removed (or altered) and new bass inserted and/or levels of frequencies adjusted to play better on high end audio setups. I notice youtube never seems to flag the videos. Are these somehow protected by fair use or "parody song" protections because some of these people are operating very much in the open and I have never seen any have copyright issues. Just curious if these are protected under a loophole or if they just have been somehow missed by youtube, ASCAP, the RIAA, and others that typically go after people sharing their stuff. I just always found it odd how much stuff they have posted (not complaining, just find it odd) and never seem to have the issues many content producers face when working with the rules of fair use.
Very good question. Without researching it, I would assume that this would not be fair use. This seems to me to be an example of creating a derivative work, which is something that cannot be done without permission of the copyright owner. I assume that either the content ID system is having a hard time catching the videos or that the copyright owners are allowing the videos to remain but are using the content ID system to take the ad revenue.
@@LawLaughsMusic Yeah, I had wondered. I once heard that parody is protected and I didn't know if it somehow fell into an odd category like that. A stretch but it is really odd to me that they seems to be the only youtube channels not getting strikes. Maybe the boosted and retuned basslines mess with their detection software. I hate to out any channels, just in case, but you can search rebass on youtube and find plenty of channels, the algorithm recommend them often.
I have made a few hundred tracks for personal use that I would love to share them (for free, just think it would be interesting to see something I made out in the wild) but want the potential legal headaches. I was friends with an ASCAP guy years ago who would go around to bars and venues listening for unauthorized playing of their music and documenting it and I suppose we all remember the RIAA lawsuits 15 years back. Things seem calmer now but I am sure the option is there for them still.
Thanks for the reply. I plan to watch through your content when I get a bit of time off.
I ran into this around August 2022, going into September or so. There is a group of copyright groups that false flagged me on Minecraft videos. I tried contacting one of them since despite filing a dispute, they tagged all seven videos for the same thing. They in turn decided to deny the claim on the first video, and I had to dispute it. Since I'm small I don't have many options, so blasted UA-cam on twitter. I think I got a human for once, but they refused to remove the obviously false claims. Instead I had to wait them out. For reference, C418 has directly stated the music will never be claimed by him in Minecraft. He does have rules to follow if it's used otherwise. I've since bought some royalty free loops, and put new music in it's place.
That sucks. I made a video back in the day on my original channel re video game reaction videos. But I believe (nobody rely on this since I'm not looking it up and going off memory) that Mojang specifically allows for reaction videos and even the use of the music in the game if it's incidental.
That was true of the original Eula. I'd have to look at the updated one since Microsoft bought it, but I believe it is still true for the old and new music. The difference now is Daniel kept control of his music even after the purchase. He's the only one that can claim it since he never signed it over.
The groups I mentioned are known for claiming the music, and don't represent who they claim for. In my case I first contacted the person who did a remix of the music. They had no idea who the claimer was.
I'll remove anything that gets claimed after checking the claim. That one specifically I knew was a false claim due to the history of false claims on that music.
Same thing happened recently with Destiny 2 videos... a third party struck (not claimed, actual strikes) these while impersonating Bungie's copyright agency... They also took down things on Bungie's own YT channel..
Thanks Scott. That’s great getting some legal advice. I’ve followed Fil for a long time and do love his stuff.
I watched his video the other day and my wife and I discussed this having had a part time on the side media business for about 20 years and would always get tangled up with copyright issues. It’s like we decided always get legal help and never mess with Disney. Sometimes you enter into some grey areas.
Gee, from your video and Fil’s issues it sounds much like the legal issues happening in politics and being termed ‘Lawfare’ so now maybe we have ‘Lawfair’ to contend with copyright’s fair use clause.
Pun intended. 🫣🙄
Great video from you and Fil.
Cheers.
Thank you very much. One problem with copyright law on UA-cam is that even for someone successful like Fil, it is difficult to put up a fight even when he knows he is right. If a video gets 1 million views, he would be lucky to earn $5,000 in revenue. I can see someone like Fil not wanting to risk a lawsuit over $5,000 in revenue, even if he knows he will probably win and will likely be awarded part of his attorney's fees at some point down the line. Of course, that kind of problem is not limited to just copyright. The very high expense of litigating can create problems for standing up for one's rights in many situations. It's unfortunate.
vlogging through history went through the same thing and he ended up coming out on top as far as I know. He takes the approach in his reaction videos of letting the op make the point, stopping the video and commenting. Evidently someone took exception and decided to use the nuclear option and it ended up backfiring. He posted about it so it might be worth checking out.
