• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

YouTube and Fair Use

Ed Nielson

Ed Nielson

If I understand copyright law correctly, using part of a recording for purposes of criticism or commentary is considered fair use and permitted. Yet I see YouTube content creators get copyright strikes or have videos taken down because of a 30-second (or less) segment.

If a video is using copyrighted material in accordance with the copyright laws, why doesn't YouTube deny takedown requests if fair use is involved?

Is there any remedy to help protect content providers from what are obviously frivolous takedown requests?
 
“No statute, regulation, or court decision says you can freely use up to 30 seconds of a song. A five-second clip of a song’s iconic hook can fail the fair use test, while a longer excerpt used in genuine critical analysis might pass.“

legalclarity.org

Fair Use for Music on YouTube: Rules and Risks

Using music on YouTube under fair use is riskier than most creators realize. The four-factor test and Content ID can work against you in ways worth knowing.
legalclarity.org legalclarity.org
 
Larry said:
“No statute, regulation, or court decision says you can freely use up to 30 seconds of a song. A five-second clip of a song’s iconic hook can fail the fair use test, while a longer excerpt used in genuine critical analysis might pass.“
Click to expand...

A few years ago, the music industry complained about the short clips of songs that Amazon was using to sell music. They felt they should get paid for that.
 
TheBigA said:
A few years ago, the music industry complained about the short clips of songs that Amazon was using to sell music. They felt they should get paid for that.
Click to expand...

...which is both funny and sad as the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically allows for 30-second clips of songs to be used for promotional purposes without compensation to the copyright owners. But I guess if you're the copyright owners, you can bully people as much anybody else can.
 
Ed Nielson said:
If a video is using copyrighted material in accordance with the copyright laws, why doesn't YouTube deny takedown requests if fair use is involved?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, YouTube is taking the safest position for them, which is to side with Big Content in essentially all cases.

YouTube is not obligated to allow individuals to post fair use materials on its platform. They may host such content if it were to be deemed fair use, but fair use is provided by a complicated legal structure. It may make sense for an old line publisher, think Harper Collins books or Rolling Stone magazine to have someone in their compliance/legal office consider arguments of fair use. But it doesn't make sense to pay a lawyer to clear copyrights for a video that will likely earn only a few hundred dollars in revenue.

However, there is a ton of content on YouTube that is technically in violation of someone's copyright, like all the hours of CNN from 9/11 or recordings of KGO-TV in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake. So it's not like YouTube is out there being the copyright police. They rely on complaints from rights holders.
 
There's a guy on YT - Rick Beato - that's had issues with this very topic:


You'd figure if a well-known (and quite popular on YT) guy like him has been chased by labels for several years pays a lawyer from getting in YT's cross-hairs, some snot-nosed punk making 'watch me play a video game' videos won't have a chance in hell.
 
PTBoardOp93 said:
Fundamentally, YouTube is taking the safest position for them, which is to side with Big Content in essentially all cases.

YouTube is not obligated to allow individuals to post fair use materials on its platform. They may host such content if it were to be deemed fair use, but fair use is provided by a complicated legal structure. It may make sense for an old line publisher, think Harper Collins books or Rolling Stone magazine to have someone in their compliance/legal office consider arguments of fair use. But it doesn't make sense to pay a lawyer to clear copyrights for a video that will likely earn only a few hundred dollars in revenue.

However, there is a ton of content on YouTube that is technically in violation of someone's copyright, like all the hours of CNN from 9/11 or recordings of KGO-TV in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake. So it's not like YouTube is out there being the copyright police. They rely on complaints from rights holders.
Click to expand...
TV broadcasts (and radio play-by-play) of complete MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL games are available on YouTube, most of them posted by users with no connection to the leagues. I'm surprised that the leagues haven't gone after the posters of championship or playoff games recorded off broadcast TV, since you'd think they could make some money off them by hoarding them on their own YouTube (or streaming) channels. I can see them not bothering to take down old regular season games posted by fans; there are just too many of them, and most have attracted only double- or triple-digit views even if they've been posted for a dozen years.

WWE (pseudo-sport) notifies YouTube often about unauthorized postings of WrestleManias and other prominent events of wrestling's modern era, but individual matches and complete weekly shows from the '60s through the '80s remain posted.
 
Because for years now, the leagues create highlight videos hours after the event concludes. That's where the viewing is...for those that would like to see those highlights, but can't (or won't) watch local TV sports for the three minute version of the story.

Unless there's really something memorable, there's no views, and the league's disclaimer - any of them - is total crap:

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/7fpad8/the_nfls_statement_on_their_game
 
kwthom said:
Because for years now, the leagues create highlight videos hours after the event concludes. That's where the viewing is...for those that would like to see those highlights, but can't (or won't) watch local TV sports for the three minute version of the story.

Unless there's really something memorable, there's no views, and the league's disclaimer - any of them - is total crap:

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/7fpad8/the_nfls_statement_on_their_game
Click to expand...
That's part of my morning routine most days. Bruins highlights on YouTube, then the complete MLB highlight package on MLB TV. Why would I watch some just -out-of-college novice on a Burlington station show me a minute or less from a couple of games, mangling players' names in the process?
 
radiofan2023 said:
Even Erin Andrews had to start somewhere
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean I have to watch. The quality of new talent coming into broadcasting via small-market stations in 2026 is perceptibly inferior to that of the new faces starting out in TV and radio 25 years ago because there are far more lucrative career-opening options for journalists or entertainers with real potential.
 


Back
Top Bottom