Great thanks. I will.
Sony Music Japan just issued a DMCA takedown notice and I got a strike on my channel for a video that is clearly fair use for reacting and commentating to an Anime show Opening. There's TONS of videos reacting to the same thing for years on UA-cam, and the music I even reacted to were from videos on UA-cam, and yet those are all still up and mine got a Strike.
Oh that sucks. If you want you can email me a link to the video: scott@lawbylg.com and I can give you some thoughts perhaps.
@@LawLaughsMusic that would be awesome! I’ll send the video. Is there any arguing that there are others allowed to have the same content on the platform that aren’t punished and that I’m being singled out? Or does that not hold any weight?
Length is always important ! (even when it comes to hair-length ! )
LOL, thanks for the comment!
Rick Beato talks about this a lot too.
Yeah, the record companies unfairly put these guys in a bind.
Rick Beato is a joke.
@@johnsmith-tn8rn What an incisive comment. Would you like to elaborate?
@@johnsmith-tn8rn I agree with @lassesaikkonen501 ... Make your case...
@@lassesaikkonen501 I agree with you dude (or dudette)... Rick has always been REALLY straight forward.
I got a copyright strike on a piece of Mozart Music performed by a university ensemble. Mozart died in 1791. I disputed it and the strike was removed,
Glad it was removed. Were you associated with the university? Who issued the DMCA notice? While there is no copyright in the composition, there would be a copyright in the recording by the university ensemble.
@@LawLaughsMusic I was contracted to record the music and post it to an unlisted UA-cam channel by the university. The strike was by a European publisher- Wise Music Group. They claim everything that they can whether or not they produced it. I think that that they are hoping to claim any monetization of any classical music. The performance was probably viewed by about 12 people. Lotsa money there !
That’s pathetic of them. Such abuse. Thanks for letting me know about this.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. A few odd audio cuts but otherwise really helpful info. Loved me a good flow chart.
Thank you very much! Thanks for the feedback re a few odd audio cuts. It's better than having an odd face.
Thank you for this, and greetings from Australia. :)
Thank you very much! I feel so international now.
@@LawLaughsMusicYou have another Aussie here too!🇦🇺
Great! Can someone from New Zealand watch too? Or can it only be one or the other?
@@LawLaughsMusic I hope a Kiwi (what we call New Zealanders & is a flightless bird from there) does eventually pop up on your Channel. We love our 'cousins from across the ditch' and are very close. The ditch refers to the Tasman Sea that runs between Australia and New Zealand. We are also bonded by our military. On the 25th April each year, we both commemorate ANZAC Day. On this date during WWI, we landed on the Turkish beaches of Gallipoli in 1915. Normally, we were thrust under the banner of the British, yet came of age during this time as a fighting force in our own right, although we have separate armed forces. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Military Corps. We're vicious rivals in sport, yet love them dearly off the field. We are both Commonwealth Nations too. New Zealand is a beautiful country and well worth a visit if looking for a holiday destination. You'd need a considerable amount of time to tackle Australia considering our continent is wider than the moon! I'm sure that with time, your Channel will become quite international.
@@LawLaughsMusic😂 I dunno does copyright apply 😏
You seem to be taking UA-cam's side in this. As to length of clip, that also depends on the purpose of the clip. The example you gave of the Elvis, you said they they would use unnecessarily long clips, without commenting on them.
Which is not fair use.
But if he plays a clip, then comments on it, that *is* fair use!
So yeah, I think a judge would in fact consider all of his clips fair use.
It's debatable if he is running a "non-profit education" channel, but at least the monetization is indirect and I think monetization is permitted for UA-cam fair use. After all, that's what we are talking about here. Monetized clips.
So the alternative would be a "for profit" educational, which I am guessing would be a "pay for this content" type arrangement.
With UA-cam monetization, it's indirect, he just puts it out there and if he happens to gain monetization through high traffic and playing of ads, I think he is in the clear and this is non profit educational use.
A documentary might be as well, but might be a different story, since it would presumably be sold directly to a television network.
I don't think these are very accurate depictions of how the law views this content.
UA-cam clearly has a massive problem with bias towards fake and malicious copyright claims, of all sorts... You should be leading the charge against them. Not defending their behavior when it is obviously in flagrant violation of the intent of fair use laws.
Look also at the case between sargon of akkad and that victimhood addict akylah Hughes or whatever her name is.
He won resoundingly.
The judge made comments that fair use must be protected and if in doubt, we should choose to lean towards fair use.
That's on your shoulders too.
Thanks for commenting. Responding to your points: (1) I’m a big believer of fair use and consider myself a fair use hawk. However, as a lawyer I also need to consider what the law is, not just what I think it should be. (2) A for-profit video can be fair use, just like for-profit newspapers and documentaries constantly take advantage of fair use. (3) I think Fil’s videos are generally fair use, except likely on occasions I’ve noticed where he seems to play long, uninterrupted clips to seemingly admire the song or musician. As long as he doesn’t mind having those videos demonetized and the copyright holders are fine with the arrangement, then there’s nothing wrong with it even though that wouldn’t be fair use. (4) I think UA-cam should do more to stop abusive behavior on the content ID system.
That doesn't seem to be how it works on UA-cam. Lots of creators have voiced their experiences with this, more or less like: author makes claim, UA-cam gives option to creator to accept or refute, then the author gets the option to back-down or not, then UA-cam takes the author's side. It doesn't seem like any proof is required. UA-cam simply puts a "beware of your legal obligations and consequences" statement and moves on. All automated, probably.
The content creators have to file a legal claim in a court of law, and often then the authors back down because it wouldn't hold up in court. Many creators don't have the means, or knowledge to defend against this and simply give in. It has been used effectively by many record labels & video licensing companies, etc...
Correct, UA-cam never decides the merits of a copyright dispute. If the UA-camr keeps disputing the claim or DMCA takedown notice, the copyright owner has to decide to either backdown or file a lawsuit. If it’s clearly fair use, there is a real risk the copyright owner loses and has to pay the UA-camr’s attorney’s fees. But I understand that for most UA-camrs the risk is too great to fight this far. But they should at least initially dispute the automated content ID claim. That’s basically risk free and will often work.
Thanks for not making this any more dramatic than it needed to be.
Thank you! Appreciate it.
Would similar apply to other reaction channels such as what L3WG does? He had a comment that he talks to much during the video. The title of the video, is "Brit Reacts to What Would ".
Good question. Reaction videos can certainly be fair use, and yes, generally the same principles apply about not using more of the original than necessary for the fair use purpose.
This was interesting. Can you explain how content farms use entire videos of other people and never get copyright claimed by YT? It seems YT has a limit based on how much money a creator earns them and how much money they can steal from a small creator by taking away the ad revenue that the videos already earned. YT isn't paying the copyright holder; they are paying themselves. While it's true that a copyright claim is generally done by the original owner of the copyright, where you are ignorant is in the process for challenging the claim. YT does not use a human to review the claims and counterclaims. It is all done by AI, which quickly works up the odds, pros, and cons to make a decision based on how much money YT can keep.
Two things here. One, as to content farms, my understanding is that certain creators like Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman tolerate people posting clips from their podcasts, but they put in content ID claims and demonetize (take the creator's share of the ad revenue) from those videos. Perhaps there are smaller UA-cam creators who are purely being taken advantage of. (Or maybe some people are getting away with it on the big guys too and I'm wrong.) Two, I never claimed that UA-cam has humans decide copyright disputes. I think I specifically said the opposite. UA-cam never gets involved in deciding who is right or wrong in a copyright dispute. They essentially have an automated process that allows content creators to keep disputing until the copyright owner either has to file a lawsuit or backdown. If a lawsuit is filed, then UA-cam keeps the video down until the court process plays out. But that is simply following the DMCA.
Yes, it was helpful. Thank-you!
Thank you very much! Appreciate it
Copyright is whatever the best paid lawyer in the court says it is. All of Fil's videos are, as far as I can see, the very definition of fair use for analysis and criticism. But so what? He can't afford to pay a lawyer so he has to stick to UA-cam's definition of fair use which is NOT in any way based on law or statutes but is in fact the result of negotiated agreements between Google's lawyers and the mafia which runs the music industry. Part of that agreement is that each side will protect the agreement by suing any third party into the ground if they violate the terms agreed.
This is not a discussion about "the law" - this is a discussion about extortion and protection rackets.
Yes, a big problem with the way the system plays out is that the threat of litigation is much riskier for the content creators than the copyright owners.
I hope you're referring to the law of England and Wales, since that's the jurisdiction that Phil is operating in.
So for copyright purposes on UA-cam American law matters most because UA-cam is in America and a lot of the copyright owners and administrators are in America. That said, while I’m not an expert on British copyright law, my understanding is Fil would be protected by fair dealings under British law.
Thanks
You are very welcome! Appreciate it
But why is UA-cam blocking Pil playing his own music when he's playing examples of how to play guitar? He's not playing any specific tune! He recently uploaded a video about this. The algorithm is preventing him from uploading the original video.
Great question. Without seeing the video that was blocked, I can't say for sure. I think I will make a video discussing this, although it will be more conjecture than I like. But it seems like UA-cam negligence not to follow up with a reaction on that video.
Fil has received copyright claims on himself singing, so I would say the system is just plain broken, because clearly it's fair use to upload yourself singing.
Re Fil's recent video about being blocked, that looks like something really screwy/wrong happened. But generally, if you sing a cover song on UA-cam, unless there is fair use, the copyright owner can block it/demonetize it.
Since Fil is in England, wouldn't British laws including fair use laws come into play instead of United States laws?
Good question. UA-cam is an American company and for copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns follow US law. Also, the music companies are mainly in America. That said, my understanding is that Fil would be protected under British law under fair dealings (their version of fair use). So I don’t think it would make a difference.
I see you are quoting US law, Fil is in the UK, are there differences in copyright law between the 2 nations?
That's a great question. I am an attorney in the US, not the UK. I don't talk fancy enough, and I think I would find a wig too itchy. So there's two ways for me to comment on this. One is that for the most part US law would matter more than UK law. UA-cam is a US platform, and their rules are very US-centric. Also, for the most part, the rights owners and administrators of the music catalogues are going to be American. The other is that my understanding is that Copyright law is pretty similar in the UK and US. Much of copyright law is fairly standard over most countries because of international treaties and conventions. I believe that the fair dealings standard in the UK is more limited than the fair use standard in the US. However, I assume that Fil's videos would constitute fair dealings as well, to the extent he is using a clip to provide analysis reviewing and/or criticizing the original. But I have never researched these issues under British law specifically.
Not sure what you stated about UA-cam's Copyright strike is correct. For example, one content creator, ESO has created hundreds of videos on the video game Skyrim. The theme music for the video game is OWNED by Bethesda, the same company that created the video game Skyrim. Because ESO has created so many videos about Skyrim (and other Bethesda games), Bethesda has given ESO permission to use the Skyrim music in his videos!! ESO actually has a contract with Bethesda granting the authorization to use the music!
However, FAKE people/FAKE companies can and do submit these copyright infraction claims, and SUCCESSFULLY gain a Copyright strike - even when the the content creator has written permission from the Copyright holder to use the music.
It’s certainly possible people are sending out fake DMCA notices. But I don’t know what the incentive would be other than to increase the bullying on demonetization efforts through the content ID system.
Content ID is and always has been broken. There are innumerable examples of copyright strikes being sent in by faceless foreign corporations for music they do not own or is clearly out of copyright (a good example being Beethoven symphonies) or is so obviously fair use even on the strictest interpretation . As the video correctly explains because YT creators are highly unlikely to take copyright owners to court, the music publishing corporations get away with bullying. From what I have seen on other videos if a YT creator does threaten to go to court with what looks like a reasonable fair use argument the copyright owners back down because the last thing they want is for evidence of the number of questionable copyright strike issued by them to be disclosed in court
Great post. On the one hand, we need successful music UA-camr's to push back and force these people to either back down or file BS lawsuits (which the UA-camr would presumably win and might even get an award of some of their attorney's fees). But then again, I can understand that when even a video that gets 1 million views only earns a few thousand dollars or so in ad revenue, not to want to risk even getting into a game of chicken with these people. It sucks. And then partly because this gets litigated so infrequently, there is very little legal precedent directly on UA-cam educational videos and fair use.
There's also countries where fair use is not a thing, youtube has to follow the laws of all the countries they operate in
I've heard of an urban legend where there are Chinese companies that use a shell proxy in another country who go around hunting for videos on various platforms like UA-cam and issue copyright strikes against the creators, hoping that they won't appeal and then steal their money. Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on, but do it anyway and make a profit due to sheer volume and people not appealing the strikes. I have to wonder if this is the case here. Also, recently there was a story where a UA-camr named IShowSpeed made a shell company and did this to anyone who used his work. He intentionally hid this from his fans and even repeatedly shamed the company in his videos.
That wouldn't be copyright strikes, it would be demonetizing the videos (taking the ad revenue) through the content ID system. If they issue a copyright strike, the video is removed from UA-cam, and so there is no ad revenue to take. Paul Davids did a video on this a while ago about Miserlou. It was a good video.
@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you for that.
@@chrisnemec5644 it all still falls under the category of UA-cam not protecting fair use creators and allowing or enabling bullying in this way.
@@eschelar That's true.
I agree.
9th circuit…well there you go…
Ninth Circuit is probably the most important circuit court for UA-cam cases since California is in the Ninth Circuit.
@@LawLaughsMusic The 9th circuit screws Americans more than any court with their liberal decisions.
Remember when youtube was just a fun place to make videos?
As a lawyer, for me it was always a controversial place at the forefront of modern copyright issues, even before Google bought UA-cam. But that's what happens when you were in law school when UA-cam was founded and were taking internet law classes.
Interesting that the first thing the Fair Use Law protects is criticism.
Actually makes the most sense if you think about it. Copyright owners are unlikely to license their material to people criticizing it.
@@LawLaughsMusic Yes! wingofpeg often points out things that the music industry would rather not be widely known. :)
There is a UA-cam Channel that has come to my attention that cuts sections from the content of Channels belonging to others showing a very well known musician whom has now died to use as #shorts and will also use the full length videos. She never credits the orginal Channels from which she has taken this content and the timing can go to over 10 minutes in some cases. She does blacken the sides of the picture to not include everything that is being shown, yet I find it hard to believe that this can still be permitted as she is abusing how well-known the artist is, plus stealing the content from the Channels of others without giving credit. These are not reaction videos, only one showing a good part of the video. Is this permissible? 🇦🇺
This sounds clearly not to be fair use. So probably one of two things is happening. One could be that the person is just getting away with it. The other is that it could be that the musician's heirs/administrators have chosen to use the content ID system to demonetize the video (take the ad revenue that typically goes to the video creator) instead of blocking the video. For instance, a lot of people post clips from Joe Rogan or Andrew Huberman. My understanding is that Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman often allow the clips to remain up on UA-cam, but they use the content ID system to take the revenue. That's probably a good idea because they are still making money and it's getting their content and name distributed more widely.
@@LawLaughsMusic This Content Creator is using George Michael videos and literally flooding UA-cam with both full videos and #shorts numerous times per day. I saw a comment by someone calling her out for not giving credit to those she steals the content from, such as video taken from a concert and is posted by the concert goer. The fact that she cuts down and blackens the sides of the video appears to me that she is treading a fine line. It just leaves a sour taste in the mouth to see her get away with abusing the fair usage rules. As I'm an admirer of the late George Michael, naturally UA-cam flood my recommendations with her videos and it's wearing rather thin. I already have these videos collected on a playlist for public usage, which is how I know what she is doing. There is no-one she won't steal from, including the official George Michael Channel where Vevo upload with 3.4m subscribers and the official WHAM! Channel with 1.79m subscribers. As the UA-cam algorithm recognises that I'm interested in George Michael and Wham!, her content is all over the place and blocking other content from being recommended. I'm getting so tired of deleting her content everyday. I use this platform due to suffering severe chronic spinal pain and this attempts to take my mind off the unrelenting pain, but it's not enjoyable when only one type of content from this Channel is getting in the way of my endless other interests. I was hoping that there was some way of preventing the sheer amount of content she uploads that is interfering with my enjoyment of the platform. Just crossing fingers that she finds another interest. I hope she doesn't find my playlist with over 1750 videos which will keep her in overload! I don't wish to make it private, as I want others to enjoy the content I've gathered together. I might have to make it private though to prevent her gaining access to an immense amount of content that has taken me many, many years to build up. I do appreciate your response. As I never create content, I don't need to delve into the rules and regulations of video making, so I hope your Channel grows to help so many who simply don't know where to turn when things go wrong with UA-cam. Thanks again.
Thank you very much.
🤟😎
SUBSCRIBED!
Thank you very much for the support!
@@LawLaughsMusic 👍
Dude, great information. However, would you perhaps be in the market for a video editor? You have som, oh, questionable cuts. :-)
Thank you! Yeah, editing is not my strength. One day maybe I can work with an editor. Although in editing the videos I tend to make decisions about what to include and cut completely. At least I think the photographer lamp and microphone I bought work pretty well.
@@LawLaughsMusic I agree about the lamp and microphone. People so often get the lighting wrong. And to be fair (about the editing), I am not a fan of jump cuts, even when well done.
Yeah, i find jump cuts jarring. I used to make videos where I would try using zoom and other things to mask over the cut, but I got negative comments about that too, including from my wife. Any suggestions?
@@LawLaughsMusic IMHO an alternative is to have rehearsed the script and tape it like a live performance. Since it won't actually be "live", you can do as many takes as necessary. Sure, it is more work, but you might be happier with the results.
I'm a judgement proof philosopher and theologian who's religious beliefs are violated by copyright laws and I'm about to start up a channel... things are about to get interesting.
Keep us updated. :-)
Has the staute of limitations run out on all the Led Zeppelin theft? Please let us know would ya?
So the statute of limitations for copyright is three years. But basically what that means for songs is that you can only go back three years for damages. But you can usually sue well past three years after the initial release of the infringing song.
"Hopefully that was helpful" - Not really, I was hoping to hear why big (and rich) youtubers don't take these "bullys" to court, when everything I've heard from them, from you, etc. indicates they would win. Why not??? That is the big question and it's left hanging.
I think there’s a few reasons. One is that people are risk adverse. Two is that few UA-camrs are multi millionaires and most of those few don’t make music education or commentary videos. Three is that you don’t make much ad money on any one video. So that cuts the incentive to fight in any particular case. But that said, I want to see more people fight and be less risk adverse.
@@LawLaughsMusic I think you'll find that it's "Averse" rather than "Adverse" in this case?
lol, yeah, that’s what I get for responding to messages on my phone
@@LawLaughsMusic Thanks for the reply. I know that Pewdiepie, for one, did a lot of reaction videos to a lot of reddit posts, and he tried to not include anything that would cause a problem, like music, but was constantly complaining about demonetization for some snippet that was accidentally left in. And although the ad revenue is usually low, I've heard that companies that issue takedown notices or claim revenue in bad faith (or that are invalid?) are subject to large penalties - do you know if that's true?
Copyright law and UA-cam are 2 different things. UA-cam does their own thing, and are fairly antagonistic toward the creator, with no useful issues for the "copyright owner". Disputes are a risk creators can't take... oh... wait.. you just said that as I typed. That said, What was claimed was definitely "fair use". Claim something else, but not what was actually claimed.
UA-cam is weird... You can get a strike on original content... and the creator has no real recourse.
Thanks for the comment. For the content ID system, it is UA-cam's own creation, not something found in the copyright law. I assume they implemented it to give copyright owner's a mechanism to earn money off infringing videos so that the copyright owners do not demand that the videos be removed. That way Google still gets its 55% of the ad revenue.
That helped me understand the process a bit better.
Great, glad I was helpful. Thanks for commenting.
Why do so many pass that hardly comment? Or are those ones from people who don't get paid for their videos🤔
Thanks for commenting
I wish you would tell me what you think of this comment that I posted to Fil's video:
"The thing is, "Fair Use" doesn't mean any person or company is REQUIRED to allow the video. A person or company can use any criteria they like as to what content they allow, as long as they are not legally discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. One can make an X-rated sex video that is perfectly legal, and UA-cam is perfectly within their rights to NOT allow it on their platform. You could make a UA-cam video that is perfectly legal because of Fair Use, and UA-cam is within their rights to say, we won't allow it because the copyright owner doesn't want it. They could say "We don't like Mondays, and we're going to block any video with Monday in the title" and that would be within their rights."
That's an interesting point. You are theoretically correct that UA-cam could block any content it wants that uses someone else's copyrighted material even if it is fair use. However, that is not what UA-cam chooses to do. UA-cam allows videos that are fair use. However, UA-cam does not get involved in deciding whether a copyright claim is legitimate or whether something is fair use. At the end of the day, if the person who posts the content keeps disputing a content ID claim or a DMCA takedown notice, the copyright holder has to file a lawsuit to keep the video blocked (and a copyright strike in effect). The issue is that a lot of people who post on UA-cam are afraid of that happening even if they would likely win in court. What I can tell you is that there are relatively few cases where the copyright holders sue and there is a fight over fair use. I think that is a combination of most UA-camrs not wanting to risk a court fight, and probably the copyright holders tend to back down when they are forced to choose to either sue or give up.
@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you for your response. And thanks for showing the UA-cam "Content ID dispute and appeal process" screen. I was able to search on that and find the UA-cam Creators channel, and learn more about the process. And I see that UA-cam does explicitly say, in the video at least, that they allow Fair Use. I am not a UA-cam video creator and so am not directly affected. But am a fan both of the musicians who originally created the music, and also of the UA-camrs who analyze or comment on it. And it disappoints when I would like to hear particular music explained, included in "best of" lists, etc., but the UA-camrs aren't allowed to use that music.
Nice short video and no legalese.
Thank you! Much appreciated.